State News : Illinois

By: Kisa P. Sthankiya

In Panda Express, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2025 IL App (4^th)  240771WC-U, the Workers’ Compensation Division of the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the decision of the Circuit Court of Boone County and reinstated the decision of the Commission. 

The claimant on September 25, 2018 was training new workers on how to properly transfer hot oil from the fryer to the disposal area.  The hot oil spilled onto the claimant’s feet, primarily onto his left foot and ankle.  It also splashed onto his right foot. 

The claimant was treated for his burns which were assessed to be at the third degree.  The claimant was hospitalized through October 9, 2018.  At discharge, his final diagnoses were a third degree burn of multiple sites of the left ankle and foot, second degree burn of multiple sites of the right ankle and foot and cellulitis of the left lower limb. 

The claimant treated through May 8, 2019 when he was released to return back to work full duty. 

At the time of trial, claimant was no longer working a second job transporting gutters to local building sites.  The claimant admitted that the right foot burns were less severe and had “kind of disappeared.”  However, the burns to his left foot were primarily on the top and side of the left foot.  The size of the skin graft was approximately 8” x 4” in size.  The skin graft area was markedly different from the surrounding skin with shiny appearance and no hair growth.  The right foot also exhibited circular burn areas on the top of the foot and ankle.  The burn areas on the feet and left leg were shown to the arbitrator and counsel.  Photographs were also submitted into evidence of the burns.

The arbitrator found that claimant had sustained disfiguring injuries to both of his feet and his left leg, and awarded 58 weeks of disfigurement benefits pursuant to Section 8(c) of the Act.   Specifically, the arbitrator awarded 10 weeks of disfigurement of the left leg, 3 weeks of disfigurement of the right foot and 45 weeks of disfigurement of the left foot.  The five factors under Section 8.1(b) were not addressed as the arbitrator noted he was not awarding any permanency under that provision.  The Commission affirmed and adopted the arbitrator’s decision in its entirety.

The employer appealed the Commission’s decision to the Circuit Court of Boone County who held that the claimant was not entitled to benefits for disfigurement under Section 8(c) of the Act because that section does not authorize benefits for disfiguring injuries to the feet.  The Circuit Court held that the foot was not covered under the list of body parts under Section 8(c).  Relying on the medical dictionary definition of leg, the Circuit Court could not conclude that the foot would be considered as part of the leg below the knee.  The Circuit Court instead awarded PPD benefits under Section 8(d)(2) of the Act. 

On appeal to the Appellate Court, the employer challenged the Commission award for benefits for disfigurement to the claimant’s feet under Section 8(c) because disfigurement of the foot was not listed as a compensable injury under the section.  The employer further argued that benefits under Section 8(d)(2) only applied if the claimant had sustained serious and permanent injury “not covered by either Section 8(c) or 8(e).”  The employer further argued that the claimant failed to present evidence of impairment of his foot which would have entitled him to benefits under Section 8(e). 

The key issue presented to the court was whether the foot is included within the definition of “leg below the knee” under Section 8(c) of the statute.  The court had to ascertain and give affect to the intent of the legislature.  The best indicator of the legislature’s intent was the plain language of the statute itself which would be given its plain and ordinary meaning. 

The court reviewed the definition of the leg under multiple sources including website citations to RxList, Health Line, Meriam Webster online dictionary, Britannica and Wikipedia.  They noted that all of these sources included the foot as part of the leg.  The court rejected the employer’s argument that the medical textbook definition should be followed which defines the leg as a part of the body extending from below the knee to only the ankle. The court noted that words in legislative enactment should be given their commonly understood meaning as used by the public as opposed to the meaning ascribed to the word by medical specialists.  The various sources that the court had cited explicitly distinguished the common understanding of the word from the specialized medical terminology and included the foot as part of the leg.  

The court addressed the employer’s argument that Section 8(e) of the Act showed that the legislature did not intend to define the foot as part of the leg because it listed them as separate body parts under that section.  The court distinguished 8(e) from 8(c) as 8(e) covered impairment and not disfigurement.  They noted that impairment differs according to the body part that is injured.  Whereas disfigurement could be equally harmful wherever it occurs. 

The court reversed the judgment of the Circuit of Boone County and reinstated the Commission’s decision awarding benefits for disfigurement of the left foot, right leg and left leg under Section 8(c) of the Act.