Insurer’s Intervention in Review Proceeding

In QBE Insurance Co. v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, Ronald Voges filed an application for adjustment of claim, seeking benefits from his employer for repetitive trauma injuries he suffered to his hands, elbows, and upper extremities while employed by the employer. Voges named only himself and the employer as parties in the application. Following a hearing, the arbitrator ordered the employer to compensate Voges for: (1) medical expenses and (2) medical treatment, including surgical intervention. The arbitrator filed its decision with the Commission, and the Commission sent a copy of the decision to Voges’s attorney and the employer’s attorney.  QBE Insurance Company filed a petition for review of the arbitrator’s decision for this case. QBE was not named as a respondent on the application of claim and had not participated in the hearing before the arbitrator. On March 23, 2011, the employer filed a petition for review of the arbitrator’s decision before the Commission. On April 29, 2011, QBE filed a motion with the Commission requesting that QBE be added as a “named party” in the instant workers’ compensation case. QBE stated, in support of its motion, that when claimant amended his application “at the time of trial,” to allege an accident date of October 14, 2010, “it brought the claim  into the policy coverage dates of QBE.” On July 26, 2011, QBE filed a second motion with the Commission, again requesting that QBE be added as a “named party” in the instant workers’ compensation case. A commissioner granted QBE’s motion. The employer filed its statement of exceptions to the arbitrator’s decision on July 15, 2011; and on July 20, 2011, QBE filed its statement of exceptions to the arbitrator’s decision. On October 26, 2011, the Commission affirmed and adopted the arbitrator’s decision ordering the employer to compensate.

The court addressed the issue of whether an insurer can intervene in a review proceeding.

In this case, the court states that claimant did not name the insurer as a party. It is clear that the only issue properly before the Commission was the employer’s liability as the sole respondent. Claimant filed his application for adjustment of claim to establish his rights under the provisions of the Act to recover compensation directly from the employer. For the attainment of that end, it was immaterial to claimant who, as between the employer and its insurer, was ultimately chargeable with the payment of compensation for his injuries. The plain language of the statute provides that if the employer does not pay the compensation for which it is liable, then an insurance company, which may have insured such employer against such liability, shall become primarily liable to pay the employee. The statute provides the claimant the right to proceed directly against the insurer in the event the employer does not pay the award. However, the Act does not mandate that the insurance carrier be made a party to the proceedings. The statute merely states that the insurance carrier may be made a party to the proceeding in the event the employer does not pay the award.

In this case, Voges filed an application for adjustment of claim pursuant to the Act, seeking benefits form the employer for injuries. Voges names himself and the employer as parties in the application. Claimant did not name QBE as party. The court found neither a provision in the Act, nor in any Illinois case, which provides for intervention following a section 19(b) award by an insurer who was not a party to the proceedings and where the claimant chose to bring his claim against the employer alone. Thus, we vacate the Commission’s order granting QBE’s motion to add QBE as a named party and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held insurer was not entitled to intervene for purposes of appealing the Commission’s award.

QBE Insurance Co. v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2013 WL 3508932 (Ill.App. 5 Dist. 2013). (This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1)).