Glasgow v. Associated Banc-Corp, 2012 Il App (2d) 111303, Hutchinson
Facts: Plaintiff was a teller at a bank that was robbed and during the course of the robbery she suffered injuries. She applied for and received workers compensation benefits. She then filed a common law suit for injuries, arguing that the defendant knew or should have known that the branch could reasonably be expected to be robbed, and that the robbery was not accidental because the failure to implement increased security measures was a “direct invite” to rob. The trial court dismissed the case on a joint motion to dismiss pursuant to 2-619.1, finding that the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers Compensation Act barred the claim.
Holding: Once an employee has collected compensation on the basis that his or her injuries were compensable under the Act, the employee cannot then allege that those injuries fall outside the Act’s provisions.
Filed in Trial Book Under: Workers Compensation – Exclusive Remedy Provision
Commentary: It seems pretty clear from the case law that exceptions to the exclusive remedy provision are few and far between. The exceptions are only when the employee can prove that the injury (1) was not accidental, (2) did not arise out of his or her employment, (3) was not suffered in the course of his or her employment, or (4) was not compensable under the Act. See Meerbery, 139 Ill.2d at 463. The plaintiff attempted here to argue that the failure by the branch to implement certain security measures was a “direct invite” to rob. This seems like a pretty big stretch, but even if the plaintiff could have plead and proven a valid exception to the exclusive remedy provision, she sunk her battleship by taking the money on the comp case. This makes a lot of sense in that you can’t take the position that the Act covers your injuries while at the same time saying that it doesn’t.