ROBIN JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2002)

OPINION

Claimant, Robin Johnson, filed her Complaint alleging breach of contract on November 13, 2000. The Claimant has alleged that the Respondent breached a settlement contract by not paying all of Claimant's medical bills pursuant to the contract. The Claimant was injured in a work-related accident on or about February 2, 1999, at the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center which was owned, operated and under the control of the Illinois Department of Corrections. The Claimant seeks damages in the amount of $100,000 plus costs of suit. The cause was tried before Commissioner Clark.

The Facts

On February 2, 1999, the Claimant was involved in a work-related accident at the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center which was owned, operated and under the control of the State of Illinois Department of Corrections. Claimant, Robin Johnson, was temporarily totally disabled from February 3, 1999, to March 31, 1999. The Claimant filed a worker's compensation claim and on May 20, 1999, the Claimant and the Respondent, Illinois Department of Corrections, signed a settlement contract/lump sum petition and order. A condition of the settlement was that the Illinois Department of Corrections was to pay all medical bills of Claimant that were listed and to hold Claimant harmless therefrom. The specific medical bills were listed by name and amount. However, instead of paying the bills, the Respondent had the bills audited and has not paid all the bills pursuant to the contract conditions.

Claimant seeks compensation for damages to her credit rating, for the outstanding balance at Dr. Mainders office which the Respondent was obligated to pay but has not paid, and for additional attorney's fees and costs which she has had to incur.

The purpose of the Worker's Compensation Act, 820 ILCS 305/1, et seq., is to compensate workers for injuries received while performing duties necessary to their course of employment. Martin v. Kralis Poultry Co., (1973), 12 Ill.App.3d 453. Once an employee properly submits a claim and the claim is settled, both parties are obligated to adhere to the provisions of the contract. In the case at bar, Claimant, Robin Johnson, and Respondent, State of Illinois/Illinois Department of Corrections, entered into a settlement contract lump sum petition/order as a resolution to Claimant's claim under the Worker's Compensation Act which was approved by the Illinois Industrial Commission. All of the medical bills were paid except $931.03 of Dr. Mainders bill. The State reviewed the bill and reduced the bill by $931.03. Dr. Mainders did not belong to a group subject to review.

The Law

The Respondent seeks to have the Court review the settlement contract and determine its meaning. The Court will stay within the four corners of the agreement unless the contract is ambiguous. A contract is ambiguous only if the language used is reasonably susceptible to having more than one meaning but is not considered ambiguous simply because the parties do not agree on the meaning of its terms. Flora Bank & Trust v. Czyzewski, (1991), 222 Ill.App.3d 382, 388. A contract must be construed most strongly against the drafter and the risk of ambiguity and lack of clarity is on the drafting party. Genie Construction Co., Inc. v. State of Illinois, (1999), 51 Ill.Ct.Cl. 153. The existence of ambiguity in a contract is a question of law for the court. R.W. Dunteman v. State of Illinois, (1999), 52 Ill.Ct.Cl. 33. Ambiguity in a contract requires words with meanings capable of being understood in more than one sense, or an agreement obscure in meaning through indefiniteness of expression or words having double meanings. Kinney Contractors v. State of Illinois, (1997), 50 Ill.Ct.Cl. 240.

At issue in this case is the section of the settlement contract entitled medical. The State has checked yes as to the statement, Employer has paid all medical bills and has inserted the phrase see terms. The attachment entitled, addendum to settlement contract explains these terms, which states which medical bills for which the Respondent agrees to hold Claimant harmless. The Respondent argues that the terms of the contract do not mean Respondent will pay all medical bills but only that Respondent will defend or indemnify the Claimant, Robin Johnson, if the provider of medical bill has sought a judgment against her. The medical bill at issue in this case is from Dr. Robert Mainders for which the State was required to pay $5,993.00 per the contract. After the execution of the settlement agreement, the Respondent decided to perform an audit of the charges and only paid Dr. Mainders $4,514.95, leaving a balance which now stands at $931.03. The Respondent has offered no valid reason for this action. When delays in paying worker's compensation have occurred, the employer bears the burden of justifying the delay. McMahon v. Industrial Commission, (1997), 683 N.E.2d 460, 820 ILCS 305/19. The Respondent has provided the Court with no justification.

The Court finds no ambiguity within the section labeled medical where the box marked yes to all medical bills paid subject to addendum, and the Court construes this provision against the State. The Court finds the addendum specifies which medical bills are to be paid in full and for which Claimant is to be held harmless. Therefore, the Respondent is in breach of the express agreement of this contract and must pay Dr. Mainders bill of $931.03. There was no agreement for an audit. The Respondent agreed to pay Dr. Mainders the $5,993.00.

The Claimant asserts the Respondent is responsible for additional attorney's fees and costs. However, a claimant cannot recover for attorney's fees and costs unless provided under specific statutory authority. Tull v. State of Illinois, (1994), 47 Ill.Ct.Cl. 400, 405. As a matter of contract damages, attorney's fees may be recovered from the State where the contract expressly provides for them and the fees are the result of the Respondent's breach of contract. Glenstone Homeowners Association v. State of Illinois, (1996), 48 Ill.Ct.Cl. 388, 401. The Worker's Compensation Act and the Court of Claims Act must be read together to resolve this attorney's fees issue. The Court of Claims has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to the Worker's Compensation Act as there has been an award made by the Commission. 820 ILCS 305/19g. The only court Claimant can enforce the award in is the Court of Claims. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the underlying Worker's Compensation Act claim. 705 ILCS 505/8a. The determination of underlying attorney's fees claims is normally beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. Claimant must normally take his case for attorney's fees and/or other penalties to the Commission. 820 ILCS 305/16j. The Court notes that 820 ILCS 305/19g does give this Court authority and jurisdiction to order attorney's fees where the employer does not pay the award.

We have carefully reviewed the record and find no testimony, evidence or affidavits regarding Claimant's attorney's time or efforts in prosecuting this case and, therefore, the Court is not able to make an award of attorney's fees. There was no credible evidence presented to prove damage to Claimant's credit rating.

For the foregoing reasons, it is the Order of the Court that Respondent shall pay Claimant's outstanding medical bill to Dr. Robert Mainders in the sum of $931.03 and that Claimant's claims for attorney's fees and for damages to her credit rating are denied.

FREDERICK, J.