Illinois Appellate Court Offers a Broad Interpretation on Exclusive Remedy Provision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act in Co-Employee Assault Case

By: Taylar Young

In a recent decision, Kordas v. Bob’s All Bright Electric Inc., 2025 IL App (3d) 240482, the Illinois Appellate Court determined that a broad interpretation of the exclusive remedy provision was appropriate when analyzing a work-related accident and subsequent civil suit.

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, claiming intentional misconduct and negligence after his coworker, Thomas Clarizio, struck him over the head with a shovel while having a psychotic episode. Plaintiff alleged that the company was owned and operated by Clarizio’s father, and he knew or should have known that Clarizio had mental health issues, negligently hired and supervised Clarizio and intentionally concealed Clarizio’s dangerous propensities.

Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Act. The circuit court granted Defendant’s motion and Plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s decision.

Plaintiff had worked with Clarizio for five years and was his direct supervisor. Over those five years, there was an instance where Clarizio was sent home for insubordination. Plaintiff indicated that they had several arguments over the years, but nothing ever became heated. Plaintiff and Clarizio never had a physical altercation, nor did Plaintiff ever feel threatened by Clarizio. Plaintiff was aware that Clarizio had mental health issues and received mental health treatment twice prior to the incident in November 2020.

The owner of the business and father of Clarizio testified that he had no knowledge of his son’s mental health issues, though he did note one instance where Clarizio was hospitalized for suspected drug use. The owner noted that Clarizio and Plaintiff worked together fine, but Plaintiff often had difficulties giving directions.

Clarizio testified that he and Plaintiff were installing an electrical panel. When Plaintiff kneeled down, Clarizio hit him over the head with a shovel.  He admitted that he struck Plaintiff more than once and then ran away. Clarizio attributed his behavior to his January 2020 bipolar disorder diagnosis and his antipsychotic medication. Clarizio testified that he was hospitalized four times in 2020 for mental health treatment, most recently in October 2020, one month before the incident. Clarizio also claimed that his father knew about his involuntary commitment, bipolar diagnosis, medication and four hospitalizations.

The appellate court analyzed both the Workers’ Compensation Act and copious case law in determining that the claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Act. The court cited Collier v. Wagner Castings Co., 81 Ill. 2d 229, 237 (1980) for the proposition that to avoid the bar of the exclusive remedy provision, the employee must demonstrate that the injury (1) was not accidental, (2) did not arise from his or her employment, (3) was not received during the course of employment, or (4) was not compensable under the Act.

On the issue of accidental injury, Plaintiff argued that Defendant knew that Clarizio was violent and knowingly concealed his violent tendencies. The court disagreed and found that Plaintiff’s action was barred because he did not allege that Defendant committed or expressly authorized Clarizio to commit an intentional tort against him. Carelessly and recklessly allowing an employee to work unsupervised on a job site with other employees, even though the employer knew or should have known of his dangerous propensities is not an intentional tort.

On the issue of an injury arising out of his employment, the court found that where a physical confrontation between two employees is purely personal in nature, the resulting injuries cannot be said to have arisen out of the employment. Plaintiff unsuccessfully argued that the dispute arose out of personal animosity and had nothing to do with Plaintiff’s scope of employment. The court was not swayed and noted that it was clear from deposition testimony that Plaintiff and Clarizio did not have a personal relationship outside of work. Plaintiff and the owner testified that Clarizio had refused to complete tasks and that Plaintiff did not appreciate having to mentor employees. Clarizio testified that he did not target Plaintiff for personal reasons and Plaintiff did not provoke the attack. As a result, the court found that the Plaintiff’s injury did arise out of his employment.

Finally, because Plaintiff’s claim was otherwise compensable under the Act, the fourth exception did not apply.

While the court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, we have defended cases where the trial courts have determined a sufficient factual basis exists to preclude summary judgment based on the exclusive remedy doctrine.  Kordas will prove to be a valuable precedent in getting such courts to take a more appropriate and expansive view of when the exclusive remedy doctrine should be applied.