Kisa P. Sthankiya | Rusin Law, Ltd.
312-454-5127| E-mail Kisa P. Sthankiya
Fourth District Rules Foot Qualifies as Part of Leg for Disfigurement Benefits Under Workers’ Compensation Act
In Panda Express, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2025 IL App (4th) 240771WC-U, the Workers’ Compensation Division of the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the decision of the circuit court of Boone County and reinstated the decision of the Commission.
The claimant on September 25, 2018, was training new workers on how to properly transfer hot oil from the fryer to the disposal area. 2025 IL App (4th) 240771WC-U at ¶8. The hot oil spilled onto the claimant’s feet, primarily onto his left foot and ankle. It also splashed onto his right foot.
The claimant was treated for his burns, which were assessed to be at the third degree. The claimant was hospitalized through October 9, 2018. 2025 IL App (4th) 240771WC-U at ¶12. At discharge, his final diagnoses were a third-degree burn of multiple sites of the left ankle and foot, a second-degree burn of multiple sites of the right ankle and foot, and cellulitis of the left lower limb.
The claimant was treated through May 8, 2019, and was thereafter released to return to work full duty. 2025 IL App (4th) 240771WC-U at ¶19.
At the time of trial, the claimant was no longer working a second job transporting gutters to local building sites. The claimant admitted that the right foot burns were less severe and had “kind of disappeared.” 2025 IL App (4th) 240771WC-U at ¶21. However, the burns to his left foot were primarily on the top and side of the left foot. The size of the skin graft was approximately 8 inches by 4 inches in size. Id. The skin graft area was markedly different from the surrounding skin, with a shiny appearance and no hair growth. The right foot also exhibited circular burn areas on the top of the foot and ankle. The burn areas on the feet and left leg were shown to the arbitrator and counsel. Photographs of the burns were also submitted into evidence.
The arbitrator found that the claimant had sustained disfiguring injuries to his feet and his left leg and awarded 58 weeks of disfigurement benefits pursuant to §8(c) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 820 ILCS 305/1, et seq. 2025 IL App (4th) 240771WC-U at ¶25. Specifically, the arbitrator awarded 10 weeks of disfigurement of the left leg, 3 weeks of disfigurement of the right foot, and 45 weeks of disfigurement of the left foot. Id. The five factors under §8.1(b) were not addressed as the arbitrator noted he was not awarding any permanency under that provision. The Commission affirmed and adopted the arbitrator’s decision in its entirety.
The employer appealed the Commission’s decision to the circuit court of Boone County, which held that the claimant was not entitled to benefits for disfigurement under §8(c) of the Act because that section does not authorize benefits for disfiguring injuries to the feet. The circuit court held that the foot was not covered under the list of body parts under §8(c). Relying on the medical dictionary definition of “leg,” the circuit court could not conclude that the foot would be considered part of the leg below the knee. The circuit court instead awarded permanent partial disability benefits under §8(d)(2) of the Act.
On appeal to the appellate court, the employer challenged the Commission award for benefits for disfigurement to the claimant’s feet under §8(c) because disfigurement of the foot was not listed as a compensable injury under the section. The employer further argued that benefits under §8(d)(2) applied only if the claimant had sustained serious and permanent injury “not covered by either sections 8(c) or 8(e).” 2025 IL App (4th) 240771WC-U at ¶28.The employer further argued that the claimant failed to present evidence of impairment of his foot, which would have entitled him to benefits under §8(e).
The key issue presented to the court was whether the foot is included in the definition of “leg below the knee” under §8(c) of the statute. 2025 IL App (4th) 240771WC-U at ¶34. The court had to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. The best indicator of the legislature’s intent was the plain language of the statute itself, which would be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
The court reviewed the definitions of “leg” under multiple sources including website citations to RxList, Healthline, the Meriam-Webster online dictionary, Britannica, and Wikipedia, noting that all of these sources included the foot as part of the leg. The court rejected the employer’s argument that the medical textbook definition, which defined the “leg” as a part of the body extending from below the knee to only the ankle, should be followed. The court noted that words in legislative enactments should be given their commonly understood meaning as used by the public as opposed to the meaning ascribed to the word by medical specialists. The various sources that the court had cited explicitly distinguished the common understanding of the word from the specialized medical terminology and included the foot as part of the leg.
The court addressed the employer’s argument that §8(e) of the Act showed that the legislature did not intend to define the foot as part of the leg because it listed them as separate body parts under that section. The court distinguished §8(e) from §8(c) as §8(e) covered impairment and not disfigurement, noting that impairment differs according to the body part that is injured, whereas disfigurement could be equally harmful wherever it occurs.
The court reversed the judgment of the circuit court of Boone County and reinstated the Commission’s decision awarding benefits for disfigurement of the left foot, right leg, and left leg under §8(c) of the Act.
For more information about workers’ compensation, see WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRACTICE (IICLE®, 2023). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visitwww.iicle.com/subscriptions.