3-3-14; Adjusting/Managing an IL WC Death Claim; Kudos to IWCC Chairman Latz for Presenting/Teaching; The Election is Near, the Primary Election is Here and much more

Synopsis: Adjusting and Managing an IL WC Death Claim.

 

Editor’s comment: If there ever is a claim to ask a KCB&A expert for free legal/claims advice, this would be the time. This standing offer is open to attorneys on both sides, adjusters, risk managers and IWCC employees. In dealing with an IL WC death claim, your biggest problem may be the details and minutiae. Hopefully, your organization does not adjust a high number of death claims, making it critical to quickly acquire the needed rules and guidelines for such claims when the occasional fatality comes across your desk. Guidance in the legislation is in Section 7 of the IL WC Act. If you aren’t crystal-clear about anything related to an IL WC death claim, send an email to ekeefe@keefe-law.com on a 24/7/365 basis and we will get you the needed answers. There are some nuances that make handling such claims a challenge. In our view, you do not want to get death benefits wrong and be accused of being unfair to a widow/widower or orphaned children.

 

As a caveat, please remember there are two aspects of such claims that are different from normal injuries.

 

      First, if someone passes, you almost always have to report to and deal with OSHA. Be sure to investigate, investigate and investigate to be able to fully document everything for our federal investigators.

      Second, when there is a death in the workplace, you may want to assume everyone around the untimely event of the worker’s passing may also make a workers’ compensation claim for the stress involved in the passing. You may want to offer grief counseling to minimize or assist with such concerns.

      Third, there are very high and moderately unusual maximum/minimum weekly rates involved in IL WC death claims. We will explain that in more detail below.

 

These are the steps to follow to complete the investigation and set up the claim protocol.

 

      1. Determine compensability

 

Most of the time, if someone passes in the workplace, you may be looking at a compensable occurrence. If you, as an adjuster, accept the claim, legal fees may be minimal based on the limitations in the IL WC Act. If you controvert the claim and lose, legal fees can be a lot of money and you could also face penalties/fees. Noncompensable death claims typically involve suicide, unforeseen criminal acts, heart attacks (in some settings), illegal drug use or intoxication. If an autopsy was performed, the report should be obtained. Other factors which may affect compensability include the previous health of decedent and complaints prior to death which bear on the cause of death. Remember that widows and orphans make sympathetic witnesses, therefore make sure you document your investigation thoroughly.  

 

      2. Confirm the fact of death for your complete file

 

Obtain the death certificate. Police reports and newspaper articles may be of assistance. Be alert for the possibility of fraudulent or faked death claims. A faked death is a case in which an individual leaves evidence to suggest he or she is dead in order to mislead others. This is done for a variety of reasons, such as to fraudulently collect insurance money or to avoid capture by law enforcement for some other crime. People who fake their own deaths sometimes do so by pretend drownings, because it provides a plausible reason for the absence of a body. We are aware of some countries where they will not provide death benefits if the body is not found because the problem with faked deaths was so prevalent.

 

      3. Locate/identify one valid spouse and any and all dependents

 

A good practice to follow is to issue a questionnaire to all known relatives or take statements to determine not only their status as dependents but also to obtain information regarding other potential dependents. Issues relating to the spouse may arise. First, there may be an issue as to whether a valid marriage existed between the spouse and the decedent. On some occasions, multiple individuals may claim to be married to decedent. Common law marriages are not recognized in Illinois but Illinois might recognize a common law marriage from another state.

 

Obtaining an official marriage certificate(s) is a must. Don’t rely on religious certificates of marriage. A flipside of this issue is whether a valid divorce was entered. Therefore, obtain divorce papers for the deceased and former spouse.

 

Next, obtain the official birth certificates of all minor children. There may be children not living with the deceased who are still entitled to benefits, as well as adopted and unborn children who exist at the time of death. Birth certificates for all individuals claiming to be children are critical.

 

For Plaintiff/Petitioner attorneys, remember you can’t bring the claim in the name of Decedent and such a filing is arguably a nullity. Bring the claim in the name of the surviving spouse. Similarly, children aren’t actually parties to the litigation—they take under the name of their parent, guardian or next friend.

 

4. Determine the death benefit—remember the high minimum and maximum death rates in Illinois

 

Section 8(b) of the Act seems to indicate workers’ compensation benefits are not to exceed the average weekly wage. However, the weekly benefit in death claims is calculated like the TTD benefit (66-2/3% of the employee’s average weekly wage) subject to the maximum TTD benefit and a minimum of one-half the statewide average wage.

 

Paragraph 4.1 of section 8(b) indicates the minimum weekly compensation rate for death cases must not be less than 50% of the state average weekly wage. Thus, the minimum changes as frequently as the maximum TTD rate changes. Total compensation payable for death cases is a minimum of $500,000 or 25 years of death benefits whichever is greater. Please note the $500,000 number is a statutory red herring, as the minimum compensation for a compensable death claim in IL is $651,742.00. The maximum is $1,737,983.00.

 

For the widow(er), Section 7 states the death benefit is payable during the life of the widow(er) until death. If they remarry, and have no children, then they are entitled to a lump sum benefit equal to 2 years of compensation benefits. This lump sum extinguishes their further rights.

 

If the widow(er) has children from the decedent, then even if the widow(er) remarries, benefits are payable until the youngest dependent child reaches the age of 18 or until the widow(er) dies, whichever comes later. A child under 18 at the time of death is eligible to receive benefits for a period of not less than 6 years, and if a child is enrolled as a full-time student, payments continue until the child turns 25. If a child is physically or mentally incapacitated (incapable of engaging in regular and substantial gainful employment), payments must continue for the duration of the incapacity.

 

Children eligible to receive benefits under paragraph (a) are defined as children that the deceased left surviving, including a posthumous child, a legally adopted child, a child whom the deceased was legally obligated to support or a child to whom deceased stood in loco parentis. The Illinois Supreme Court has also held that a moral duty to provide support is recognized. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the total compensation payable for the death benefit is 25 years of benefits, if the surviving spouse survives that long. Parents of the decedent may receive benefits only if they are totally dependent upon the earnings of the decedent. Grandparents, grandchildren or collateral heirs must establish dependency upon the decedent’s earnings to the extent of 50% or more of total dependency to receive 5 years of benefits.

 

      5. What if there is no spouse or children?

 

A more complex issue arises when the decedent leaves no surviving widow(er) or children. In that event, Section 7 provides for a descending order or list of beneficiaries.

 

Dependency must exist at the time of the injury. L.M.&O Motor Co. v. Industrial Commission. It is not necessary to show claimant would have been without means of support; the test with regard to contributions of dependency looks to whether contributions were relied upon by the applicant for their means of living and whether applicant was substantially supported by decedent at the time of the latter’s death. Roseberry v. Industrial Commission.If no widow(er), children or totally dependent parents exist then benefits go to children who would not otherwise take under paragraph Section 7(a) and are in any manner dependent or whose parents are partially dependent upon the earnings of the decedent. These individuals are entitled to 8 years of benefits. Interpretations of clauses of the Act like “in any manner dependent” or “partially dependent” are factual questions and therefore you may need a hearing before the Commission to determine the apportionment. If you have no surviving spouse, children or other dependent relatives, the burial expense may be all that is due.

 

      6. What do you do if a beneficiary dies or later becomes ineligible?

 

Upon the death or ineligibility of any one member of the class of dependents entitled to compensation, the remaining members of the class succeed to the balance of the award and the employer is liable to pay the full amount of the award as long as there are any members of the class entitled to it. Beckemeyer Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission.

 

      7. Burial expense

 

The IL WC burial expense is $8,000. The employer is also obligated for TTD and medical expenses during the life of the decedent, if the latter lived for a period following the accident causing death.

 

      8. Attorney’s fees

 

In an undisputed death claim, attorneys’ fees are only $100.00 by IL law. In a disputed death claim, fees are still limited to 20% of 7 years of benefits unless otherwise approved by the Commission. Death benefits provide some of the most complex legal issues and calculations in Illinois workers’ compensation. Due to the high reserves and potential payout, it is critical to know and understand the rules and details with regard to such claims to be confident that you are accurately paying benefits.

 

There can be lots of other issues. Again, if you have a death claim, we are happy to help; just send an email. We appreciate your thoughts and comments.

 

      -----------------------------------------------

 

Synopsis: Great thoughts from our IWCC Chairman for the IL WC Community.

 

Editor’s comment: We were proud to hear Chairman Michael Latz spoke in an open forum last week in providing what was called the “Chairman’s Update” at the State of Illinois Center. We hope this solid administrator and anyone that may succeed him in the years to come is willing to step before an audience and convey their best thoughts and comments about important legal issues and how the current Commission leadership is dealing with them.

 

Here is our report on the many issues he covered:

 

1.    It has been three years since the 2011 Amendments to the IL WC Act. Chairman Latz pointed out advisory rates have dropped 13.3% in that time along with a 5.8% reduction that just took place on January 1. 2014. Everyone hopes the major IL WC insurers have matching reductions in premium dollars.

 

2.    While we aren’t big fans of the scientific or practical value of the “advisory rate” thing, there is no question Chairman Latz has accurately pointed out WCRI research documents medical prices/reimbursements in Illinois have dropped 24% in the past three years. This savings has to be around $1B for Illinois business, as medical costs are typically the highest overall cost in any workers’ compensation claim. The current administration gets kudos for their hard work in making these solid changes to our law.

 

3.    Chairman Latz indicated there are three pending bills of interest to IL employers

 

a.    HB 4189 sponsored by Rep. Dwight Kay that allows health care providers to file liens on WC claims/awards to insure payment;

b.    HB 5792 which requires employers to file a “statement” regarding termination of an employee covered under the IL WC Act;

c.    HB 3470 that covers controversial issues such as causation, AWW, the Interstate Scaffolding“you-owe-TTD-if-you-fire-a-miscreant-on-light-duty” ruling and the Will County Forest Preserve“shoulder-is-body-as-a-whole” ruling. (The comments in quotes are not thoughts from Chairman Latz but your opinionated and sometimes biased editor).

 

4.    Chairman Latz addressed the interesting question of whether there is an attorney fee cap on wage loss differential benefits based upon the language of Section 16 of the IL WC Act. The IWCC is taking the administrative position there is such a cap. As academicians, we strongly agree with their position.

5.    The question of admissibility of a proposed decision as evidence was analyzed and the Chairman indicated such documents are simply proposals and not binding on either side. Again, we strongly agree with this position.

6.    Our Chairman reviewed the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and Administrative Code about who may appear before a hearing officer and under what circumstances. He also discussed how everyone should comport themselves when at the Commission. We feel every Chairman should always do precisely what Chairman Latz did to emphasize the strong need for appropriate, ethical and professional behavior by all parties. We hope everyone will know and closely adhere to such rules.

7.    Finally, Chairman Latz quoted our 16th President: “Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker the lawyer has superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.”Abraham Lincoln, 1850.

 

We again salute our Chairman and hope he continues to lead in this fashion moving forward. This article was researched and written, in part, by Michael Shanahan, JD. We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

 

            ------------------------------------------

 

Synopsis: Concerns Raised about 12% Interest on Unpaid Medical Bills in IL WC Upon Settlement. What Do You Think is The Optimal Approach to Avoid Further Litigation?

 

Editor’s comment: We are further researching this issue and should have a more detailed analysis next week but we want to let the IL WC business/insurance community know of a new, rising concern about closing claims via settlement. Many IL WC Lump Sum settlement contracts leave the issue of unpaid medical bills moderately unstated. Either Petitioner takes over full liability if the matter was disputed or Respondent agrees to pay reasonable, necessary and related medical bills pursuant to the IL WC Medical Fee Schedule.

 

The issue that we have seen is what about statutory interest on medical bills? The recent amendments to the IL WC Act now make unpaid medical bills subject to a 1% per month interest charge. In our view, interest starts to accrue when coded bills are sent by the medical providers to the payers. Please note a medical bill of $100,000 that isn’t paid timely would add $12,000 per year in statutory interest.

 

We don’t want either side to get sued or see our many KCB&A hospital clients have to sue to collect what may be due. We would appreciate your thoughts and comments about how to have that issue fairly resolved at the time of a lump sum settlement.

 

            --------------------------------------

 

Synopsis: The Election is Near; the Primary Election is Here!

 

Editor’s comment: The March 18, 2014 Illinois statewide primary is upon us. For the Gubernatorial Primary Election, Early Voting will take place March 3 - March 15. No more excuses are needed to vote early—all you have to do is go in and vote. You need only to fill out an application at the  Early Voting site.

 

The biggest and most important contest to affect the workers’ comp system is the race for governor. Governor Pat Quinn is facing a primary challenge from neighborhood organizer Tio Hardiman who is a relatively unknown candidate. If Governor Quinn prevails, we assume things will then start to heat up between him and his Republican opponent as we move to the statewide election this fall. If Governor Quinn is able to win in November, we assume the administration of the IWCC will remain about the same.

 

On the Republican side, the leaders appear to be Bruce Rauner and Kirk Dillard. As you read this, Bruce Rauner holds a 2-to-1 lead over Mr. Dillard with no signs of slowing down. Over the weekend, we heard Evelyn Sanguinetti speak. Evelyn Sanguinetti, is the leading Republican candidate for lieutenant governor and Bruce Rauner’s running mate. Like your editor and our law partners, John Campbell and Shawn Biery, she is an adjunct professor of law at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago.

 

Ms. Sanguinetti is a woman, Hispanic and a Republican who’s not afraid to talk about the need for safety net programs. Her mother was a refugee from Castro’s Cuba who had her at age 15. Evelyn grew up in poverty near Miami, relying on food stamps, free school lunches and the rest. She ended up as a successful and hard-working lawyer who was appointed an Assistant Illinois Attorney General and just recently won a seat on the Wheaton City Council. She says she will go after the state-wide Hispanic vote full throttle. “Most of them are Republicans,” she says, “they just don’t know it.”

 

In our discussions with Ms. Sanguinetti, we are certain she will bring a strong, compassionate and fair focus for the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. She wants injured workers to be treated properly and fairly. She understands the need for prompt coverage and payment of work-related medical bills. She wants Illinois employers, large and small to accommodate injured workers and return them to the workforce whenever possible.

 

In our view, the strongest aspect of the candidacies of Bruce Rauner and Evelyn Sanguinetti is they can’t be bribed. Unlike the last several IL governors, they owe literally nothing to special interest groups. They will do their best to find the top candidates for government agency heads, contractors, counselors and providers for IL taxpayers. We are also confident they will address the biggest problem faced by state government and IL taxpayers—we are paying and owing more money to people that used to work for government than we are paying for current state workers.

 

However you see things, we urge all of our readers, clients and other observers to exercise your franchise and vote.

2-24-14; You Can Fire WC Claimant for Refusal To Drug Test, Analysis by Shawn Biery, JD, MSCC; Adjusting Company Parking Lot Slip Falls in IL WC; Three Most Challenging IL WC Claims and much more

Synopsis: U.S. Employers Can Legally Fire a WC Claimant Who Refused a Required Post-accident Drug Test. Recent Federal Seventh Circuit case confirms it is a non-discriminatory termination even when related in part to a workers’ comp claim/filing. Analysis by Shawn R. Biery, JD, MSCC.

Editor’s Comment: It will be no surprise to most of our clients, readers and others we generally support discipline for violating company policies which would normally result in suspension or termination regardless of whether a WC claim is pending. This rule is effective even if the termination may in some part be due to violation of a policy which was put into play directly due to an otherwise valid WC injury and filing. In Phillips v. Continental Tire The Americas, LLC ,(C.A.7 (Ill.)) , theFederal Seventh Circuit confirmed our advice is still sound where you have a true violation of your enforced company drug-testing policy.

 

This Ruling Has National Impact--It Isn’t Limited to Illinois Law

 

Please note this is not simply an Illinois-only WC/EPLI ruling, because it comes from the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This important decision is binding law on three of the four states where KCB&A provides legal defense—Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. If the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t accept this ruling for further appeal and modify it, the decision will provide guidance for U.S. and federal employers in all the federal appellate circuits across the country.

 

Just the Facts, Ma’am; Just the Facts

 

Continental Tire has a tire manufacturing facility in Mt. Vernon, Illinois. Plaintiff Phillips worked there as a general trucker for twenty-two years until his discharge. The Mt. Vernon facility has a health services department and in April 2010, Phillips visited the health services department to report his fingers went numb at work and to initiate a workers' compensation claim. At the time, Continental Tire had a written substance abuse policy that required drug testing in certain situations including initiation/reporting of a workers' compensation claim. That company policy provided “[r]efusal to submit to testing will be cause for immediate suspension pending termination.” Accordingly, any employee who sought to initiate a workers' compensation claim was required to submit to drug testing or be immediately suspended pending termination, regardless of whether he received treatment or services at the health services department.

 

Plaintiff Phillips was informed he had to submit to a drug test before he could initiate a workers' compensation claim. There is no dispute he was shown the Continental Tire drug testing policy. He also was advised if he didn't take the drug test, his employment would be terminated. Nonetheless, he refused to take the drug test because he didn't think that it should be a necessary consequence of filing a workers' compensation claim. Phillips was terminated from his employment with Continental Tire for refusing to submit to drug testing upon his initiation of a workers' compensation claim per their well-settled and enforced policy.

 

Phillips was well aware of the reason for termination, however he filed a retaliatory discharge claim. However, when asked at his deposition why Continental Tire terminated him, Phillips stated, “Because I didn't submit to a drug test.” And when asked if he was contending Continental Tire fired him because he filed a workers' compensation claim, he answered, “They fired me because I didn't submit to a drug test.” Phillips agreed he had no evidence or information there was a different reason for his discharge. It was his understanding he would still be employed at Continental Tire if he had taken the drug test. Even though he refused to submit to the test, Phillips did file a workers' compensation claim and Continental Tire’s counsel advised the court Phillips eventually received workers' compensation benefits. We checked online and it appears the underlying 2010 WC claim for “hand numbness” was eventually denied by the Arbitrator and Commission in 2013—it is currently pending on remand.

 

Legal Standards for Retaliatory Discharge Claims

 

It is clear Illinois law recognizes a cause of action for retaliatory discharge where an employee is terminated because of his actual or anticipated exercise of workers' compensation rights. To establish a retaliatory discharge claim, a plaintiff must prove:

 

(1)  They were an employee before the injury;

(2)  They exercised a right granted by the Workers' Compensation Act; and

(3)  They were discharged and

(4)  The discharge was causally related to pursuit of a claim under the Workers' Compensation Act.

 

Obviously in this claim, the only issue is whether he was discharged due to the pursuit of his WC claim. It doesn’t appear to be a difficult answer since there was a clear company policy. The Court agreed and noted proving causation “requires more than a discharge in connection with filing a claim.” Marin v. Am. Meat Packing Co. (Ill.App.Ct.1990).

 

The undisputed facts—including the parties' stipulation and Phillips' own deposition testimony—established Continental Tire terminated Phillips because he refused to take a drug test upon initiation of a workers' compensation claim as required by Continental Tire policy. Other facts included:

 

·         Phillips admitted he had no evidence or other information Continental Tire had any other reason for discharging him.

·         Continental Tire consistently has applied its drug testing policy and has discharged other employees who have refused to submit to the drug test pursuant to the policy.

·         Other Continental Tire employees have initiated workers' compensation claims and have not been discharged.

·         Phillips had filed a workers' compensation claim in the past and was not discharged.

·         Phillips agreed if he had taken the drug test, he would still be employed at Continental Tire.

 

Phillips argued the case of Clark v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. (Ill.App.Ct.1998) was applicable due to the language which states: “An employer may discharge an injured employee who has filed a workers' compensation claim as long as the reason for the discharge is wholly unrelated to the employee's claim for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act.”  The Seventh Circuit noted numerous instances where it had been determined “but-for causation” was rejected without facts to establish retaliatory discharge. They also noted Clark was unhelpful to Phillips for another big reason: the employer in that case discharged the employee because it thought her claim for benefits was exaggerated and the employer admitted the discharge was directly for filing the workers' compensation claim.

 

Phillips also argued the U.S. District Court erred in relying on a provision of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, 820 ILCS 305/11, which was not in effect at the time of his injury. This part of the statute is generally known as the “Intoxication provision” which establishes a rebuttable presumption the employee was intoxicated and the intoxication was the proximate cause of the employee's injury if the employee refuses to submit to drug or alcohol testing. The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument as well because, while the Court referred to this provision, its grant of summary judgment to Continental Tire was not premised upon it.

 

Finally, Phillips presented an argument the drug testing policy discourages employees from filing workers' compensation claims—the court simply referred to the provision in the IL WC Act as support for its conclusion there were valid reasons for requiring drug testing upon initiation of a workers' compensation claim and confirmed the enactment of such a provision reflected an employer is not out of step with Illinois public policy by requiring drug testing under certain circumstances. They also noted in opposition to the argument drug testing discouraged claim filings, Plaintiff Phillips was not deterred in filing his work comp claim which was the basis for this suit.

 

The Court also noted the recently enacted Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act provides “[n]othing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from enforcing a policy concerning drug testing ... provided the policy is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.” 410 ILCS 130/50(b) (effective Jan. 1, 2014). And the Illinois Human Rights Act provides “[i]t shall not be a violation of this Act for an employer to adopt or administer reasonable policies ..., including ... drug testing, designed to ensure that an individual described in [the Act] is no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs.” 775 ILCS 5/2–104(C).

 

Teaching Points for HR, Safety and Claims Handlers

 

The Federal Court confirmed an appropriate conclusion--employment was terminated because of Phillips’ refusal to take the mandatory drug test—not in retaliation for his seeking to file a workers' compensation claim. The teaching points to take away from the claim are the same basics Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Associates attorneys espouse every day in practice when we advise our clients and potential clients to:

 

·         Adopt and maintain well documented policies, including a policy prohibiting retaliation

·         Provide training or documentation to employees with regard to policies

·         Do not ignore claims or claimants

·         Consider additional measures consistently such as two strike policies or written warnings

·         Closely review all employment actions

·         Document everything to show the policy is routinely and uniformly implemented

 

In essence, you should consider whether an unbiased observer would think the action was reasonable.

 

Ramp Up Accident-Reporting Protocols to Block Late Reporting

 

Please also consider ramping up your accident reporting protocols—one way for workers to skirt or circumvent drug testing protocols is to wait to report the problem or accident for several days or more. The idea is to avoid a positive drug test due to the passage of time. If an employer requires accident reporting to take place on a “same-shift” or same-day basis or have the employee face discipline leading to discharge, you may be able to insure you get valid drug test results. We do feel this concept would hold up in a retaliatory discharge setting because the basis for discharge isn’t the fact of the accident or injury; it would be due to late reporting.

 

If you want our sample drug-testing protocol to implement in your workplace, send a reply. If you have any questions with regard to employment decisions/litigation or workers’ compensation, please don’t hesitate to contact one of the attorneys at KCBA. This article was researched and written by Shawn R. Biery J.D. MSCC who can be reached at sbiery@keefe-law.com for any questions or insight on your specific situations.

 

                -----------------------------

 

Synopsis: Analysis of Company Parking Lot Slip/Falls Remains an IL WC Dichotomy Between the Rulings in Wal-Mart and Homerding.

 

Editor’s comment: The winter in this part of the country during 2013-2014 has been one for the history books. While a given winter apparently has been worse, we don’t remember more ice, snow, sleet and cold. This winter has temporarily allayed concerns about global warming due to its severity. Most reports across the area indicate this is the 6th worst winter of all time in this Midwest U.S and it still keeps snowing and freezing!

 

We are being asked when a fall-down in a corporate parking lot in all this Illinois ice and snow is compensable. The answer is variable and is highly fact intensive. We are happy to provide a free analysis to any reader who is concerned about covering an unquestioned fall down involving one of your workers. Please understand we are certain to ask some or all of the following questions:

 

      Did you thoroughly investigate the accident?

      Do you have a written accident report, signed by the injured worker?

      Did you have the supervisor or someone in management confirm the report and the presence of a hazard?

      Do you have and did you carefully preserve any surveillance/security video of the event?

      What company or party owns the land or surface upon which the worker was traveling at the time of the fall-down?

      What company or party maintains the land or surface upon which the worker was walking at the time of the fall-down?

      Are the injuries serious?

 

From our perspective, if you have a thorough and complete accident investigation, you have completed two important things for your risk management protocols. First, you have documentation needed to accept or defend the problem. Second, you should have the ability to learn from the work injury/problem and prevent the same issue from recurring in the future. A company parking lot fall-down almost always involves a safety failure by someone in your organization.

 

If you don’t have a thorough and detailed accident investigation, please note the facts may “change” as you get into the claim. In IL, claimants may receive coaching from friends, family and sometimes lawyers about how to best make a claim—you want to prevent that phenomenon if possible with a strong accident review. There is also the unsettling concept where you may have the matter under-reserved and also be in a precarious position, should you decide to aggressively defend a claim that grows from being a minor problem to a major mess. Our advice to all of our readers—“lock in” the facts within the first 24 hours to avoid surprises at a later time.

 

If you have the facts locked in, the next battle is to accurately determine when to accept and pay and when to fight or controvert an accepted company parking lot fall-down claim for one of your workers. The IL Appellate Court set out a relatively simply analysis for how to handle parking lot fall-down claims. In the Wal-Mart v. IWCC ruling, evidence indicated the employer had a parking lot outside the workplace that was completely unregulated, other than for federally required handicapped parking set-aside spots. Basically, everyone could park anywhere they wanted. There were no assigned or prescribed spots for employees, venders, maintenance providers or the public. When someone fell down in such a parking lot, the risk clearly was the same for everyone in the area or a “risk common to the public.”

 

In contrast, in the Homerding v. IWCC decision, the Court reviewed facts where the employee was advised to “park out back” and fell in the area where they were directed to park. The limitation on the areas where an employee was required to park was felt to create an increased risk leading to WC coverage. Following this theory, if you have “employee-only” parking or areas of your facilities where the public, your vendors, maintenance specialists or others are not allowed to go, you are setting up a situation where the risks of ice/snow and slipping are limited to your workers. In such a setting, you probably want to accept the claim and direct your ire at your facilities’ managers for leaving areas you control in a dangerous slippery state.

 

Please also remember many fall-downs aren’t serious. If you are managing a minor strain/sprain situation for a worker, keep the claim minimal by paying for the first OccHealth visit. There is little need to worry about coverages and lawyers and fighting on a medical-only, no-lost-time claim. If the case grows and becomes a major issue, send an email on a 24/7/365 basis to Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Associates for our thoughts on coverage and further handling of the claim.

 

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

 

            --------------------------------------------------

 

Synopsis: The Three “Worst” or Most-Challenging Claims for IL WC Adjusters—Amputations, T&P and Death Claims.

 

Editor’s comment: When we provide training for adjusters, we always like to take a deep breath and confirm there are three types of claims you and your managers have to watch for. The main reason is these claims come with major surprises if you don’t know what has hit your desk.

 

First and probably most common are amputation losses. The reason amputations can be challenging Illinois claims comes from the mildly confusing way in which Illinois has an “amputation rate” versus normal PPD rates. By that we mean, if an adjuster becomes aware of bone loss for an Illinois worker, you have a short window of opportunity, perhaps no more than 30 days to start paying both TTD or temporary total disability and PPD or the amputation rate for the body part lost. If you don’t make the payments, the claim value can increase to include a 50% penalty and a 20% attorney fee under the 2009 IL WC Appellate ruling in Greene Welding & Hardware v. IWCC.

 

What is unusual is a worker who makes $250 per week and smashes a hand and loses their pinky or fifth finger will receive amputation benefits at a rate of $501.34 but the rest of the permanency for the hand at the applicable PPD rate of perhaps $250.00 per week (depending on whether they have a spouse and dependents). The weekly amputation benefit is due as soon as the adjuster is aware of the amputation. The balance of the PPD can be negotiated and pretried and even tried.

 

The same rate issues apply in an IL WC total and permanent disability or death claim. In blunt terms, if a worker making $250 per week is adjudicated to be totally and permanent disabled under any of the three IL WC approaches to lifetime disability, their weekly benefits start at the current minimum of $501.34 per week or $26,069.68 each year. The weekly cap on T&P benefits is $1,336.91 or $69,519.32 per year. Both of those numbers make it crucial for Illinois employers to make strong efforts to bring all injured workers back to work at the earliest opportunity and keep them working. Along with the ADA, every employer should seek to reasonably accommodate return to work efforts at both light and full duty.

 

On death claims, this math creates a minimum for a widow/widower of $26,069.68 each year with a 25-year undiscounted value of $651,742.00. The maximum IL WC death benefit value for 25 years is $1,737,983.00.

 

If you need help on setting reserves or managing a claim involving amputation, total and permanent disability or death, send an email and we will get you the right answers.

             -------------------------------------------------

 

 

Synopsis: Welcome Aboard, Kevin Boyle!

 

Editor’s comment: We are thrilled to add Kevin to head up our Indiana GL/WC defense team. He is a long-time, knowledgeable and veteran defense attorney based in Bloomington, IN and covers the entire state.

 

He is listed on www.linkedin.com and is now on our website. Please consider Kevin at KBoyle@keefe-law.com for your statewide IN defense needs!

 

                ---------------------------------------------

 

Synopsis: This Thursday!! WCRI or the Workers’ Comp Research Institute Stat Rats Document Continued Savings for IL Business in Workers’ Comp—to register, click the link below.

 

Editor’s comment: Please take a look. Everyone in the IL WC matrix hopes these dramatic and documented savings are going to cause IL WC premiums to proportionately drop.

 

New WCRI Publication:

 

The Effect of Reducing the Illinois Fee Schedule

In September 2011, Illinois enacted new legislation that introduced a 30 percent decrease in the fee schedule rates across all types of medical services. Important questions asked by policymakers and others after this fee schedule change are: Did a 30 percent reduction in the fee schedule produce a 30 percent change in the average medical cost of a claim? Was the 30 percent reduction too much or too little? How do the post-reform prices paid in Illinois compare with prices in other states? These important policy questions are addressed in this report.?read the abstract?order this report

 

Webinar - Effect of Reducing the Illinois Fee Schedule

In an effort to address one of the highest fee schedules in the nation, Illinois enacted a 30 percent reduction in their medical fee schedule in 2011. Since then many have wondered about the impact. Join WCRI researchers and co-authors, Dr. Rebecca Yang and Dr. Olesya Fomenko, for an hour-long webinar as they discuss the findings from a recently published study, The Effect of Reducing the Illinois Fee Schedule on Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 1pm ET (12pm CT11am MT, and 10am PT).  Click here to register.

 

2-17-14; State of the IWCC Report from John Campbell; To Dream the Impossible Dream--GOP Primary a Month Away; Top Ten Reasons to Ask for Outside Defense Counsel and more

Synopsis: Move to the Center? IL WC Commission’s Apparent Moderate Turn to the Middle is Refreshing for Illinois Business Community. Will the IL WC Appellate Court follow suit with support of the Commission rulings?

 

Editor’s Comment: It is no secret to veteran readers of this KCB&A newsletter that we have been known to wield a sharp pen over the years when it comes to our critique of the hearing officers of our Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. While perhaps harsh at times, much of our criticism was meant to point out some of the more challenging or arguably absurd awards and rulings, which often appeared to overlook strong evidence for the defense. Ten years ago, during the Reign of Blago, we recall joking about how our defense lawyers were like sheep going to slaughter, with little chance for victory on the business side of this industry.

 

We have to say, in our recent audit of IWCC decisions both internally and those reported over the past 18 months, we are noticing a distinct shift to the center by Arbitrators and Commissioners. For this, we have to applaud what we feel is a more recent “fair and balanced” approach to cases by our adjudicators. In fact, what compelled this article was receipt of four (4) decisions in one day last week which were all denials or otherwise favorable for the defense. Upon review of our trial decisions over the past year or so, we noted a similar trend as well.

 

Sure, on those “close call” issues over proper medical protocol or surgery, we still see administrative deference to treating doctors. And in other disputed matters, some arbitrators often have the difficult job of deciding who the heck is telling the truth and who is full of cow manure–those cases are always a bit of a coin flip. In our view, it is always challenging to try to act as a human “lie detector” and we can’t expect our sworn hearing officers to be any different. In our view, they are carefully listening to everyone and making their best call. We don’t think any WC administrative system can ask for more than that.

 

However, where solid evidence is presented to rebut a claim, such as surveillance video, job videos, pre-existing medical conditions/treatment or eyewitnesses to rebut claims, the current Commission members are taking a hard look at the evidence and where appropriate, dispensing denials on claims that don’t pass the smell test. We also note the Commission is looking more closely at the “repetitive trauma” concept of injuries with a far more quizzical eye than ever before–something we also feel is appropriate, as we have never been convinced “repetitive working” is necessarily an injury worthy of compensation.

 

In our view, this trend promotes the validity and respectability of the Commission as a judicial ruling body. It is good for IL business and good for our industry in general when a sense of even-handedness is felt by both sides of the isle. Moreover, we are noticing the same arbitrators employing use of AMA impairment ratings for the newer injuries and dispensing awards that are discounted off of traditional values, or what some prominent petitioner attorneys have described as a  “haircut” on claim values. Again, this trend is good for Illinois business, particularly as we compete with our sister states for lower WC costs and job growth.

 

As an example, our firm alone has seen the following in the past month or so:

 

  • Zero award for Petitioner seeking TTD and past and prospective medical treatment in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel surgeries. The Arbitrator noted Petitioner would have been exposed to the work for a limited period of time before the asserted symptoms, the variance in job tasks actually performed by Petitioner during that time, and the treating doctor did not offer a causation opinion. He reviewed depositions of doctors involved and found our IME doctor’s opinion more supported by the evidence than that of the initial treating doctor.

 

  • Zero award for Petitioner seeking TTD and past and prospective medical treatment in the form of knee surgery. The Arbitrator indicated Petitioner failed to prove he sustained an accident which arose out of his employment. There was an onset of pain as the day progressed, but no specific incident or trauma. The treating doctor’s opinion was speculation according to Arbitrator.

 

·         Zero award for Petitioner who suffered an undisputed fall with immediate emergency treatment but did not seek follow-up care for five months, eventually requiring total knee replacement.

 

·         Undisputed injury and full return to work resulted in award for cervical fusion at 17.5% MAW after AMA impairment rated case at 10% impairment.

 

·         Zero award where job description demonstrated that field worker for pest control company did not perform “repetitive-enough” tasks to contribute to what became a personal condition causing carpal tunnel.

 

While we would love to portray this chain of defense victories as one experienced by our firm exclusively, our discussions with veteran attorneys on both sides of the bar have confirmed this as an industry-wide trend with a notable shift to the center by the Commission. We even had one veteran Petitioner attorney in central IL tell us that he is hesitant to try any carpal tunnel cases anymore, as he has a stack of recent denials to show for his efforts. In our view, this is a win for ergonomics, safety engineering and common sense.

 

It compels the question, with more denials being handed down, along with the cost savings from the 2011 statutory changes in the form of WC medical fee schedule reductions and AMA impairment ratings, do we  have a Commission that is pro business? While we certainly can’t go that far, we do find the IL Arbitrators and Commissioners to be more objective and careful to weigh the evidence than ever before. Of course, as advocates in an adversarial system, we will always come across decisions that make us want to pull our hair out at the roots—we are sure the other side has similar problems which is the nature of litigation. However, all we can ask for is a fair system where our best arguments are heard and considered objectively. This appears more evident now than in the past decade and we felt it appropriate to tip our hat to the Chairman, Arbitrators and Commissioners for their efforts in this regard.

 

We are not as confident that this trend of the Commission will carry over to the Circuit and Appellate Court. While the Commission may have grown more centrist, we continue to see an Appellate Court that remains more Petitioner oriented with their interpretation of law and facts. We cannot forget it took an appeal to the Supreme Court to win reversal of the Venture-Newberg line of cases which had greatly expanded the “traveling employee” concept. Fortunately, the Supreme Court restored the more traditional interpretation of the law and limited what would have been an avalanche of new claims for virtually all workers driving to and from work each day. For reasons that are unclear, it also seems if the Appellate Court issues a denial, they don’t publish it but “non-publish” it under S.Ct. Rule 23.

 

This repeated use of Rule 23 orders keeps appellate decisions out of public scrutiny and academia but more importantly, this rule also renders the ruling non-precedential, other than in very limited circumstances. In the age of electronic data storage and on-line access to case reporters, we find Rule 23 to be an entirely antiquated concept that should go the way of the dodo  bird. The idea of Rule 23 was to make routine and mundane rulings simple and summary. What could be less mundane and routine than an IL WC Appellate denial? To the extent these “routine” decisions contain significant research, citations to numerous different prior cases and span 20 or more pages in length, it is only appropriate our industry can use them as a guide moving forward.

 

In our view, the last published defense ruling from that panel is Airborne Express v. IWCC where overtime was eliminated from the average weekly wage unless it was determined to be mandatory. It is hard to believe but that published pro-business ruling was way back in 2007. We have certainly experienced success before the Appellate Court since 2007 and we have written about it but are often disappointed the rulings are not published for our future reference.

 

As we outlined with our view of the IWCC above, we are hopeful the Appellate Court, WC Division will also move to the middle, and perhaps as important, regularly publish their detailed and well-researched rulings and help all IL citizens improve the business climate in our state.

 

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

 

                --------------------------------

 

Synopsis: To Dream the Impossible Dream—The People’s Republics of Illinois and Chicago Look Over the Precipice of Massively Higher Taxes As the Republican Primary is a Month Away. What will it mean to workers’ comp??

 

Editor’s comment: As you read this, we see the entire State of Illinois and our nation’s third biggest city are in dire economic straits. Both governments have financial debt exponentially higher than their annual tax income, all due to government pensions. The Impossible Dream is the concept held by our government union bosses that 4-20 years of government service entitles their members to lifetime pay at the cost of Illinois and Chicago taxpayers. In our view, that can’t be done and we are all going to struggle mightily unless and until someone gets the message through the insufferably thick skulls of these union bosses that their model is unsustainable, impracticable, unworkable, hopeless, ridiculous—you pick the adjective.

 

Well, you might ask, didn’t the State of IL reform its government pensions? Well, that is sort of true and sort of not true. They only “reformed” four of the five state pension programs; the Judge’s Retirement System or JRS wasn’t touched and remains shockingly expensive for taxpayers. And the actual government pension reform of the four affected pensions is going to be presented to our IL Supreme Court for their approval or reversal.

 

The person on the point fighting against government pension reform is former Judge Gino L. DiVito. Former Judge DiVito served IL taxpayers as a jurist for 20 years and did a solid job. Your editor appeared before him on several occasions. We are certain he contributed about $200-300K to his pension over the 20 years while working for us. Former Judge DiVito’s annual state government pension is posted online. In 2012, it was $157K per year—this year, it will be about $167K. He will be receiving over $200K per year not to work as a judge in about 6-7 years. In total, by 2012, he had already received $1.8M in total lifetime pension payments—by this year lifetime pension income will be $2.1M. Here is the source of our starting numbers:

 

http://www.taxpayersunitedofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/jrstop100.pdf

 

Former Judge DiVito’s annual pension will continue to go up 3% or about $5,000+ each year on a compounded basis. Gino DiVito is fit as a fiddle; if he lives 20-30 more years, he will receive an additional $5-8M almost all of it from IL taxpayers. That will bring lifetime pension income to $10,000,000!! Please note our view it isn’t actually a “pension” he is receiving—it is “post-government-employment” income. Gino DiVito is still working at a law firm, probably making a reasonable buck and isn’t in any way “retired.” Unlike Social Security payouts, there is no offset for an IL government worker making a lot of money; they still draw their full “pension.”

 

So where do you think the money to translate a $200-300K pension contribution that results in a lifetime payout of $10 million or more comes from? It comes from you and me! The media bafflingly calls the massive pension shortfall “unfunded” which is misleading—what it means is these pensioners are back on our payroll. Gino DiVito and tens of thousands of former Illinois government workers are receiving the majority of their pension income from current tax dollars. The record-high Illinois income tax increase that was supposed to end next year was completely eaten by the current cost of paying folks that no longer work for us.

 

The ironic aspect of what former Judge DiVito is doing is to fight before the IL Supreme Court to enforce the “pension clause” or what we call the “stick-it-to-taxpayers-clause” which he will argue won’t allow other government employees’ pensions to be trimmed to make financial sense of what is happening. If he wins, we ask the obvious question: “Then What?” If Gino DiVito is successful in that effort, the state government pension deficit by that time will probably be close to $110B and will continue to exponentially escalate. It goes up every day of every year at a rate of about $17M per day and that amount is going to keep spiraling. We have already seen IL Speaker Mike Madigan write a letter to ask Illinois public gov’t union leaders to do something about these issues and he was roundly ignored. Gino DiVito is leading the charge to fight his proffered reforms. In the last ten days, IL Senate President Cullerton openly asked the Chicago Teachers Union to see the math and problems the city is facing with their pension disaster. CTU President Karen Lewis just openly confirmed she could care less and further reiterated the union she leads is ready to fight any change with all their money, PR and power. Trust us, the State and City of Chicago are rapidly approaching the day where they aren’t going to be able to keep borrowing and issuing bonds to pay these rocketing pension costs—the government union leaders aren’t saying so but simple math indicates potentially massive tax increases are on the horizon. The worst week for taxpayers in IL history may be the week after the November gubernatorial election because that is when they will pass all the new taxes in Springfield.

 

What does it mean to workers’ comp? We only see one Republican candidate Bruce Rauner who is aware of this shocking math and appears to be concerned about it. Government union leaders are shockingly investing about $1M to attack him in the primary. We are sure incumbent Governor Quinn knows the challenges but he apparently is sitting on the sidelines to see if the state pension reforms he signed will pass muster before the IL Supreme Court. Governor Quinn has accepted millions and millions from the same government union leaders who are contradictorily fighting his pension reforms—the unions want to keep the Impossible Dream of lifetime pay from the taxpayers for 4-20 years of work and minimal pension contributions alive. If Bruce Rauner wins the Republican primary on March 18, he doesn’t owe anything to the government unions and will hopefully have the ear of the taxpayers and voters about the need for dramatic government pension reforms, like implementing a 401K that most businesses have.

 

The winner of this epic battle gets almost complete control of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. Watch this space for further news as the election unfolds. We appreciate your thoughts and comments.

 

            ---------------------------------------------

 

Synopsis: Top Ten Reasons to Hire Outside Defense Counsel versus the In-House Attorneys offered by your Insurance Company.

 

Editor’s comment: We were asked by a reader and wanted to give you our thoughts.

 

Top Ten reasons to consider using Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Associates as your defense team versus in-house counsel:

 

1.            Responsiveness to the client—outside counsel reports to the client and the adjuster; in-house counsel reports to the adjuster first;

2.            We want to get things right--If the adjuster makes a clerical error, oversight or is inaccurate in reserves, judgment or handling, we will quietly tell both you and the adjuster and work out issues. In our view, an in-house attorney would never challenge an adjuster. They simply don’t question or challenge their co-employee’s decision;

3.            Hourly rates are lower—lots of folks are surprised by this one. In many claims, outside defense counsels hourly rates are almost always lower—if they aren’t, we can lower them. Some observers are amazed to learn of the high billing rates of in-house counsels. You also need to keep asking them for their hourly rates because, in our experience, they don’t always notify you about a rate increase;

4.            Expertise—it is our view our expertise is much higher, as our law professors teach in-house attorneys;

5.            Aggressive handling--we are typically much, much more aggressive in trying claims and getting them favorably settled.

6.            Global legal issues are covered for our clients—in-house counsels will rarely, if ever get involved in release/resignations, countersuing a claimant or WC fraud. In-house counsels typically have a “mono-focus” of handling workers comp defense only. An outside defense firm can and will handle any legal issue you ask us to handle and we do with similarly discounted rates over the industry.

7.            Knowledge of new and breaking legal developments--we watch changes in the law and IWCC like hawks and report it to several thousand readers every week. House counsels learn of changes from courthouse coffee breaks or lunchroom gossip—or from our KCB&A updates!.

8.            Free legal stuff--we provide free research, advice and analysis of non-litigated claims including death claims, amputations and catastrophic losses—you don’t have to assign us a file to ask us questions via email/phone or conference. We consider it a rare setting in which a house counsel would be asked to participate in a call or answer a question about a non-litigated claim.

9.            Responsiveness--while it sounds unusual, we would always want an attorney we can fire—if you aren’t happy with handling by a house counsel, it is a challenge to get them off your files. As outside counsel, we work hard to avoid making a client unhappy.

10.         Winner, winner, chicken dinner—the defense team from KCB&A wins lots of cases—if you want a list of our successes, let us know. Last week was one of the most successful weeks in terms of wins per recent cases tried with five clean wins out of five cases tried—see above.

 

In our experience, if you want an outside attorney, be sure to ask your broker or the adjuster. Usually they will want to keep you happy since it is your money.

 

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

 

            --------------------------------------------

 

Synopsis: Welcome Aboard, Kevin Boyle!

 

Editor’s comment: We are thrilled to add Kevin to head up our Indiana GL/WC defense team. He is a long-time, knowledgeable and veteran defense attorney based in Bloomington, IN.

 

He is listed on www.linkedin.com and we will add him to our website shortly. Please consider Kevin for your statewide IN defense needs!

 

                ---------------------------------------------

 

Synopsis: WCRI or the Workers’ Comp Research Institute Stat Rats Document Continued Savings for IL Business in Workers’ Comp.

 

Editor’s comment: Please take a look. Everyone in the IL WC matrix hopes these dramatic and documented savings are going to cause IL WC premiums to proportionately drop.

 

New WCRI Publication:

 

The Effect of Reducing the Illinois Fee Schedule

In September 2011, Illinois enacted new legislation that introduced a 30 percent decrease in the fee schedule rates across all types of medical services. Important questions asked by policymakers and others after this fee schedule change are: Did a 30 percent reduction in the fee schedule produce a 30 percent change in the average medical cost of a claim? Was the 30 percent reduction too much or too little? How do the post-reform prices paid in Illinois compare with prices in other states? These important policy questions are addressed in this report.?read the abstract?order this report

 

This is their webinar scheduled in ten days:

 

Webinar - Effect of Reducing the Illinois Fee Schedule

In an effort to address one of the highest fee schedules in the nation, Illinois enacted a 30 percent reduction in their medical fee schedule in 2011. Since then many have wondered about the impact. Join WCRI researchers and co-authors, Dr. Rebecca Yang and Dr. Olesya Fomenko, for an hour-long webinar as they discuss the findings from a recently published study, The Effect of Reducing the Illinois Fee Schedule on Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 1pm ET (12pm CT11am MT, and 10am PT).  Click here to register.