The opinion
JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in all aspects of the majority decision except the determination to reverse the Commission’s denial of a credit under section 8(j)(2) of the Act. I would affirm the denial of credit and from that portion of the majority decision, I respectfully dissent.
In Tee-Pak, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 141 Ill. App. 3d 520, 529 (1986), this court reiterated the well-established rule that “the employer receives no credit for benefits which would have been paid irrespective of the occurrence of a workers’ compensation accident.” We further noted in Tee-Pak that an employer can receive credit for benefits paid to an employee only where the benefits “are limited to occupationally related disabilities.” Id. In other words, the employer is entitled to a credit only where it can be shown that the payment for which credit is sought was available exclusively for occupationally related disabilities. If the payment could be had regardless of whether the employee suffered an occupational injury, then no credit is allowed. See Village of Streamwood Police Department v. Industrial Comm’n, 57 Ill. 2d 345, 351 (1974) (the employer is not entitled to credit for payment from the employer’s pension fund where the pension benefits were not limited to occupationally related disabilities).
In the instant matter, the claimant received payment equal to her full salary from her accumulated sick leave. There is nothing in the record to establish that the claimant could only access her sick leave account for occupationally related disabilities. On the contrary, presumably the claimant’s sick pay is available for both occupational and nonoccupational disabilities. See Village of Streamwood, 57 Ill. 2d at 351 . The majority points out that employer had a policy of allowing employees to utilize sick pay in lieu of TTD benefits for occupationally related disabilities. The claimant denied knowledge of this policy. The record also established that by taking full salary payment from her accumulated sick leave, the claimant’s retirement benefits through the Teachers’ Retirement System would be reduced. Likewise, the record established that the claimant’s access to her accumulated sick leave benefits was the same whether or not the reason for her absence was a workplace injury. Given the fact that the claimant could access her sick leave benefits without regard to the occupational nature of her disability, Tee-Pack clearly applies to the instant matter and prohibits the employer from taking a credit for benefits the claimant received from her accumulated sick leave.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm in its entirety the judgment of the circuit court, confirming the decision of the Commission.