8-10-2015; Can IL WC Reforms Sought By New Governor Rauner Break the Budget Deadlock?; Will Obamacare Influence Workers Compensation?; Will “Killer-Math” of Gov’t Pensions Kill Illinois? and much more

Synopsis: All Eyes Turn to Springfield--Can IL Work Comp Reform Agreement Break the Deadlock?

 

Editor’s comment: Our Governor is keeping the state on the “verge” of disaster to try to force the other side to make progress in lots of pro-business areas. Most media sources indicate the State of Illinois financial and budgetary situation remains a mess with Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, and House Speaker Mike Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton, Chicago Democrats battling over the state budget with a deadlock that has left Illinois without a spending plan since June 30. Last week, it was reported Madigan, Rauner and Cullerton indicated workers’ compensation reform was a legislative area where compromise was possible. We consider the following to be important developments for our IL WC readers to follow closely. It seems to us the two sides remain fairly distant, as you will read.

 

Governor Rauner sent a five-page letter to the General Assembly, thanking legislators for their willingness to potentially compromise on proposed reforms to workers’ compensation laws, outlining areas of agreement, disagreement and issues to discuss. In response, the IL State Senate elected not to act on House Bill 1287. We felt HB 1287 was and is a kooky bill passed by the IL House of Representatives on June 4 that included a provision to prohibit insurers from charging "excessive rates." As we reported when we saw this bill in June 2015, we consider this legislative effort counterproductive to the important progress made in cutting workers’ comp costs and litigation.

 

In response to Governor Rauner’s letter, the IL Senate approved its own version of workers' comp reform, SB 162, which included some of the ideas contained in Rauner’s memo and missed on others. After Senate passage, the next day the IL House referred it to its Rules Committee where it currently sits. This new IL Senate bill contains a definition of causation Governor Rauner finds objectionable, but creates a WEAR or Workers' Compensation Edit, Alignment and Reform Commission to further review existing laws. As we have advised our readers, the role of the WEAR Commission is identical to that of the existing Illinois Workers’ Comp Commission that already has ten members. There are already lots of advisory panels for the IWCC—do we really need a sixth/seventh blue ribbon WC panel so our legislators feel like they have done something?

 

SB 162 also moves the IL Workers’ Compensation Fraud Unit from the do-nothing IL Department of Insurance to the IWCC. A recent media report indicated the IL WC system had six convictions in a year where other states our size get that many WC fraud convictions in a month. We agree something needs to be done to actually have WC fraud investigations occur and mean something to this industry.

 

What Important Things are Changed In SB 162?

 

Traveling Employee WC Coverage Expanded--the prior limitation or proposed reform of the concept of “traveling employees” is not limited at all but greatly expanded to cover most activities when an employee “travels away from the employer’s premises.” Basically, anything a worker in transit does is going to be fully covered under Illinois workers’ comp with dramatically higher costs. Police officers, firefighters, truckers, bus drivers, garbage handlers, anyone who works behind the wheel of a vehicle would now be wholly covered all day for anything they might “reasonably” be expected to do or mis-do. We urge our leaders to jettison this massive expansion of workers’ comp benefits that is confusing, contradictory and unneeded. If an accident doesn’t arise out of and occur in the course of employ, it shouldn’t be covered—this legislation completely contradicts that basic concept and greatly, almost wildly expands WC coverage. If you don’t understand how and why, send a reply.

 

The Proposed 30% IL WC Medical Fee Schedule Cuts are Dropped In this New Senate Bill--What our physician, hospital and healthcare givers among our readership may note is the proposed deep cuts to the IL WC Medical Fee Schedule have been redacted, dropped and omitted. As Dr. David Fletcher of SafeWorks Illinois and others have noted, these changes might have resulted in healthcare givers turning down work comp patients, as WC care comes with more required documentation and the higher charges for such care allow healthcare providers to make up the difference. As you may read below, Governor Rauner hasn’t given up trying to get these cuts into place.

 

Whether successful compromise effort on workers’ compensation reform can break the IL budget stalemate or not is challenging to predict. Gov. Rauner said he supports a spending plan that includes a moderate tax increase if Democrats agree to a list of to-do items, including workers’ compensation reform. A related concern is whether SB 162 is “enough”—have IL State Democrats handed our Governor a workers' comp reform bill he feels is bona fide and worth ending the battle?

 

Jay Dee Shattuck, a lobbyist for the Illinois Chamber of Commerce is quoted as confirming our view rising IL workers’ compensation benefits could cause Illinois to lose business to neighboring states. Jay feels legislative compromise could help, but he does not like either bill. He is quoted as saying “(HB) 1287 is a terrible bill and (SB) 162 is a bad bill”. “They both drive up the costs of doing business in the state." The defense attorneys at KCB&A wholeheartedly agree with this knowledgeable leader.

 

Other issues Gov. Rauner told lawmakers he was willing to discuss or has to have included are the use of electronic billing records, limited coverage for injuries to employees incurred while traveling for work, reducing medical fees for specialties like surgery whose permitted fees far exceed Medicare costs, a proposal for an ombudsman to help guide people through the IL WC process, more prompt payment for medical expenses and use of AMA guidelines when determining impairment. In contrast to SB 162, Governor Rauner wants to limit the “traveling employee” concept “The travel must be necessary for the performance of job duties and the employee must receive reimbursement for the travel,” Gov. Rauner said in his letter. "We are seeking to clarify that injuries sustained while traveling to or from work and injuries that occur while running a personal errand or on break are not compensable.” We strongly agree with our new Governor’s approach to the ‘traveling employee” concept.

 

Gov. Rauner continues to seek a reduction of allowable fees for medical specialties that are substantially higher than the payment allowed under Medicare. He has backed off from an earlier suggestion to cut medical fees by another 30% across the board. Medical rates were already cut by 30% in the 2011 reform legislation. “Surgery costs are the most egregious WC fee schedule abuses, with rates 300% to 400% above Medicare rates and 100% to 200% above group health rates,” Rauner said in his letter.

 

We will continue to watch and report what is happening in our State Capitol. We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please feel free to post them on our award-winning blog.

 

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

 

Synopsis: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA--Will Obamacare Influence Workers Compensation?

 

Editor’s comment: John Campbell and Gene Keefe will be criss-crossing Illinois this week presenting to various audiences about the PPACA. If you have interest in such a presentation for your company or local industry or business group at a future time, send a reply.

 

We note the blog of Joe Paduda called Managed Care Matters accurately points out Obamacare appears to be embedded in our country with minimal debate or movement to dramatically change it among the Republican party leaders on the topic:

 

[D]uring the GOP Presidential candidate debate last week, there were fewer mentions of Obamacare than there were candidates on stage. Over the two hour debate, the biggest change to the American health care system in fifty years was mentioned 8 times. Abortion, Planned Parenthood, ISIS, immigration, Mexico, Russia all garnered more time than health reform. If there was any doubt whether the Affordable Care Act is here to stay, the lack of attention paid to PPACA by the moderators and candidates should lay that to rest.  That’s not to say all is bright and cheery in health reform land; rates are going up (albeit at much lower rates than predicted); there are still millions of Americans without coverage; and the wrenching changes in our health care delivery system (some – but by no means all – resulting from PPACA) are being felt far and wide. While almost all of the 17 GOP candidates have positions on health care, health reform, and PPACA, health care reform is no longer an issue worthy of debate.

 

Perhaps the most telling evidence that PPACA is here to stay is this: Sen. Marco Rubio purchased health insurance thru the D.C. Exchange (and took advantage of a $10k federal subsidy), a decision that seems stunning but wasn’t worthy of mention by any of the moderators or fellow candidates.

 

What does this mean for you? PPACA is here to stay. See more at: http://www.joepaduda.com/#sthash.NrRtE9yC.dpuf

 

In our view, all WC participants need to have a basic understanding of the PPACA to get an idea how it may change your jobs and goals. Please remember Obamacare for some workers has moderate to high deductibles with some subsidies. We still feel most U.S. citizens aspire to 100% on-demand coverage of all conceivable medical care and prescription drugs—that model isn’t going to work indefinitely. One has to wonder if deductibles will ever come to the workers’ comp arena to try to make the injured worker join, even minimally, in the cost or cost-effectiveness of their extended medical care.

 

We note the WCRI or the stat-rats at the Workers Compensation Research Institute are closely watching the development and implementation of the PPACA and how it is going to influence all U.S. workers’ comp programs. Obviously, the expanded access to group healthcare with substantial government subsidies is going to be felt as the years roll on. In line with the WCRI’s ongoing analysis of the PPACA and its impact on workers’ compensation systems throughout the United States, everyone in our industry will be watching for cost shifting of medical care to workers’ comp insurers from private and public group health insurers.

 

Certainty of healthcare coverage for lots more folks under Obamacare should prevent questionable or fraudulent workers comp claims from being “created” and/or filed with a goal of insuring full coverage of medical care under workers’ comp.

 

Some national commentators have speculated because PPACA promotes an increase in technology such as wearable monitoring devices, telehealth Google Glass, 3-D printing, internet connected sensors, robotic devices and other additional technological advancements. Workers’ comp insurers and TPA’s who have been slow to sign off on healthcare technology may be amenable to doing so if such innovations lower the overall cost of work-related treatment. There is a defined variance in state laws with respect to introduction of healthcare technology solutions. National research indicates forty-three states and the District of Columbia do provide Medicaid reimbursement for telehealth services.

 

There is no question PPACA has very limited WC references in the entirety of the PPACA—if you look carefully, there are only two specific references to work compensation in the PPACA. The first reference is found in Section 2401, which deals with providers of home and community based attendant services. The second reference is where the federal legislature seeks guidance with respect to how the Social Security Act applies to automobile and work compensation healthcare cases.

 

Most commentators feel the PPACA is still way too new to truly analyze how heavily it will influence workers’ compensation claims in the United States. As more studies are published, if they demonstrate more people get more access to better health coverage under the PPACA, workers’ compensation claims and costs of medical treatment associated with claims may go down.

 

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

 

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

 

Synopsis: Will “Killer-Math” of Gov’t Pensions Kill Illinois?

 

Editor’s comment: We saw an amazing article in Crain’s Chicago Business from the legendary Dave McKinney titled—The Illinois Pension Disaster, What Went Wrong? Take a look http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/pensions

 

We don’t mean to unfairly criticize Mr. McKinney but we hate the term "unfunded pensions" because it sounds to our readers like there are no "funds" to pay the retirees. To the contrary, IL government fake pensions are "back-funded" because we end up waiting until after the worker is no longer working to find all the money needed to pay their fake pensions via borrowing or new taxes. The “back-funding” of government fake pensions is why we call them fake—most folks think of a “pension” as being front-funded. The “back-funded” monies are eventually paid by taxpayers to gov’t retirees years and decades after retirement because there isn't nearly enough money set-aside up front to cover their retirement needs.

 

We feel Illinois is the land of the “government-double-salary”—one job with a salary while a gov’t worker is working for us; one salary with giant increases outlined below after they have stopped working in government but were vested in the fake gov’t pension program. We know at least three friends in their early 60’s who are basically on the dole because of limited government service but they and thousands more like them will be paid by you and me for the rest of their lives with annual 3% fake pension raises.

 

Please note what we consider simple and immutable “killer-math” that isn’t going to truly allow Illinois to recover with the current fake gov’t pension programs in place. Unlike many states where pensions are at 60% of the highest salary, most IL gov’t retirees start at 85% of their highest salary with 3% compounded annual increases. Do the killer-math with us for a second in your mind—after one year, they are making 88% of their highest gov’t salary, in the second year, they are at about 91%, third year 95%, then 99%.

 

Please don’t stop there—math is math, folks. At about their 23d year out, at 3% compounded increases, they will have doubled their initial annual pension. Around the 37th year, their post-employment pension payments will have tripled and continue to rise. Don’t trust us, you can do the calculations here: http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm

 

Ballotpedia indicates there are over 962,000 folks currently in IL government fake pensions programs. They indicate our state has 656 fake government pension plans. This growing problem is causing businesses and individuals to leave the state in droves because I/we don’t want to owe government workers these fake pension benefits for the rest of their lives. http://ballotpedia.org/Public_pensions_in_Illinois

 

Please also note there are thousands of participants that are double- and triple-dipping to have two or three or more fake pensions, so their doubled fake pension income is going up 6% each year.

 

We repeatedly point out you can’t and shouldn’t blame participants. They didn’t cause or contribute to the disaster. But there remains lots of uncertainty for participants that is unfair to them—they are paying what they were told to pay and no one knows what may happen with the money runs out—the Chicago Tribune made this chilling point about City of Chicago fake pensions in their editorial column today. We hope the participants start to understand killer-math in gov’t fake pensions and reach out to their legislators and Governor along with the rest of us. We need a united front to make sense of these issues moving forward.


In the similar vein, the so-called "pension clause" in the IL Constitution is a "protect-government-retirees-from-legislators-and-the-Governor-at-the-expense-of-taxpayers" clause. Understanding you probably can’t change existing pension benefits, if we want a clause to protect-future-taxpayers-from-legislators-and-the-Governor, we suggest a state constitutional amendment limiting government retiree pension pay to the sum of three things

 

  • Their pension contributions during their service,
  • Whatever the government put into the program for them while they were employed for us and
  • Investment income at any time.


From the perspective of what we have said above, we feel there are at least three government pensions that are virtually "impossible-to-prefund."


1. Chicago school teachers put 2% of their annual pay into their pensions. After twenty years, they are fully vested but have only contributed 40% of one year’s pay—they get all that money back in the first six months of retirement. To “pre-fund” an 85% pension with 3% compounded increases based on the killer-math above, we think a CPS teacher would have to put their entire salary into the pension program and the CPS would have to more than match their salary. That is clearly a fake pension program requiring enormous pre- and post-funding challenges that city taxpayers shouldn't have to eat.


2. Full Circuit Court judges currently make $203K a year with 3% annual increases guaranteed in the IL Constitution. They only need 9 years of service with limited contributions to be fully funded and receive 85% of their highest pay the first year with guaranteed 3% compound raises for life. They start their pensions at $170K a year. As we outline above, after 23 years, a retired judge would be getting close to $400K a year. We assure you a vested IL Circuit Court judge can receive as much as $9M from their fake pensions, if they live long enough, for just nine years of service. In our view, based on the killer-math, such a pension truly can't be "pre-funded" without having judges contribute their entire salary for the nine years and then “matching” that by giving judges the equivalent of about $700K a year in salary and government pension matching contributions. Do you understand this immutable math and how crazy the numbers are?


3, Finally, IL legislators are vested in only four years of part-time service. They clearly don't contribute one full year of pay to then get paid for the rest of their lives. The late Judy Baar Topinka worked for six years as a legislator and contributed about $36K to the pension program. When she passed at age 70 earlier this year, her pension payout was $150K a year. If she had lived 20 more years, she would have received over $4M for her contribution of $36K. As I indicate throughout this article, we think IL legislators would have to contribute their entire salary and the state might have to quadruple what they are paid to pre-fund what they receive in retirement. Do we understand how nutty it is to pay a lifetime pension to a part-time legislator after only four years of service needed to become vested?

Our challenge to our readers is to tell us the options to get out of this business-busting pension disaster before everyone and every business moves elsewhere as is happening right now.

 

Here are some quick options that need lots more thinking:

 

  1. An emergency “Con-Con” or constitutional convention to completely rewrite the whole thing for existing and new workers.
  2. A constitutional amendment to try to do the same thing.
  3. End/abolish the Judicial Retirement System and the Legislative Retirement system for new judges and legislators because they are already well-taken care of.
  4. Consider terminating or re-starting all state workers and rehire them with new and less-fake pension agreements.
  5. Consider outsourcing lots of state jobs to staffing companies so pensions aren’t owed.


We hope you have better and less-controversial thoughts—send them along. We don’t see a realistic financial future for this state if the gov’t fake pensions aren’t changed in some fashion. You have our permission to use any or all of these ideas whenever you want. We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

8-3-15; A Worker Died in Our Workplace! What Do We Do?; USDC Tosses Removal Petition Due to WC Counts Fraudulently Pled; Third Party Liability Might Remain Even if "Umbrella" Approach Used and more

Synopsis: Our Worker Died in the Workplace! What Do We Have to Do?

 

Editor’s comment: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) preliminary data show 4,383 workers were killed on the job in 2012, fewer than in 2011 (4,693) and far fewer than in 2008, when there were 5,071 workplace fatalities. The 2012 total represents the second lowest preliminary total since the BLS first started collecting this data in 1992. Experts attribute the significant drop to the poor economy. However, construction industry deaths increased from 738 to 775. We are confident aggressive OSHA enforcement is causing a continued drop in workplace fatalities. While fatalities are dropping, you still need to be prepared, as the Boy Scouts say.

 

Here is a brief primer on the process of handling workplace fatalities, work-related or not, for risk and safety managers. If you want this article in a PowerPoint format for easy reference, send a reply. If you want help in handling/investigating/reporting/paying out the early, middle or late stages of a workplace fatality, send a reply or see below.

 

First, get any needed post-mortem attention for Decedent and the workers around him/her. Remember, the workers who saw or “experienced” the event may also bring claims for the sudden and unexpected shock. Consider getting counselors to assist with grieving and mental/physical recovery from the unforeseen event.

 

Next, once the situation has stabilized, you have to crank up your most thorough accident investigation. If you don’t have a solid accident investigation form/process, send a reply and we will share our documents at no charge. By definition, any fatality is a serious potential claim(s) and generally merits the highest possible level of investigation. You should include

 

·         Statementizing witnesses to include your workers and members of the public who might be in the area;

·         Getting the full and detailed story from supervisors;

·         Protection/preservation of the site and materials surrounding the worker’s passing including lock-out/tag-out of equipment involved and

·         Safeguarding all surveillance/security video of the hours leading up to and after the event. Remember, if you don’t have cameras at your work site, there are still lots of cameras around us—places like banks and schools may have security videos you can ask them to preserve and produce.

 

When you are investigating something as serious as a fatality, remember you may also want to demonstrate the absence of things that might have caused or contributed to the worker’s passing. You should record the workplace temperature, outside weather if applicable and the lack of emergent circumstances or overtime being worked by decedent or others around him/her. You may need witnesses to prove it was a normal, boring work day if litigation ensues.

 

When You Are Sure You Have a Complete and Solid Accident Investigation, You Have to Call OSHA.

 

Federal regs mandate within eight (8) hours after the death of any employee as a result of a work-related incident, you must report the fatality to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). You must report the fatality, inpatient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye using one of the following methods:

 

·         By telephone or in person to the OSHA Area Office that is nearest to the site of the incident.

·         By telephone to the OSHA toll-free central telephone number, 1-800-321-OSHA (1-800-321-6742).

·         By electronic submission using the reporting application located on OSHA's public Web site at www.osha.gov.

 

If the OSHA Area Office is closed, under the federal regs, you cannot and should not leave a voicemail message. You must call either their 800 number listed above or use the reporting application located on OSHA's public Web site at www.osha.gov. When you call or use the application, you must give OSHA the following information for each fatality:

 

·         The establishment name;

·         The location of the work-related incident;

·         The time of the work-related incident;

·         The type of reportable event (i.e., fatality, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye);

·         The number of employees who suffered a fatality, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye;

·         The names of the employees who suffered a fatality, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye;

·         Your company’s contact person and his or her phone number; and

·         A brief description of the work-related incident.

 

If the fatality is part of a motor vehicle accident or MVA, you only have to report the fatality if the MVA occurred in a construction work zone. However, even if the MVA occurred on a public street/highway, you have to record it on your OSHA injury/illness records. The same rules apply if the fatality occurred on a commercial or public transportation system.

 

Please note you still have to report a workplace fatality to OSHA even if the event was an unforeseen from heart attack. If a fatality occurs within thirty (30) days of a work-related incident, you still need to report the passing to OSHA.

 

If you need assistance at any time in working with OSHA or reporting an event to them, Brad Smith is the KCB&A Defense team leader who regularly deals with OSHA—Brad can be reached 24/7/365 at (312) 756-3714 or bsmith@keefe-law.com.

 

What Does Your State Require Us To Do/Pay After a Potentially Work-Related Workplace Fatality?

 

These laws are unique to each state. KCB&A handles only 5 of the 50 states. We strongly recommend you contact our defense team leader for your state if you are dealing with a fatality. You don’t have to hire our team to simply ask questions on how to best handle an undisputed WC death claim—we can guide you through the statutory maze to insure you are properly following the law and paying what is owed to the correct folks.

 

For IL claims/risk managers, we feel the 2011 Amendments to the IL WC Act made IL WC death benefits higher than what a widow or widower might eventually need. Right now, a beneficiary gets 25 years of death benefits and can receive such benefits even if they remarry over and over again. We suggest legislation be proposed to require the beneficiary of an IL WC death claim to have to return to the IWCC to demonstrate the continuing need for the employer or insurance carrier/TPA to continue to pay the benefit, at an interval of once every ten years or whatever the General Assembly might decide.

 

Who Do I Call For Legal Assistance on a WC Death Claim in My State?

 

For Illinois WC Death Claims, you can contact Gene Keefe at 312 907 8226. You can also simply send a reply to this KCB&A Update.

 

For Wisconsin WC Death Claims, contact Jim Egan at 312-756-3710, office: 312-617-4553, jegan@keefe-law.com or Matt Ignoffo at office: 312-756-3729; cell: 773-992-7030, mignoffo@keefe-law.com

 

For Michigan WC Death Claims, contact Ellen Keefe-Garner office: 312-756-3716; cell: 734-604-8969; emkeefe@keefe-law.com

 

For Indiana WC Death Claims, contact Kevin Boyle office: 812-369-7182; cell 312.662.9899;  kboyle@keefe-law.com or Pankhuri Parti office 312-756-3746; cell 206-304-0307; pparti@keefe-law.com

 

For Iowa WC Death Claims, contact Dan Boddicker at 312-756-3721, cell: 312-371-4128, dboddicker@keefe-law.com

   

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

 

Synopsis: Federal Court Tosses Objections to WC Retaliatory Discharge Claim Due to WC Cause of Action Fraudulently Pled.

 

Editor’s comment: One of the problems of defending U.S. business in southern IL is the hyper-liberal and Plaintiff-driven circuit courts. These courts are not called “litigation hellholes” without reason. One of the best defense tactics in handling such litigation is to get the claim out of state court and into the federal court via “removal” to the federal Southern District of Illinois when/where possible.

 

In Faarup v. WW Transport, Inc., Plaintiff Faarup sued Defendant W.W. Transport, Inc. (WWTI) in state court for wrongful discharge in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act (IWCA), as well as pleading two separate causes of action under the IWCA. Defendant WWTI removed the state action to federal court. WWTI is based in West Burlington, IA and does the normal hauling of flatbed and heavy haul type business, but also specializes in its award winning food grade bulk hauling - both liquid and dry bulk, as well as having a refrigeration division

 

In considering the objections to removal, the federal court issued an order to show cause why the court should not remand the case to state court, since Faarup had ostensibly pled a cause of action under IWCA and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1445(c), workers' compensation claims are arguably “non-removable.”

 

WWTI responded that counts I and II, claims for wrongful discharge in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, were removable claims, as the law is clear a claim of retaliation for the exercise of rights under the IL WC Act does not arise under the IWCA but under general tort law. Therefore, if the claim was non-removable under §1445(c), it was because Counts III and IV of the complaint alleged causes of action for refusal to provide workers' compensation benefits. WWTI appropriately responded the court should disregard Counts III and IV because Plaintiff Faarup fraudulently pled those causes of action to avoid removal. WWTI pointed out there was no such civial cause of action in state court for refusal to pay workers' compensation benefits. Instead, the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether workers' compensation benefits should be awarded, and Illinois courts are limited to appellate review of those administrative decisions.

 

Plaintiff Faarup maintained Counts III and IV were properly pled because WWTI failed to comply under its duties and responsibilities consistent with the IL WC Act. The federal district court found Counts III and IV were frivolous because they had no basis in law and served only to frustrate federal jurisdiction. The court held both Counts had been fraudulently pled and disregarded them for the purposes of determining whether removal to the federal district court was proper.

 

The federal court discharged the order to show cause, dismissed Plaintiff Faarup’s Counts III and IV without prejudice as fraudulently pled, and held removal was proper. The federal court also gave the parties 21 days to update and re-file their state court motions, if appropriate, citing appropriate federal standards and authority.

 

We strongly agree with this outcome. The ruling can be located online at https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilsdce/3:2015cv00114/69909/17.

 

Our research also indicates while the claim above was pending, Plaintiff received over $100,000 in several IL WC settlements. The employer should have known what they were getting into when they hired this litigious worker. Do you know how to legally protect your company from repeat claimants? If you are interested, send a reply.

 

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

 

Synopsis: Paying IL WC Benefits May Not Protect an Employer From A Civil Action Even If “Umbrella” Approach Used. Thoughts and Analysis by Pankhuri K. Parti, JD.

 

Editor’s comment: In a decision reversing the lower court’s granting of summary judgment, the IL Appellate Court remanded the case for further proceedings based on its decision finding the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a legal obligation to pay workers’ compensation benefits on the part of Defendant. We believe this to be an anti-business outcome because the IL Appellate Court explained the IL WC Act only confers Section 5(a) immunity to direct employers of injured workers and makes no provision for a corporate entity legally distinct from the employer to unilaterally insulate itself against liability for negligence, especially if the actual employer was self-insured and the separate entity could make reimbursement decisions on a case-by-case basis. 

 

In Burge v. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Plaintiff Burge was a security guard employed by Exelon Nuclear Security or ENS. He was injured and filed a WC claim against Exelon Nuclear Security, his direct employer. He received $180K from that WC settlement.

 

He sued Exelon Generation Company or EGC for the same injuries and his civil claim was dismissed. He appealed an order from the Circuit Court granting Defendant Exelon Generation Company’s motion for summary judgment. In its motion, Defendant EGC successfully argued Plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy was under the Workers’ Compensation Act and thus their civil case against Defendant EGS was barred by Section 5(a) of the IL WC Act. It was undisputed Plaintiff Burge sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of employment with ENS, which provided security services on Defendant’s premises pursuant to a contract. It was also undisputed Plaintiff filed and settled a workers’ compensation claim against Exelon.

 

In reaching its decision the IL Appellate Court explained under Section 1(a)(3) of the Act, an employer was liable to pay compensation to its own immediate employees and also to the employees of any contractor or sub-contractor, unless the contractor or subcontractor already had workers’ compensation insurance. As Defendant engaged ENS as a contractor, it argued it was thus the employer who paid the workers’ compensation benefits for Plaintiff Burge. Thus pursuant to Section 5(a) of the IL WC Act Plaintiffs could not maintain a common law action against Defendant. In support of this contention Defendant submitted an affidavit from Christine Wendt, who was the workers’ compensation manager for Exelon. The affidavit stated she oversaw the entire Exelon-related system of workers’ compensation benefits and Defendant used a third-party administrator for workers’ compensation benefits and paid all monies for the Exelon account made to or on behalf of Plaintiff. Ms. Wendt also stated Defendant did so because it was obligated under the IL WC Act to pay for the workers’ compensation benefits for any and all employees of Exelon. Essentially Defendant’s argument was because they had reimbursed ENS for workers’ compensation payments for all Exelon employees, including Plaintiff, and because it had authority to manage Exelon’s affairs, EGC was essentially cloaked with the same immunity as ENS. In a supplemental affidavit Ms. Wendt further stated Exelon was self-insured and through the LLC agreement Defendant paid workers’ compensation benefits of any/all Exelon employees on a reimbursement basis. In our view, Ms. Wendt’s affidavit was intended to cloak their WC responsibilities as an umbrella—the Appellate Court apparently didn’t follow their approach in a fashion with which we disagree.

 

The Court quickly dismissed one of the arguments of Defendant stating while section 5(a) of the Act did bar lawsuits against an employer’s agent, the facts present before the Court clearly established this corporate Defendant was not ENS’s agent. According to the Court, there was nothing in the LLC agreement which gave ENS any right to “control” Defendant EGC. In fact, the Court’s members felt the opposite appeared to be true.

 

 In determining the next question of whether Defendant EGC was saved via immunity granted by section 5(a) of the IL WC Act because it paid Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation settlement, the Court looked at the precedent of Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc. and Ioerger v. Halverson Construction Co. The Court explained Defendant in Forsythe was not granted immunity under section 5(a) of the Act even though the employer involved was a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant. Defendant in that case argued it was merely a holding company and thus owed no duty to the employees of its subsidiary. The Supreme Court of Illinois held when there was evidence sufficient to prove a parent company mandated an overall business and budgetary strategy and carried that strategy out by its own specific direction or authorization, surpassing the control exercised as a normal incident of ownership in disregard for the interests of the subsidiary, then the parent company could face civil liability. In essence, the Court explained in order to avoid liability the holding company was asking to be treated like the injured workers’ employer and thus Defendant was asking to “pierce its own veil.” This practice has been consistently discouraged by the Illinois courts because while on the one hand the employer was asserting it owed no duty because it was just a shareholder, at the same time it was also attempting to invoke the Act’s grant of immunity by characterizing itself as an injured employees’ employer.

 

On the other hand, in Ioerger the Court held a joint venture was entitled to Section 5(a) immunity from liability for injuries to employees of one of the two corporations engaged in the joint venture. While stating the joint venture was entitled to immunity under the agency relationship, the Court also explained the joint venture should also enjoy immunity because it was obligated under the joint venture agreement to pay workers’ compensation for the employees of both corporations. The Court further explained while allowing a party who had paid nothing toward an injured employee’s workers’ compensation benefits to nevertheless invoke the Act’s immunity and escape tort liability was tantamount to allowing the party to “have its cake and eat it too,” subjecting a party to tort liability when it has already borne the cost of the injured employee’s workers’ compensation benefits would be the same as declaring a party who had paid for “the cake” may neither keep it or eat it.

 

In reaching its decision the IL Appellate Court, in the present case, agreed with Plaintiff the grant of immunity to an entity different from the direct employer of the injured employee in Ioerger depended on the existence of some pre-existing legal obligation to pay or reimburse another payer. The Court ruled the IL WC Act had no provisions for an entity legally different from the employer to unilaterally insulate itself against liability for negligence and allowing such an entity to do so would become particularly problematic where the employer is self-insured and a separate entity could thus make reimbursement decisions on a case by case basis.

 

In the end the Appellate Court reversed the grant of summary judgment ruling immunity under Section 5(a) of the Act could not be predicated on Defendant’s payment of workers’ compensation benefits unless Defendant was under some legal obligation to pay. And because evidence until this point had not sufficiently established a legal obligation on the part of Defendant EGC to pay workers’ compensation benefits for Plaintiff’s injuries, the grant of summary judgment was premature.

 

This article was researched and written by Pankhuri K. Parti, JD. You can reach Pankhuri 24/7/365 for questions about WC at pparti@keefe-law.com.

 

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

 

Synopsis: Richard “Rick” Kimnach, 62 of Bloomfield, IN, passed away last Saturday July 25, 2015 at his home. The entire IL WC community hopes he will rest in peace. His memory as a quiet and hard-working man will continue.

Editor’s comment: Rick was a defense competitor of our firm and also a very solid advocate for his clients, as both a Petitioner and Respondent lawyer. Rick was born on February 4, 1953 in Needham, MA, the son on Donald and Nancy Sitgreaves Kimnach. Rick was a 1971 graduate of Watseka Community High School. He graduated from the University of Illinois in 1975. In 1980, Rick received his Juris Doctor from Loyola University in Chicago. 

Rick actively practiced law in Chicago for 30 years specializing in the area of workers’ compensation. He was admitted to the Illinois Supreme Court in 1980 and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. In 2014, Rick earned AV Preeminent status, the highest possible rating in both legal ability and ethical standards by Martindale-Hubbell. Rick remained a true Cubs and Bears fan.

Memorials may be made to Richland Twp. Fire Department or Southern Care Hospice.

 

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

Synopsis: If You Handle IL WC Claims, the WC Rates are Updated again So Get the Updated Version of Shawn R. Biery’s IL WC Rate Sheet.

 

Editor’s comment: The new IL WC minimums and maximums have been posted and our updated KCB&A IL WC Rate Sheet is now available via email or snail mail if you prefer the fancy laminated version. We note IL WC rates continue to increase based upon the reported increase in the statewide average weekly wage or SAWW and the increase was more significant than the WC rate increase last July.

 

The reality on the streets still doesn’t seem to match the hefty increase however as noted in the past, since the 1980’s, the IL WC Act provides a formula which effectively insures no matter how poor the IL economy is doing, your WC minimum rates somehow keep climbing.

 

We caution our readers to pay attention to the fact the IL WC statutory maximum PPD rate is now updated too—the new MAX is $749.06!! The new PPD max rate becomes retroactively effective on July 1, 2015. You have to retroactively change reserves on all claims. If this isn’t clear, send a reply or email IL WC rate wiz, Shawn R. Biery at sbiery@keefe-law.com.

 

The current TTD weekly maximum is $1,379.73. A worker has to make over $2,069.60 per week or $107,619.20 per year to hit the new IL WC maximum TTD rate. 

 

The new IL WC minimum death benefit is 25 years of compensation or $517.40 per week x 52 weeks in a year x 25 years or $672,620.00! The new maximum IL WC death benefit is $1,379.73 times 52 weeks times 25 years or a lofty $1,793,649.00 plus burial expense benefits of $8,000. These numbers make it very important to keep your workplace safe and free from hazards.

 

The best way to make sense of all of this is to get Shawn Biery’s awesome and easy-to-understand IL WC Rate Sheet. If you want one, they are free so simply reply or email Shawn at sbiery@keefe-law.com  and we will send it along.

 

If you would like fancy/shiny laminated copies, copy Marissa at mpatel@keefe-law.com and let her know the number of copies and your MAILING ADDRESS!

7-27-15; Thoughts From Dr. Fletcher on Illinois' Unbalanced WC Medical Fee Schedule; Former Arbs Dibble and Akemann Lose Federal Appeals; Shawn Biery's Updated IL WC Rate Sheet Now Available and more

Synopsis: Thoughts From Dr. David Fletcher on Important WCRI Research Report on IL WC Medical Costs..

 

Editor’s comment: The Workers Compensation Research Institute or WCRI is an independent, not-for-profit research organization providing high-quality, objective information about public policy issues involving workers' compensation systems. Organized in late 1983, the Institute does not take positions on the issues it researches; rather, it provides information obtained through studies and data collection efforts, which conform to recognized scientific methods. Objectivity is further ensured through rigorous, unbiased peer review procedures.

 

You can analyze and review the recent IL-focused WCRI statistical study by using this link: Illinois Chamber Presentation 2015

 

This is a current and up-to-date WCRI analysis of IL WC Medical Costs prepared for the IL WC State Chamber Working Group. This group is composed of a number of influential Illinois leaders from business, industry and our IWCC Administration. Dr. Fletcher is the CEO of SafeWorks Illinois and a leading source of workers’ comp information and guidance to other medical and industry leaders. As we have advised our readers over the years, the IL State Chamber is on the point as the lead organization looking out for the interests of Illinois business in the WC arena. We urge all our business readers to consider joining the IL State Chamber to learn more about the strengths and weaknesses of the IL work comp system and possible legislative and other changes.

 

Dr. Fletcher advised:

 

Illinois has a very unbalanced fee schedule that incentivizes surgical procedures over conservative management for injured workers.

 

Until July 2014, the reimbursement for evaluation and management  (E&M) codes was below Medicare and this low reimbursement caused access to care issues as documented by WCRI research and Dr. Fletcher’s experience trying to refer injured workers to non-surgical specialists for care.

 

Currently, the Illinois Workers’ Comp Medical Fee Schedule posted rates for typical office visits as documented by WCRI in their findings are 20% below the national median average and ranks Illinois as the 6th lowest fee schedule state in the entire country. In contrast, surgery reimbursement remains high and averages around 400% above Medicare (see slide 9 of the link above). WCRI documents Illinois WC surgical fees rank 3rd highest in the nation.

 

Injured worker primary gatekeepers, such as occupational medicine specialists, that control return to work decisions and referrals to other specialists for care, have the most effect on controlling costs in work injury care. Due to the current IL WC Medical Fee Schedule the private practice of occupational medicine in Illinois is dying because $80 reimbursement for an office visit that may require 30 minutes of direct patient interaction, but requires an hour of additional unreimbursed professional time (most WC carriers refuse to pay for CPT code 99358 for prolonged non-face time even though Medicare recognizes this case management service as vital in controlling costs) to update the employer, interact with an external case manager, review diagnostic studies, consult with the physical therapist, issue a return-to-work slip, and prepare a detailed narrative report that a practitioner may have to defend line-by-line in a future deposition.

  

Thirty-one (31) states of the 43 states that have a WC medical fee schedule construct a fee schedule that is based on relative value (Medicare RVU-relative value units is the most common system) in contrast to Illinois’ unbalanced WC medical fee schedule.

 

Neighboring states, Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, often cited as models for the Illinois WC system, pay substantially higher E&M codes than Illinois and have much lower costs.

 

Bottom-line, Illinois needs a balanced RVS-based fee schedule that would encourage and reward effective office management of complex work injuries as opposed to rushing off to surgery when such indications are not clear-cut.  Higher reimbursement for office visits would bring back many Illinois primary care practitioners, who will no longer see injured workers, because the reimbursement is not worth the time and effort required to manage such patients.  

 

Dr. Fletcher is personally advocating for an IL WC fee schedule that is 200% above Medicare across the board that recognizes taking care of injured worker takes more physician or healthcare resources and time than a typical Medicare patient, where decision-making on return to work and communication with multiple parties are not necessary.

 

For the last five years, Dr. Fletcher has been one of the two WCRI advisory committee physician members. We salute him for letting you, as our readers, know what is happening right now for this crucial IL WC working group.

 

From your editor—we want our readers to understand the number one cost in workers’ comp across the United States and the world is medical care. The recent statistical study documents current measurements on the cost of some aspects of IL WC care aren’t nearly as bad as the popular business or government perception.

 

We also note the IL WC Commission has a  Workers' Compensation Medical Fee Advisory Board which includes among its members leading WC medical and legal gurus like Dr. Michael I. Vender, Dr. Avi Bernstein and David Menchetti, J.D. along with others from both sides of the WC matrix. We hope the Medical Fee Advisory Board members are closely watching what is happening in Springfield and working hard to save money for Illinois businesses and local governments while also insuring injured workers get solid medical care.

 

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

 

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

 

Synopsis: Former Arbitrators John Dibble and Peter Akemann Lose Their Federal Appeals Over Getting Canned. Sadly, You Are Still Paying Them.

 

Editor’s comment: Former Arbitrators John Dibble and Peter Akemann were hearing officers for the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. At the time of their appointments, the IL Workers’ Compensation Act, 820 ILCS 305/14, provided each arbitrator would be appointed for a term of six years, with the possibility of reappointment.

 

The Illinois General Assembly passed Public Act 97–18, which was signed on June 28, 2011 and took effect three days later, ending the terms of all incumbent IL WC arbitrators effective July 1, 2011 and providing Governor Quinn could make new appointments, basically at his whim. The new law allowed incumbent arbitrators to serve as holdovers until the Governor made new appointments.

 

In the interim, Governor Quinn was booed off the stage at the Illinois State Fair by a group of union members who were unhappy about proposed legislation that would have limited their fake pensions and lifetime-taxpayer-paid health care benefits. Shortly thereafter former Arbitrators Jackie Kinnaman, Peter Akemann and John Dibble were summarily terminated. As these hearing officers came from opposite sides of the political fence, it is hard to understand why they were summarily canned. We assure our readers former Arbitrator Kinnaman was always considered liberal and pro-union—she was also married to an important union official. Former Arbitrator Akemann was the son of a west suburban judge and considered to be a middle-ground hearing officer for representatives of business and labor. Former Arbitrator John Dibble surfed on the challenging waves in southern Illinois where some Petitioner attorneys used to have plenary power to get someone appointed or fired as an Arbitrator.

 

Former Arbitrator John Dibble was a middle-of-the-road hearing officer who generally got along with the rabidly pro-labor lawyers in southern Illinois. John Dibble had the stigma of receiving a favorable bilateral carpal tunnel WC settlement for $48,790.45 at a time when hundreds of prison guards and Central Management Services WC adjusters were also getting favorable WC settlements in a setting that made the settlements appear questionable. In 2010, Dibble, who was not an attorney, received a tax-free payment on his claim he incurred "delayed onset" carpal tunnel syndrome as the result of falling on steps at a workers' comp hearing site in Herrin, IL. The award was withheld from the public record until the Belleville News-Democrat reported it. One embarrassing aspect of the settlement is the claim was brought against the State, defended by the Attorney General’s office and then-Arbitrator, now current IWCC Commissioner Ruth White had to approve the deal.

 

We note former Arbitrator Peter Akemann had a work comp claim for an injury occurring in 2010 and, in 2014, got an award of 10% LOU BAW or $33,236.00 as the result of an arbitration decision by an independent IL WC Arbitrator named Alan Rosen.

 

Either way, by July 1, 2012, both John Dibble and Peter Akemann lost their IWCC positions. They alleged by shortening their sixyear terms as arbitrators under the prior law, Public Act 97–18 deprived them of a property interest without due process of law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgments for Defendants. Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief were moot, and Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ claims for damages. Even if Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a constitutional violation, the applicable law was not clearly established under the circumstances of these  cases, where a statutory amendment eliminated the property interest the statute previously conferred.

 

From our perspective, They were both solid hearing officers who did nothing wrong. They showed up and worked hard. These former Arbitrators who received either a settlement or decision got caught up in the moment in a fashion we consider wholly unfair—it shouldn’t be a stigma to suffer from a work injury in a system that provides benefits for injuries.

 

Don’t Cry Too Hard for Them

 

We want our readers to note, you never truly “fire” any IL state employee who is vested in their fake or comically defunded IL government pensions. By law, we as taxpayers have to keep paying them and they no longer have to work. To our knowledge, former Arbitrator Dibble should be getting a full fake pension and IL taxpayers continue to compensate him, despite his termination. He will also get compounded 3% annual increases so he is probably making more from taxpayers than he made while actually working. His fake government pension may double or triple, if he lives long enough. He also gets taxpayer-paid lifetime health care—not a bad deal either.

 

Our research indicates former Arbitrator Peter Akemann worked for the State starting in 1983 with IDOT and then as an Arbitrator—we are confident he remains on our dime and is getting lots of your tax dollars. He is a good man and among many other things, Peter is on the board of a kid’s theatre group http://www.cteelgin.com/about-us/board/

 

It is weird how things work out. We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

 

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

 

Synopsis: If You Handle IL WC Claims, the WC Rates are Updated again So Get the Updated Version of Shawn R. Biery’s IL WC Rate Sheet.

 

Editor’s comment: The new IL WC minimums and maximums have been posted and our updated KCB&A IL WC Rate Sheet is now available via email or snail mail if you prefer the fancy laminated version. We note IL WC rates continue to increase based upon the reported increase in the statewide average weekly wage or SAWW and the increase was more significant than the WC rate increase last July.

 

The reality on the streets still doesn’t seem to match the hefty increase however as noted in the past, since the 1980’s, the IL WC Act provides a formula which effectively insures no matter how poor the IL economy is doing, your WC minimum rates somehow keep climbing.

 

We caution our readers to pay attention to the fact the IL WC statutory maximum PPD rate is now updated too—the new MAX is $749.06!! The new PPD max rate becomes retroactively effective on July 1, 2015. You have to retroactively change reserves on all claims. If this isn’t clear, send a reply or email IL WC rate wiz, Shawn R. Biery at sbiery@keefe-law.com.

 

The current TTD weekly maximum is $1,379.73. A worker has to make over $2,069.60 per week or $107,619.20 per year to hit the new IL WC maximum TTD rate. 

 

The new IL WC minimum death benefit is 25 years of compensation or $517.40 per week x 52 weeks in a year x 25 years or $672,620.00! The new maximum IL WC death benefit is $1,379.73 times 52 weeks times 25 years or a lofty $1,793,649.00 plus burial expense benefits of $8,000. These numbers make it very important to keep your workplace safe and free from hazards.

 

The best way to make sense of all of this is to get Shawn Biery’s awesome and easy-to-understand IL WC Rate Sheet. If you want one, they are free so simply reply or email Shawn at sbiery@keefe-law.com  and we will send it along.

 

If you would like fancy/shiny laminated copies, copy Marissa at mpatel@keefe-law.com and let her know the number of copies and your MAILING ADDRESS!