Good Afternoon,
The short answer is no, there are not any reported cases within the
state of Illinois concerning worker's compensation benefits being
awarded as a result of a bee sting.
HOWEVER, there are some interesting findings:
When a night security guard at an elementary school was attacked by a
stray dog, the Illinois Court of Appeals held that the injury was
related to the guard’s employment, and therefore he was entitled to
worker’s compensation benefits. Springfield School Dist. No. 186 v.
Industrial Commission, 687 N.E.2d 334 (Ill. App. 4. Dist. ,1997).
The heirs of a foreman at a coal yard who was in charge of a team of
horses was eligible for compensation after he was killed by a runaway
team. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the foreman was killed
while trying to save his employer’s property in his line of
employment. Ready & Callaghan Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission, 137
N.E. 422 (Ill. 1922).
HERE ARE SOME SPECIFIC CASES RE. BEE STINGS ALTHOUGH FROM OTHER
STATES:
The Supreme Court of Tennessee upheld an award to an employee for
injuries resulting from being stung by bees at the plant where she
worked, concluding that the bee stings and injuries to the employee
“arose out of the employment” and further saying that the bees in the
plant were part of the environment or working on the assembly line,
and consequently, were a fisk or hazard of appellee’s employment.”
Electro-Voice, Inc. v. O'Dell, 519 S.W.2d 395 (Tenn. 1975).
The New York Appellate Division found that a “claimant's
cerebrovascular infarction and resulting left hemiplegia causally
related to a bee sting he incurred while preparing to install a bulk
milk tank at the farm of a local customer. This determination was
based upon the testimony of claimant and that of the customer's
herdsman who witnessed the incident, and upon the statements of four
treating and examining physicians who concluded claimant's injury was
a consequence of the bee sting. Gaylord v. Ronald Gaylord, Inc., 456
N.Y.S.2d 174, N.Y.A.D. (1982)
In another New York case, the Appellate Division was faced with the
following: Claimant's dead husband, a manager of a Mobil gas station,
was driving from his home to his place of employment when he suffered
cardiorespiratory arrest allegedly due to anaphylactic shock after
being stung by a bee, resulting in his death. At the time of the
incident, decedent was responding to a call he received concerning a
problem at the station. He was also checking competitors' gas prices
and was on his way to retrieve station receipts in order to make a
bank deposit, both tasks being part of his employment duties.
Following decedent's death, his employer submitted an "Employer's
Report of Injury/Illness" to the Workers’ Compensation Board and the
cause of accident was described as follows: "Manager was called to
station by an employee. In addition, manager was performing Saturday
duties--price surveys and banking." The report further stated,
"Manager driving car. Bee flew into vehicle, stung manager. Manager
went into shock." The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied
claimant's application for death benefits but the Board reversed the
decision and death benefits were subsequently awarded to claimant. The
employer's request for full Board review was denied and this appeal
ensued.
“The employer contends that the Board's decision which found that
decedent sustained a bee sting while in the course of his employment
was speculative and not supported by substantial evidence in the
record. We disagree. Although an employee is generally not deemed to
be engaged in the course of his or her employment while commuting to
and from work, an exception exists where there is a reasonable nexus
between the employee's activities and his or her employment.” Schuhl
v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 702 N.Y.S.2d 436 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2000).
These are all workers' compensation cases that involve some aspect of
bee stings. Although they are from other states, they may be very
effective as persuasive authority to the officials in Illinois:
Allen v. Glenn Baker Trucking, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 92 (Ky. 1994)
Avila v. Northrup King Co., 880 P.2d 717 (Ariz.App. Div. 1, 1994)
Bell v. Kelso Oil Co., 597 S.W.2d 731 (Tenn. 1980)
Biloxi Motor Co. v. Barry, 187 So.2d 833 (Miss. 1966)
Coffey v. Automatic Lathe Cutterhead, 291 S.E.2d 357 (N.C.App. 1982)
Dawson v. A & H Mfg. Co., 463 A.2d 519 (R.I. 1983)
Eagles v. Golden Cove, Inc., 194 S.E.2d 397 (S.C. 1973)
Frame v. Majors, 224 So.2d 65 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1969)
Jennings v. Chambers Development Co., 516 S.E.2d 453 (S.C.App. 1999)
Lucedale Veneer Co. v. Rogers, 53 So.2d 69 (Miss. 1951)
Maggiacomo v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, 508 A.2d 402
(R.I. 1986)
Minter v. Osborne Co., 487 S.E.2d 835 (N.C.App. 1997)
Poinsetta Gifts v. Evans, 393 So.2d 8 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 1980)
Simmons v. City of Charleston, 562 S.E.2d 476 (S.C.App. 2002)
Sparks v. Mountain Breeze Restaurant and Fish House, Inc., 286 S.E.2d
575 (N.C.App. 1982)
Texas Workers' Compensation Ins. Fund v. Simon, 980 S.W.2d 730
(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998)
Webster v. Mason, 13 A.D.2d 355, 217 N.Y.S.2d 290 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.
1961)
Best of luck - if you have ANY questions, please ask for clarification
and I will get right back to you.
weisstho-ga
Search Terms Used:
://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=illinois+%22workers+compensation%22 |
