In the case of Snyder v. Azcon Metals, 20 WC 009505, the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (“Commission”) affirmed an Arbitrator decision concluding that a respondent was not allowed to take credit for payments of statutory amputation benefits against an award for loss of trade under Section 8(d)2 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (“Act”). The decision from the Commission was appealed to the Madison County Circuit Court for Review of the Commission’s administrative ruling. On March 14, 2025, Judge Dennis Ruth confirmed and adopted the Decision from the Commission. The decision is now on appeal. Of note, Judge Ruth is a former chairperson for the Commission serving from 2003 to 2007. He also served as an arbitrator.
This is an important case, having the potential to upend years of precedence and common practice. In Illinois, if an injured employee suffers an amputation due to an injury arising out of and in the course of their employment, they are automatically owed statutory amputation benefits. These are permanency (PPD) benefits made pursuant to Section 8(e) of the Act. Unlike other PPD benefits, statutory amputations benefits are due to Petitioner immediately, without unreasonable delay. Accordingly, statutory amputations benefits are paid prior to when the petitioner’s treatment has been completed, and an assessment of their permanent partial disability can be determined.
Pursuant to Section 8(d)2 of the Act, a Petitioner can be awarded person as a whole benefits for injuries that are normally awarded as a specific body part (e.g. a leg) if the injuries to that body part result in permanent work restrictions preventing the person from pursuing their usual and customary employment (or which result in an impairment of earning capacity in their usual employment and they waive the right for recovery as a wage differential claim under Section 8(d)1). This is what is commonly referred to as a “loss of trade” award. Because these awards are based on permanent work restrictions, they can only be determined once a Petitioner reaches maximum medical improvement—it is only at that point one can determine whether the work restrictions are permanent.
It is not unusual in amputation cases for a petitioner to be provided with permanent work restrictions at the end of treatment preventing them from returning to their unusual and customary employment. In such cases, they are typically awarded loss of trade, person as a whole PPD benefits pursuant to Section 8(d)2. In those cases, by the time of the loss of trade determination, the petitioner will have already received payments statutory amputation benefits because the employer is legally required to pay the benefits concurrent with the payment of TTD benefits. The statutory loss payments can amount to tens of thousands of dollars.
Historically, it has been the practice of the Commission, and in negotiations with petitioner attorneys, for the respondent to be afforded credit for the statutory amputation benefits paid against the award for loss of trade, person as a whole benefits. This is consistent with a plain reading of Section 8(e) of the Act which states when a petitioner received benefits under Section 8(e) the petitioner “shall not receive any compensation under any other provisions of this Act.” This would include amputation benefits as they are paid pursuant to Section 8(e).
It has long been accepted by the Commission and its practitioners that this provision did not prevent a later award under Section 8(d)2 for loss of trade benefits. But it was always understood a credit for the statutory amputation benefits had to be provided against the loss of trade award to prevent the final award from compensating Petitioner for a single injury under both Section 8(d)2 (for the loss of trade) and Section 8(e) (for the amputation). This was because awarding under both Sections would violate the section of Section 8(e) quoted in this paragraph. This practice is also consistent with the Appellate Court’s reasoning in the matter of Payetta v. Industrial Commission, in which the Court affirmed that respondents were entitled to credit for statutory amputation benefits against an award for wage differential benefits pursuant to Section 8(d)1 of the Act.
The Commission’s decision in Snyder v. Azcon Metals completely abandons this practice and understanding. The decision rejected respondent’s claim for credit for the statutory amputation benefit payments against a Section 8(d)2 loss of trade award. The Commission discussed the Payetta claim in their decision, but stated their belief there was a difference between the language of Section 8(d)1 and Section 8(d)2 that required credit for statutory amputation benefits in the former and prohibited it in the latter.
We at Ganan & Shapiro have analyzed this matter in detail and believe a proper interpretation of the language in Section 8(d)2 and Section 8(e) requires respondents be provided with a credit for statutory amputation benefits against loss of trade awards. However, the ultimate arbiter of this question will be the Illinois Appellate or possibly the Illinois Supreme Court. If they uphold the Commission’s decision, the inability to take credit for the statutory amputations benefits will lead to a significant increase in the indemnity exposure for amputation claims resulting in permanent work restrictions.
Accordingly, Appellate Court case of Azcon Metals v. Industrial Commission is one to watch. We are monitoring it and will provide updates as this matter works its way through the appellate process. As always, we welcome you to contact our firm if you have any questions or wish to discuss.
