Skip to main content
TTD Benefits After Suspension or Termination: What Illinois Case Law Really Says
Illinois law on temporary total disability (TTD) benefits after an employee is removed from work—whether by termination or suspension—can be both confusing and frustrating. While the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Interstate Scaffolding established that termination for reasons unrelated to the work injury does not automatically end TTD entitlement, three subsequent Appellate decisions have narrowed and clarified its scope. Here’s what you need to know.
The Starting Point: Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 236 Ill. 2d 132 (2010)
In Interstate Scaffolding, the Court held that an employer must continue paying TTD benefits until the employee reaches maximum medical improvement (MMI), even if the employee is terminated for unrelated reasons. The key focus is on the employee’s medical status, not the employment status. Hence, when looking at whether TTD benefits are owed, the question should be whether, but for the termination (or suspension), TTD benefits would have been owed.
Appellate Cases Limiting Interstate Scaffolding
Three Appellate decisions have clarified that lack of MMI alone does not guarantee TTD benefits. Courts now focus on whether the injury actually prevents the employee from working or significantly limits employability.
Rutherford v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n: 2014 IL App (3d) 130659WC-U
A petitioner terminated for unrelated reasons while still treating was denied TTD because he had been working full duty before his termination. The court therefore found he failed to prove his inability to work was caused by the accident.
Holocker v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n: 2017 IL App (3d) 160363WC
The petitioner had a restriction against operating cranes but was performing his regular job, which could theoretically have required him to use cranes, until termination. After termination, he claimed TTD. The Commission and court rejected the claim for TTD, finding the restriction did not prevent him from doing his usual duties and that his injuries had stabilized enough for him to reenter the workforce. This distinction is critical; the petitioner was able to work in his regular position, even though the employer might have needed to accommodate his restriction at some point, but the Court essentially deemed the crane restriction immaterial in denying TTD.
Weller v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2018 IL App (3d) 170047WC-U
In Weller, an IME physician released the petitioner to light duty while his treater kept him off work. The employer offered light-duty work within the IME restrictions, which the petitioner declined. The employer later terminated him. The Commission ended TTD effective the date of the light-duty offer and denied TTD benefits after termination. The court affirmed, noting the termination was unrelated to the injury and found Petitioner not entitled to TTD since the petitioner could have been working light duty but-for the unrelated termination.
Suspension vs. Termination
I should note that while these cases all involved terminations, not suspensions, the courts’ reasoning in each of the TTD cases centers on employability and the causal link between the injury and inability to work—not the nature of the employer’s action. This suggests suspensions would be analyzed the same way.
Retirement: Sharwarko v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2015 IL App (1st) 131733WC
This case involved a claimant who voluntarily retired and later sought both TTD and permanent total disability under an “odd lot” theory. As to TTD, like in Holocker and Weller, the Court in Sharwarko rejected the idea that ongoing treatment or non-MMI status guarantees TTD benefits. The Court still looks beyond the petitioner’s employment status and focuses on whether the injury itself truly prevented reentry into the workforce.
Key Lessons for Employers
- Document restrictions and job duties: Documenting that the employee’s restrictions do not prevent them from performing essential tasks or reentering the labor market is imperative to sustain a TTD suspension in the face of termination or suspension.
- Separate discipline from the injury: If suspension or termination occurs, ensure the reason is unrelated to the work injury and maintain clear documentation.
- Strengthen your defense: If the employee accepts light duty before suspension, it is easier to argue that inability to work is unrelated to the injury. The longer the person works in the offered light-duty position before termination or suspension, the more likely the facts will weigh against TTD.
- Prepare for scrutiny: If light duty is offered only after suspension, the Commission may find insufficient evidence to prove employability. Make sure you document any facts supporting the individual’s ability to perform the physical abilities to perform the job separately from other, unrelated personnel issues.
Good facts make good law, so employers who act promptly to offer suitable light-duty work, document restrictions, and maintain clear separation between disciplinary actions and the injury, will be in the best position to defend against unnecessary TTD payments.