Jigar S. Desai | Rusin Law, Ltd.
312-454-5132 | Email Jigar S. Desai
Admissibility and Reasonableness Under Scrutiny — Lessons from Ramirez
In Ramirez v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2025 IL App (1st) 242467WC, the appellate court addressed two key evidentiary issues of great practical importance for practitioners: (1) the foundation required for business-records evidence used to establish a claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW), and (2) the proper use of post-injury drug test reports in assessing whether an employer’s delay or denial of benefits justifies penalties under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, 820 ILCS 305/1, et seq.
As practitioners, this case offers useful reminders: do not assume admissibility of records without foundation; be cautious in relying on positive drug tests absent compliance with statutory protocols; and ensure that the record supports a “reasonable basis” for denial or delay of benefits before contesting penalties. 2025 IL App (1st) 242467WC at ¶30.
Relevant Facts
The facts are relatively straightforward. The claimant, Daniel Ramirez, was employed by Mighty Moving, Inc. beginning late February/early March 2022, working as a truck driver/furniture mover. On March 24, 2022, while carrying boxes down stairs, he slipped and fractured his right ankle (requiring surgery).
After the injury, the claimant called his supervisor to arrange hospital transport; the supervisor refused and instructed him to arrange his own transportation. Before going to the immediate-care/hospital facility, the supervisor instructed the claimant to submit to a drug test. The test returned “positive” for marijuana. The claimant testified he did not use marijuana or other illicit substances on March 24, 2022, though he admitted to possessing a medical-marijuana card and using marijuana on March 23.
As to his wages and the AWW: the claimant testified that he worked full-time from early March up to the injury — often 8 – 12 hours per day starting at about 7 or 8 a.m., finishing between 5 – 9 p.m., and being paid $21/hour via direct‐deposit. He claimed more than two deposits, but bank records admitted as his own Exhibit 14 showed only two deposits: $650.03 (March 17) and $323.24 (March 31).
At arbitration (Feb. 3, 2024), the claimant testified; he was the only witness. The respondents offered several exhibits: RX1: personnel file (objection: hearsay); RX2: payroll records (objection: hearsay and lack of foundation); RX3: subpoena response from drug test facility (objection: hearsay and non-statutory compliance); and RX5: drug test report (same objection).
The arbitrator found:
- The injury arose out of and in the course of employment; the intoxication defense was rejected (despite positive test) because the employer’s exhibits (RX1, RX3, RX5) were excluded; claimant testified credibly that he was not intoxicated at time of injury.
- The AWW was determined at $412.50 (respondents’ figure), despite claimant’s position of $840; the arbitrator accepted RX2 to the extent that it showed an hourly rate of $22 and hours worked and bank records consistent therewith.
- The claimant was entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits at $275/week for 53 4/7 weeks (March 25, 2022 – April 3, 2023).
- Medical expenses of about $37,669.93 were awarded (including future work-conditioning).
- Penalties (under 820 ILCS 305/19(l)) and fees (under §§16 and 19(k)) were assessed because respondents delayed or withheld payment without adequate justification.
The Commission then modified the award: it affirmed in large part but (1) recalculated TTD benefits by raising the minimum statutory rate from $275 to $320/week (and adjusting credits for payments already made) and (2) reversed the arbitrator’s award of penalties and attorneys’ fees, finding that the respondents had a reasonable basis to delay/suspend benefits given the positive drug test.
On judicial review, the circuit court confirmed the Commission’s decision. The claimant then appealed to the appellate court.
Issues and Holdings
The appellate court framed two principal issues:
- Whether the Commission erred in admitting RX2 (payroll records) and relying on them to determine the claimant’s AWW.
- Holding: Yes, the court found the records were improperly admitted because no witness laid the required foundation under the business-records exception (S.Ct. Rule 236(a), Ill.R.Evid. 803(8)(B)). The respondents presented only a lawyer’s argument, not testimony from a records custodian or business-familiar person.
- Because the AWW finding was central and was based on the inadmissible records, the portion of the Commission decision on AWW and TTD benefits was reversed and remanded.
- Whether the Commission erred in considering the drug-test reports (RX1, RX3, RX5) for assessing the reasonableness of the respondents’ delay/denial of benefits (i.e., penalties and fees under §§16, 19(k), and 19(l)).
- Holding: The court held that it was proper for the Commission to admit the drug test reports for the limited purpose of assessing whether the employer had a reasonable basis to delay or suspend payments (i.e., reasonableness of employer conduct) even though the reports did not comply with the statutory requirements of §11 (and thus were not admissible for the truth of intoxication).
- However, the court held that the Commission’s reversal of the penalty/fee award was against the manifest weight of the evidence. A mere positive drug test (without quantity/concentration, absence of expert testimony, and no eyewitness signs of intoxication) was insufficient to show a reasonable basis for denial or delay.
Takeaways
While Ramirez does not alter major doctrinal rules, it provides important refinements and reminders.
Business records foundational discipline. The decision emphasizes that even in workers’ compensation proceedings, documents are not automatically admissible under the business-records exception. A custodian or other qualified witness must testify to the regular-course-of-business origin, timing, and completeness of the records.
Use of drug test result to deny benefits under §11. If you intend to rely on a drug test result for denying benefits under §11 (intoxication defense), ensure it meets the statutory test requirements (e.g., chain of custody, testing protocols, concentration values, qualified medical/forensic opinion) and is admitted for truth of intoxication. In Ramirez, the test did not meet statutory requirements; hence it could not be used to deny benefits.
Use of drug test evidence in penalty/fee cases. Ramirez clarifies that while a drug test result that does not meet the statutorily required protocols cannot be used to show intoxication (and thus bar benefits under §11), the employer may be permitted to use that result for another purpose — namely as part of its justification for delaying or denying benefits and thereby avoiding mandatory penalties (under §19(l)) or discretionary fees (under §§16, 19(k)). This echoes the principle that admissibility can depend on the purpose for which the evidence is offered.
Limits on reasonable basis for delay/denial. Even if an employer has some piece of evidence, it must rise to the level of a reasonable belief (not merely speculative) that benefits should be withheld. A lone positive drug test, without evidence of concentration/impairment, witness testimony, or expert analysis, was held insufficient in Ramirez. The defense must gather corroborating facts.
Ramirez underscores that procedural discipline and evidentiary rigor remain essential in workers’ compensation litigation. Although these proceedings are designed to be informal, the appellate court reaffirmed that the basic rules of evidence — particularly regarding business records and the purposes for which documents may be admitted — still apply.
For practitioners, Ramirez is a reminder that the outcome of a claim often turns not on the substantive merits, but on the admissibility and credibility of proof. Payroll documents must be properly authenticated through a competent witness; positive drug tests must be supported by statutory compliance or contextual evidence before being relied on to deny benefits; and when delaying or suspending benefits, the record must clearly show a reasonable, fact-based justification to avoid penalties. In short, Ramirez reinforces a simple but vital lesson for Illinois practitioners: strong facts matter, but strong foundations win cases.
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, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.