Gassner v. Raynor Manufacturing Co.
948 N.E.2d 315 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When interpreting a workers' compensation settlement contract, ambiguous terms are construed against the drafter. A provision covering "treatment to the low back" may be deemed ambiguous when applied to a systemic infection that originated in the low back but has spread to other parts of the body.
Facts:
- On May 30, 2000, Gunther Gassner sustained a work-related back injury while employed by Raynor Manufacturing Company (RMC).
- Gassner underwent back surgery on February 25, 2002, to treat a herniated disk.
- Following the surgery, Gassner developed a staphylococcal (staph) infection at the site of the surgical incision on his back.
- On May 1, 2002, Gassner and RMC entered into a settlement contract which contained a provision for RMC to pay for "treatment to the low back causally related to the alleged injury" for one year.
- In September 2002, within the one-year period, the staph infection spread to Gassner's heart, requiring extensive medical treatment.
- Gassner's doctor opined that the heart infection was caused by the same bacteria responsible for the low back infection.
Procedural Posture:
- The Industrial Commission approved a settlement contract between Gunther Gassner and Raynor Manufacturing Company (RMC) on May 1, 2002.
- On October 1, 2003, Gassner petitioned the Commission to enforce the contract, but the Commission determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties had waived rights of review.
- On October 31, 2008, Gassner petitioned the circuit court for entry of judgment pursuant to the settlement contract.
- RMC filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the petition was barred by the statute of limitations, which the trial court denied.
- RMC then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the contract's plain language did not cover treatment for Gassner's heart infection.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of RMC.
- Gassner, as appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court. RMC, as cross-appellant, appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the phrase "treatment to the low back" in a workers' compensation settlement agreement unambiguously exclude, as a matter of law, payment for medical treatment of a systemic infection that originated in the low back?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Jorgensen
No. The phrase "treatment to the low back" is ambiguous and does not, as a matter of law, exclude coverage for a systemic infection that originated in the low back as a result of the work injury. The court reasoned that the term "treatment" is broad and covers all steps taken to cure an injury or disease. Unlike a discrete physical injury, an infection that originates in one location and becomes bloodborne is not easily localized. Therefore, treating the infection that originated in the low back may necessitate treating it wherever it manifests in the body. As the drafter of the settlement contract, RMC bore the risk of any lack of clarity; if it intended to exclude treatment for the staph infection should it spread, it should have stated so explicitly. Because the term is ambiguous, summary judgment was inappropriate, and the case must be remanded to determine the parties' intent and the causal link between the back infection and the heart infection.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the contract law principle that ambiguities in a release are strictly construed against the drafting party, a rule with particular force in the workers' compensation context. By finding the seemingly specific phrase "treatment to the low back" ambiguous when applied to a spreading infection, the court signals that judges may look beyond literal interpretations to address the medical realities of an injury's consequences. This precedent will likely encourage more precise drafting in settlement agreements to avoid unintended liability, especially when dealing with conditions like infections that have the potential to become systemic. It also underscores that summary judgment is improper when a key contractual term is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation based on the case's specific facts.
