6-18-12; Do Illinois Employers Owe Mileage to Medical Care or Light Work Under Our Law?

We keep getting asked over and over and here are some thoughts on this legal subject. It is our reasoned legal opinion Illinois employers do not owe mileage expense incurred by injured workers for non-emergency medical care or to attend work where restrictions are recommended. The reasons for this legal position are simple—those benefits aren’t included in the IL WC Act or Rules.

In stark contrast, when an Illinois injured worker is asked to attend an independent medical examination or IME, they are to receive mileage, meals and time lost from work. Section 12 of the IL WC Act requires it. In our view, this means the Illinois legislature considered the situation and clearly addressed it. To the extent the Illinois legislature could have addressed mileage expense either before or after attending a routine medical appointment, surgery or post-surgical physical therapy and didn’t, we have to assume the mileage concept was or should have been considered and wasn’t.

We have also told law students the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission is sort of like a Coca-Cola® machine. You put in money and you get only Coca-Cola® products—you can’t get a hot dog or a coffee from a Coca-Cola® dispensing machine. Similarly, the IWCC can only “dispense” what the law allows them to dispense or give to injured workers. The law does not provide for mileage expense to non-emergency medical care or physical therapy. The Act and Rules do not provide for mileage expense to attend light work. Therefore, if the Commission and/or reviewing courts order it, in our view, they are acting outside the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions—they are telling Illinois employers to pay for something our legislature doesn’t require them to pay.

The ace claimant lawyers who will read this article may quickly point to the 1991 ruling by our IL Appellate Court in General Tire and Rubber vs. Industrial Commission decision to assert that ruling says Illinois employers/TPA’s/insurance carriers have to pay mileage to medical care in this state. With respect to the members of the Illinois Appellate Court who issued that ruling, we assert the ruling is illogical at best and baffling at worst. If you carefully read their ruling, what the Court found was the determination by the then-named Industrial Commission to award a claimant mileage to treating medical care was “within the manifest weight of the evidence.” Some lawyers also tell adjusters they have to pay this benefit if it is “reasonable.” In our view, “reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder.

Based on that theory, the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission could award every claimant a Ferrari® or a trip to Paris. The right hearing officer could find a nice car or a short trip to be “reasonable.” If the IWCC awarded it, the Appellate Court could find such a determination to be “within the evidence.” Again, that makes little to no sense to us. We didn’t handle the General Tire and Rubber defense in the claim above. We don’t agree with how they were defended. We assure everyone if the issue came up again, we would immediately raise constitutional challenges to such an award.

Illinois business is required to pay whatever the legislature says is owed under our law. The “source of law” that creates those requirements are the IL WC Act and Rules. They don’t require Illinois business to make such payments when the payments aren’t defined or owed under the law. We assure our readers the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions protect the rights of Illinois business for its property—it cannot be taken without due process and equal protection. So unless and until the law is changed by our legislature, we advise our clients not to pay or reimburse mileage expense to non-emergent medical providers or to attend medically restricted work.

We have had clients ask us if they can take care of an injured worker and offer to get them to or from medical care. We have also been asked if employers can reimburse mileage expense for an injured worker to minimize controversy and/or the potential for litigation. The answer to that question is easy—you can pay an injured worker anything you want. You can bring them cookies, cakes and ice cream while they are recovering from an injury. It isn’t against the law to be nice and nicer. That said, remember you aren’t required by law to be nice and go the extra mile. If you do so, that is your call to best manage your work force. As lawyers, our goal is to tell you what you have to pay an injured worker under the law.

The other side of this issue is the cost of an ambulance for a suddenly injured worker or someone in distress due to a work-related injury. Emergency medical travel, like being moved by helicopter or ambulance from a local hospital to a specialty hospital or clinic for perhaps a burn or gunshot unit is part and parcel of medical care. We feel such travel is covered under Section 8(a) of the Act. If you aren’t sure of the difference between emergency care and normal care for everyday office visits, send a reply and we will give you our best thoughts and research, as we always do.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please feel free to post them on our award-winning blog.

6-18-12; Is there an IL WC Arbitrator Shell-Game Afoot?

We note there are a number of IL WC Arbitrators whose reappointments out currently out in political limbo. They are veteran, knowledgeable and hard-working hearing officers who are being unfairly hung out to dry by the political powers-that-be. The reappointments are coming up on July 1, 2012 which, by our count, is less than two weeks from today. As a WC news outlet, we feel it comical to see how little anyone is telling the media about the status of these folks. We truly dislike the “secret squirrels” who continue to run Illinois state government and hope some day the process opens up.

We were aware the Illinois Auditor General’s scathing report castigated our leaders for not asking anyone for evaluations of the Arbitrators. Bingo!!—all of a sudden, lots of requests for Arbitrator evaluations were sent out. What they did with them is anyone’s guess.

Our sources tell us the Illinois WC Commission recently took a vote about reappointments. Yes, folks, they might sometimes vote on stuff. Separate sources confirm they agreed to reappoint all of the sitting Arbitrators-on-the-bubble. We can’t independently confirm the vote from the IWCC website with minutes of a meeting. Basically, it was rumors and hearsay so we don’t know if it happened and got buried or if it didn’t happen and we were erroneously advised.

If it happened or as fast as that might have happened, our plucky Governor got involved. Late last month, he obviously got in the face of the Senate/House leaders and demanded more input. We are then sure both chambers of the Illinois legislature passed a law that gives complete control of the process to the Governor. House Bill 1084 requires the Governor appoint and reappoint all IWCC arbitrators with the advice and consent of the Senate. Currently, the Governor makes the initial appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate but all final appointments and/or reappointments thereafter are made by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. House Bill 1084 quickly passed both chambers and was sent to the Governor for signature on Friday, June 15, 2012.

What does all of this mean? As Commission-watchers, we aren’t confident there will be a parade to hail the reappointment of our veteran hearing officers. Instead, we assume the supposed-reformer Governor may do what he always seems to do, fire a bunch of veteran administrators without any true reason other than to claim he is reforming something. He will then appoint and reappoint his trusted buddies to the positions for which they have little to no experience or background. In his mind, that is progress. We hope that doesn’t happen to make the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission even more liberal and pro-labor than it is today.

If the Governor wasn’t going to make random and unexpected changes, why waste the time of our busy legislators who did a few good things in Springfield at the end of last month but still left the state gushing red ink all over its vendors and taxpayers? We can only watch and wait from the sidelines because there is little to no “sunshine” in the clandestine bowels of Illinois government. We will continue to post any news we hear—if you hear anything definite that we can report, please send us an email.

6-11-12;Risk/liability is All Around Us—Risk managers need to take a look at your trees

Ouch, this one is tough to read. Claimant received more than $4.5 million dollars from injuries caused by an otherwise outwardly healthy tree that fell in high wind. What do you have to do when any tree or even a branch falls at a country club, park, golf course or your commercial property?

In Stackhouse v. Royce Realty and Management, 2012 IL App (1st) 110602, issued June 4, 2012, Plaintiff was severely injured when a large cottonwood tree on country club property, close to a cart path, collapsed and fell on her, as she was walking on a path next to golf course.

The jury provided a $4.5+ million dollar verdict for Plaintiff, finding Defendant country club and its management company equally responsible. The Appellate Court ruled Defendant should have had knowledge of dangerous condition because claimant advised an earlier tree had fallen due to a hidden condition—the otherwise outwardly normal tree was internally rotten. The tree causing injury was in the same area and Defendant therefore had a duty to investigate all surrounding trees to see if they were also rotten.

The Court ruled a reasonable person in the position of the golf course superintendent's position should have known this tree was also possibly rotten or diseased and thus posed danger of falling, and it was reasonably foreseeable that tree could fall and harm someone.

We truly consider this ruling to make liability for such tree-falling injuries global. We are sure anyone struck by a tree may now remember talking to someone on the property about other trees falling in the area.

The Courts’ members indicate they aren’t doing this and maintain the limitation that a property owner isn’t responsible for injuries due to natural conditions—we feel the fungus that felled both trees is a natural condition. Our friends who are arborists are appalled to see mega-liability arising from every falling branch without leaves on it.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please do not hesitate to post them on our award-winning blog.