Hall v. DeFalco
533 N.E.2d 448, 127 Ill. Dec. 576, 178 Ill. App. 3d 408 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee who has received benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act for an injury is barred by the Act's exclusive remedy provision from bringing a civil action against a co-employee for the same injury. When facts in an affidavit supporting a dispositive motion are not contradicted by a counteraffidavit, those facts are deemed admitted and taken as true by the court.
Facts:
- Frank DeFalco was the manager of a McDonald's restaurant in Winnetka, Illinois, and Henry Hall was an employee at the same location.
- As part of his regular duties, DeFalco drove McDonald's employees to the local train station after their shifts concluded.
- On October 8, 1984, after Hall had finished his work shift, DeFalco was driving him to an “L” station.
- During the drive, the truck DeFalco was driving veered off the road and crashed into a building, causing Hall to sustain injuries.
- Hall subsequently filed a claim for and received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, the McDonald’s Corporation, for the injuries he sustained in the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Henry Hall sued Frank DeFalco for negligence and wilful and wanton conduct in the circuit court of Cook County (trial court).
- DeFalco filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619, arguing the suit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act.
- DeFalco supported his motion with an affidavit stating the accident occurred within the scope of his employment and that Hall had received workers' compensation benefits.
- Hall filed a response to the motion but did not file a counteraffidavit contradicting DeFalco's factual assertions.
- The trial court granted DeFalco's motion to dismiss, holding that the claim was barred by the Workers' Compensation Act.
- Hall filed a motion to vacate the dismissal order, attaching for the first time his own counteraffidavit.
- The trial court denied Hall's motion to vacate and refused to consider the late-filed counteraffidavit.
- Hall (appellant) appealed the dismissal order and the denial of his motion to vacate to the Appellate Court of Illinois.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a common law personal injury action brought by an employee against a co-employee barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act when the plaintiff-employee has already received benefits under the Act for the same injury and failed to contradict the defendant-co-employee's affidavit stating the injury occurred within the scope of employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Quinlan
Yes. A personal injury action against a co-employee is barred when the injured employee has accepted workers' compensation benefits for the same injury. The court reasoned first that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider Hall's late-filed counteraffidavit. Hall had ample opportunity to file it timely and his failure to do so was a deliberate, strategic decision, not an excusable error. Second, because Hall failed to file a counteraffidavit, the facts in DeFalco's affidavit—that he was acting within the scope of his employment and that Hall received workers' compensation benefits—were uncontradicted and therefore must be taken as true. With no factual dispute, the issue became a question of law. Finally, the Illinois Supreme Court has clearly held in cases like Collier and Fregeau that an employee who chooses to receive compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act cannot then bring a civil action against a co-employee for the same injury, as the Act provides the exclusive remedy. By accepting benefits, Hall was precluded from alleging his injuries fell outside the Act's provisions.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the procedural finality of pretrial motions and the critical importance of timely evidentiary submissions. It establishes that a party's failure to file a counteraffidavit to dispute facts in a movant's affidavit results in those facts being deemed admitted, which can be dispositive. The case strongly affirms the exclusivity of the workers' compensation remedy in Illinois, preventing an employee from seeking a 'double recovery' by accepting statutory benefits and then also pursuing a common law tort claim against a co-employee for the same work-related incident. This solidifies the legal trade-off at the heart of workers' compensation: employees receive no-fault benefits but forfeit the right to sue their employer or co-workers in tort.
