The Industrial Commission (Commission) awarded the claimant, Steven Bunnow, temporarytotal disability (TTD) benefits and medical expenses in connection with his application foradjustment of claim under the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West1996)). The Commission also ordered the payment of attorney fees and penalties pursuant tosections 16 and 19 of the Act (820 ILCS 305/16, 19 (West 1996)) , respectively, for the under-payment of TTD benefits. The circuit court of Cook County confirmed the Commission's decision. The claimant has appealed, arguing that he is also entitled to an award of attorney fees and penaltiesfor the non-payment of medical expenses. For the following reasons, we vacate the order of thecircuit court, confirm in part and set aside in part the Commission's decision, and remand the caseto the Commission with directions.

On December 2, 1996, the claimant was involved in an accident while driving a tractorowned by Champion Trucking (Champion) and hauling a trailer owned by Chicago SuburbanExpress (Suburban). The claimant's truck jack-knifed, fell on its side, slid into a concrete bridge,and burst into flames. It is uncontested that the claimant suffered severe injuries as a result of theaccident, for which he has required extensive medical treatment.

On March 4, 1997, the claimant filed an amended application for adjustment of claim underthe Act, naming both Champion and Suburban as his employers. On September 12, 1997, theclaimant filed a petition seeking the payment of penalties and attorney fees for the under-paymentof TTD benefits and the non-payment of medical bills.

On January 23, 1998, an arbitrator conducted a hearing at which evidence establishing thefollowing facts was introduced.

In December 1996, in addition to his full-time job, the claimant worked part-time driving asemi-truck for Champion, a cartage company located in Fredonia, Wisconsin. Champion hired theclaimant in June or July 1995, after he responded to an advertisement in the newspaper for a linehaul driver. The claimant worked two days per week for Champion hauling freight betweenFredonia and Chicago, where he would deliver the freight to Suburban, which is also a cartagecompany. The claimant testified that, when he reported to work at Champion, he would get "thepapers" for the load he would be hauling from Jennifer Moegenburg, Champion's vice-president. According to the claimant, he would then do a safety inspection on his truck, make sure the truckwas properly placarded, and drive to Suburban, which he described as a "warehouse transfer point." When the claimant arrived at Suburban, he would back his truck up to the warehouse or dockingarea, unhook the trailer, and give his papers to Suburban's dispatcher. According to the claimant,the dispatcher would give him the papers for his return load. The claimant would then check tomake sure the truck was properly placarded, rehook the trailer, do a safety inspection, and drive backto Champion in Fredonia.

The claimant testified that it was always his understanding that Champion was his employer. Champion issued his weekly paychecks and withheld sums for the payment of taxes and socialsecurity. The claimant stated that, if Suburban gave him instructions regarding special handling offreight, he would comply with those instructions; although, he further testified that he had onlyreceived such special instructions from Suburban once, when he was told not to let a load whichcontained liquid freeze. According to the claimant, it was his understanding that Suburban'semployees wanted his truck at their facility by 10 p.m. so they could unload it before the end of theirshift. It was also the claimant's understanding that Suburban had the authority to fire him if he weredriving recklessly, arrived at its facility intoxicated, or "was crummy" at his job. The claimantfurther testified that the manifest and bills of lading for the loads he carried contained Suburban'sname.

According to the claimant, the accident at issue occurred around 11:30 p.m. on December2, 1996, as he was driving from Chicago back to Fredonia. As no party contests the extent of theclaimant's injuries or the fact that they arose from the accident in question, we will not recount theinjuries he sustained or medical services he received.

The claimant testified that, since the date of the accident, he had been receiving $224 perweek from Milwaukee Insurance. However, none of his medical bills had been paid. According tothe claimant, he receives three letters in the mail per day regarding overdue medical bills, hasstopped answering his telephone due to calls from creditors, and has received counseling to deal with financial pressures. The claimant further testified that his doctors had recommended variousadditional surgeries. One surgery in particular had been scheduled for the week of his depositionbut was rescheduled because the doctors would not perform the surgery without guarantee ofpayment.

Champion's vice-president, Jennifer Moegenburg, testified that Champion had entered intoa business relationship with Suburban about 10 years prior, although the two companies had nowritten contract. According to Moegenburg, Champion's services were initially limited to pickingup freight which Suburban drivers had delivered to Milwaukee and delivering it to local Suburbancustomers. About three years into the business relationship, though, Suburban asked Champion toalso start doing line hauls to Chicago.

The evidence established that Champion used its own tractor for the line hauls but that thetrailers it hauled were owned by Suburban. Champion was paid a flat line haul fee of $250 per loadplus 25% of the total revenue of each load its drivers hauled. Champion paid for the fuel used andtolls incurred. Champion did not have its own authority to haul freight in Illinois. Consequently,Champion and Suburban entered into an equipment lease which provided in pertinent part asfollows:

"Representations of Parties. Lessor [Suburban] represents that it is the owner of theequipment and has the authority to enter into this lease; that it gives the equipmentover to the exclusive use, direction and control of Lessee [Champion] during periodswhen the equipment is operated by or for Lessee; and that it will cooperate fully withLessee in complying with applicable statutes and regulations. Lessee represents thatit is familiar with and will comply with all statutes and regulations, state and federal,regarding safety or otherwise."

The lease also provided that "this lease is subject to the provisions of the Illinois CommercialTransportation Law, as well as other provisions of the Illinois Vehicle Code, and regulations adoptedthereunder. ICC lease regulations are published in 92 Ill. Adm. Code 1360". Section 1360.40 b ofTitle 92 of the Illinois Administrative Code provides that:

"The lessee shall have exclusive possession and control of leased equipment duringall periods when the equipment is operated under the lease. Such exclusivepossession and control shall extend also to the drivers of leased equipment." 92 Ill.Adm. Code