Joseph P. Basile, Chicago
E-mail Joseph Basile
Appellate Court Finds Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission’s Calculation of Wage Differential Benefits Erroneous as a Matter of Law
In Village of Roselle v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2025 IL App (3d) 240306WC-U, the Workers’ Compensation Commission Division of the Illinois Appellate Court determined that the Commission erred when it included an hourly rate multiplier in the calculation of the wage differential award.
The claimant sustained an uncontested work-related accident on February 17, 2015. 2025 IL App (3d) 240306WC-U at ¶3. He worked full time as a public works employee in the water department and part time as a firefighter paramedic. He injured his right shoulder fighting a fire.
The village agreed he was entitled to a wage differential. The dispute concerned the calculation of the benefits.
The arbitrator awarded a wage differential in the amount equal to the claimant’s hourly rate as a firefighter. This included 1.5 times his public works hourly rate, as of his last day of employment on April 29, 2022. 2025 IL App (3d) 240306WC-U at ¶4. He retired on April 30, 2022. Id.
The claimant was not able to return to work as a firefighter after the 2015 accident, but returned as a public works employee. He was involved in a non-work-related motorcycle accident on September 28, 2021, and remained off work using medical leave, sick time, and vacation until April 29, 2022. 2025 IL App (3d) 240306WC-U at ¶6.
The claimant worked an average of 29.31 hours per week as a firefighter. 2025 IL App (3d) 240306WC-U at ¶7. His hourly rate as a public works employee when he retired was $21.70, and, with the 1.5 multiplier, his hourly rate as a firefighter would have been $32.55. Id.
The collective-bargaining agreement allowed full-time employees who worked part time at the fire department to receive 1.5 times their hourly rate for their fire department classification. 2025 IL App (3d) 240306WC-U at ¶8. The village paid a wage differential at a weekly rate of $636.03 beginning in 2022. Id. This included the 1.5 multiplier. When the claimant retired, the village reduced the amount of the hourly rate to $21.70, removing the multiplier. Id. The village’s position was that the multiplier applied only when an employee worked full time.
The arbitrator disagreed, finding that full-time employment was not a condition precedent to receiving the higher rate when calculating the differential. The award was for a weekly benefit of $636.03 beginning September 22, 2016, and continuing until the claimant was 67. 2025 IL App (3d) 240306WC-U at ¶9.
The Commission affirmed, and the circuit court confirmed the decision.
The village argued on appeal that the Commission should have calculated the benefit using the claimant’s hourly rate as a public works employee without the multiplier. The court agreed with the village that a de novo standard of review applied to the issue. The issue was whether the Workers’ Compensation Act, 820 ILCS 305/1, et seq., justified the use of the multiplier.
The court agreed that the claimant was entitled to a wage differential under 820 ILCS 305/8(d)1, but the court agreed with the village that the multiplier did not apply due to the claimant’s retirement. However, the village was incorrect in arguing the claimant’s wage as a full-time public works employee applied. The claimant was missing his hourly rate of pay as a firefighter due to the injury. The injury did not cause his loss of pay as a public works employee. In regard to the Workers’ Compensation Act, the court held that “the purpose of section 8(d)1 is to compensate a claimant for a diminished earning capacity caused by a work-related injury. Chlada v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2016 IL App (1st) 150122 WC, ¶35.” 2025 IL App (3d) 240306WC-U at ¶17.
The wage differential calculation was to be made based on what the claimant would have earned if he had continued as a firefighter uninterrupted. If he had not retired as a public works employee, the Commission’s calculation of the differential would have been correct. Because of his retirement, the calculation should have been based only on his hourly rate as a firefighter.
The court calculated the wage differential as “$19.15/hour × 29.31 hours/week = $561.29 × ⅔ =$374.19 per week.” 2025 IL App (3d) 240306WC-U at ¶20. The $19.15 hourly rate was contained in the 2022 wage schedule of the collective-bargaining agreement. Id.
The circuit court’s judgment was reversed, the Commission’s decision vacated, and the case remanded to the Commission to calculate the overpayment to the claimant based on the court’s calculation.
For more information about workers’ compensation, see WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRACTICE (IICLE®, 2023). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.