2-1-2016; Look At ITLA's Spin on Current IL WC Reform; Shawn Biery's New IL WC Rate Sheet is Out--Want A Bunch?; Why Every U.S. Taxpayer Should Consider 'Firing' Your Fire Dep't to Save Millions and..

Synopsis: Breaking News—Here is the IL Trial Lawyers Association’s Most Recent Spin on Governor Rauner’s WC Proposals.

 

Editor’s comment: See below; we note the phenomenally wealthy Plaintiff bar appears to be making fun of the phenomenally wealthy supporters of the Governor. For our readers, we feel this ongoing IL WC reform debate remains important to claims handlers and risk managers. We want to add our thoughts that

 

·         IL WC medical reimbursements are already significantlylower than Indiana and many other states;

·         We are certain IL Work Comp coverage, TTD and PPD awards will be lower under our new, professional and proficient Arbitrators and Commissioners so Governor Rauner’s WC reform concepts aren’t worth fighting over in the larger context of our state’s many crises;

·         When the Oregon WC Premium Ratings come out later this year, we fully expect to see additional improvement in IL WC premium costs relative to our sister states;

·         There is literally no reason to follow ITLA’s whiny “regulation of insurance company profits,” just like there is no discernable reason to regulate the profits of ITLA members;

·         We hope Governor Rauner re-focuses on reining in fake government pensions and combining/consolidating state departments and automating hundreds of clunky and duplicative state government functions, like our toll roads.

 

This came from the ITLA president and is being republished without editing.

 

It’s Past Time for Gov. Rauner to Govern: Cutting Benefits for Workers Injured on the Job and Compensation for People Harmed by Corporate Wrongdoing Won’t Bring Business or Revenue to Illinois

Statement from Illinois Trial Lawyer Ass’n President Perry Browder - Dateline: January 27, 2016

 

A legal system fair to the interests of individuals and businesses not only ensures a level playing field for both parties – it also protects the taxpayer. But if Gov. Bruce Rauner has his way, the burden of caring for injured persons would shift from the companies that caused the harm to the taxpayers.

 

In his State of the State address today, Gov. Rauner renewed his attack on our courts and his demand that lawmakers roll back the financial safeguards that our state’s workers’ compensation and tort systems afford to the vast majority of Illinoisans.

 

Across Illinois, seniors, individuals with disabilities and other vulnerable citizens are going without vital services because Gov. Rauner is holding the budget hostage until he succeeds in upending our legal system – among other items in his agenda. Yet his proposals relating to workers’ compensation and tort cases would do nothing to improve the state’s financial standing or fund the state services necessary to support individuals in need of critical assistance.

 

The governor and his big business and insurance supporters continue their push to undercut the rights of injured workers in order to maximize insurance industry profits. They ignore the fact that the 2011 rewrite of the workers’ compensation system – those changes sought by the business community, and which were largely to the detriment of men and women injured on the job – is producing the desired result: lower costs for insurance companies and employers.

 

As the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission stated in its FY 2014 report, Illinois employers experienced the largest decrease in workers’ comp premiums among all 50 states. And the commission anticipates further savings once the full effects of the 2011 workers’ comp overhaul are felt.

 

No matter how many benefits are cut, medical reimbursements are lowered, and claims are denied, the state’s businesses won’t see additional savings without our leaders addressing the promises previously broken by the insurance industry. Strictly regulating insurance premiums, not further curtailing injured workers’ rights, is the key to managing employers’ workers’ compensation costs.

 

The governor also seeks to squelch the civil justice system’s authority to hold wrongdoers accountable in an effort to shield the profits of his big business allies – at the expense of those who suffer due to their malfeasance and the taxpayers who would be left holding the bill.

 

More than 70 percent of court actions in Illinois are initiated by businesses suing other businesses or individuals for money, but the governor has not proposed limiting the access of corporations, banks and investment companies to the court system. The fact is that very few injured Americans ever file lawsuits. In Illinois, the number of civil cases filed has dropped 33 percent from 2010 to 2014.

 

Eroding the constitutional rights of citizens to access the courts that their tax dollars fund would send the message that our civil justice system is mainly for the use of corporate actors and the wealthy, rather than something that belongs to everyone, regardless of their means.

 

Gov. Rauner should abandon his campaign to enlist our legal system into the exclusive service of his phenomenally wealthy supporters, and instead focus on real, meaningful solutions to fix our state’s problems. The state budget cannot be balanced on the backs of those injured due to no fault of their own.

 

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

 

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

 

Synopsis: With apologies to “The Jerk”…..THE NEW IL WC RATE SHEETS ARE HERE!!!, THE NEW IL WC RATE SHEETS ARE HERE!!! Illinois WC Rates Jump Again and Your PPD Reserves Need Retroactive Updating. Email Shawn at sbiery@keefe-law.com and/or Marissa at mpatel@keefe-law.com to Get a Free and Complimentary Hard Copy of Shawn R. Biery’s Updated IL WC Rate-Sheet!

 

Editor’s comment: We remain disappointed to continue to watch the growth of IL WC rates. Starting in the 1980’s, the IL WC Act provides a formula which effectively insures no matter how poor the IL economy is doing, our WC rates continue to climb and climb some more.

 

We caution our readers to pay attention to the fact the IL WC statutory maximum PPD rate is now a whopping $769.28. When it was published, this rate changed retroactively from July 1, 2015 to present. If you reserved a claim based on the prior rate for the period from July 1 to right now, your reserves are wrong. If you have a claim with a date of loss after July 2015 and a max PPD rate, you need to take a look and see if the new maximum PPD rate applies. If this isn’t clear, send a reply.

 

The current TTD weekly maximum has risen to $1,398.23. A worker has to make over $2,097.35 per week or $109,062.20 per year to hit the new IL WC maximum TTD rate. Does any state in the United States have a TTD maximum that high?

 

The new IL WC minimum death benefit is 25 years of compensation or $524.34 per week x 52 weeks in a year x 25 years or $681,642.00! The new maximum IL WC death benefit is $1,398.23 times 52 weeks times 25 years or a lofty $1,817,699.00 plus burial benefits of $8K. IL WC death benefits also come with annual COLA increases.

 

The best way to make sense of all of this is to get Shawn Biery’s colorful, updated and easy-to-understand IL WC Rate Sheet. AGAIN—If you want just one or a dozen or more, simply reply to Shawn at sbiery@keefe-law.com and/or Marissa at mpatel@keefe-law.com  They will get a copy routed to you before they raise the rates again! Please confirm your mailing address if you would like laminated copies sent to your home or office!

 

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

 

Synopsis: Smoke and Mirrors--Why Every U.S. Taxpayer Should Consider ‘Firing’ Your Local Fire Department.

 

Editor’s comment: We have basically seen enough with the antiquated concept of your Village/City/Municipality needing a separate police department and a fire department and emergency medical technicians. The cost of doing for innocent U.S. taxpayers so has gotten outrageous, as you may see below. We suggest our entire country try to see the light on ending the concept of having separate police and fire departments at an enormous and spiraling cost.

 

Do We Hate Firefighters?

 

Heck, no. Firefighters save lives every day of every year. They are men and women that are part of your local government who protect you every day and in every way. Our problem isn’t with their brave services, sweat and disdain for danger they bring to the job every day. Our problem is with keeping your local government effective and efficient. Consider consolidating your public safety officers into one department to avoid having firefighters sitting around and doing nothing and they taking fake pensions at gigantic cost to you.

 

So, Why Do You Feel We Need to Consider ‘Firing” Firefighters?

 

Well, in IL and lots of states, firefighter and their unions have fostered enough benefit fantasies upon taxpayers to fill a Mickey Mouse© cartoon. Keep reading. In short, you and I and our houses and commercial buildings are all built, inspected and expected to comply with about 500+ parameters of uniform fire/building codes. We are telling our readers and anyone who will listen, the codes and code enforcement are working! If your local properties don’t comply with the codes, they are written up, fined and forced to comply. In short, the number of ‘real’ or major fires in your entire metro area are about once or twice a year at a reasonable cost. Stuff just isn’t burning down the way it did when your grandparents were kids. One urban legend we don’t know or understand is local firefighters simply don’t have to work and endanger their lives in the fashion they did when your parents and grandparents were young. Tell us/write us to let us know the last time you heard of a major building fire in the area around your business or home. We are telling you that your local firefighters are preying on your grandparent’s experiences and hoping you and I are stupid enough not to investigate further.

 

Who Will Fight The Occasional Fire in Your Village?

 

We have told our readers in the past, the Village of Glencoe, IL has a model for the entire U.S. They merged their police, fire and EMTs into a single “Public Safety” Department way back in 1954. They don’t have firefighters sitting around a fire station doing nothing. When the need arises, Public Safety officers act as firefighters to get the equipment they need and put out fires or rapidly respond to medical emergencies. The Glencoe Public Safety Department is a full-service, combined public safety agency. Public Safety officers are fully cross-trained to be police officers, firefighters and emergency medical technicians who provide police, fire and emergency medical services when needed. Glencoe was listed as one of the top 50 Safest Cities in IL.

 

Well, I Looked and It Does Appear Our Local Firefighters Are Going Out on Lots of Calls, Right?

 

Well, the going-out-on-calls-thing is one of the most irritating and silly things we see firefighters do. If an older civilian guy or gal in a restaurant has a cardiac event/heart attack and the restaurant manager calls the fire department, they may send an ambulance, a separate pumper truck and sometimes they will also send a hook and ladder truck. Why are they wasting the fuel to send three vehicles? In our view, they are hoping you are stupid. They will send three vehicles, two to them non-medical on a medical-only call to make you think the firefighters have stuff to do when they don’t.

 

Do the math, people. The last reported year for our local municipality, Winnetka, IL had a record of three major fires in a single year. A major fire means they aren’t dealing with a kitchen fire or a barbeque grill that got knocked over and your grannie couldn’t extinguish it. The math for a “major fire” means there are actual flames and smoke and damage for our local firefighters to deal with. The total cost for that year for Winnetka, IL for all fires was $1.4M. The total cost for just benefits paid to our Winnetka firefighters was $1.6M. The overall costs for our Winnetka Fire Department, including salaries, benefits, equipment and uniforms was well over $5M!!! Yes, the total cost for our separate and in our view, goofy local Fire Department was more than triple the amount of money they saved or damage they prevented.

 

Expand and explore the math for your municipality, people. We have looked across our area and almost all Chicago-area suburbs have the same metrics. Our taxpayers are paying more in just firefighter benefits than the actual damage from fires our local Fire Departments are putting out. The overall costs of having separate police and fire departments are skyrocketing. Consider consolidation for gov’t efficiency and effectiveness with no drop in public safety.

 

So What The Heck Just Happened to Raise These Flags?

 

To KCB&A, some of us feel fake gov’t pensions should have the same stigma attached to welfare. We also consider them misleading. In making these statements, we have to remember it isn’t the line government workers who created this system. It is hard to put all the blame on them for taking advantage of a completely botched retirement or disability concept. But at some point, someone has to be responsible for it. We truly feel our IL judiciary should conduct an investigation and hearings into all IL gov’t retirement systems to insure everyone understands expanded coverages and how shockingly expensive these fake pensions are for IL taxpayers—we guesstimate we are actually “paying” firefighters something like $200-300K a year if you were to actually evaluate the true cost of their compensation and pension/healthcare benefits over their lives.

 

IL Firefighters have fake gov’t pensions of an unusual nature. They are called “line-of-duty” disability pensions. Firefighters are eligible for some of these benefits the first day they are employed. The firefighter doesn’t actually have to be injured or get sick in the actual line of duty to get lifetime and expensive benefits. And if their cards are played correctly, they can get free family healthcare coverage for present or future spouses and children they didn’t have while working for taxpayers.

 

In Bremer v. City of Rockford, Claimant was a Rockford, IL firefighter. IL firefighters and their unions fought and fought to get a magical benefit—if they become randomly unhealthy for a variety of expected and sometimes arcane reasons, they are entitled to what we call a ‘fake’ occupational line-of-duty disability pension. Please note

 

1.    They don’t necessarily have to be actually “disabled” from all work—they only have to be disabled from being a firefighter.

2.    The condition doesn’t truly have to be “related” to any exposure at work—it just has to be a personal problem in the right medical category per our misguided legislature.

 

These concerns echo several problem we have with all IL police and fire fake disability pensions—the former officers keep getting paid as if disabled but can still work second and third jobs and make a lot of money while getting largesse from taxpayers for their lifetime fake pension benefit. As we indicate above, the medical condition doesn’t actually have to have anything to do with their work as a firefighter. They may have cardiac/pulmonary or other medical issues due to being overweight, smoking cigarettes, participating in sports or non-work-related activities. In our view, if a disabled firefighter can work, they can and should be placed in the next available light work position within the municipality to save taxpayers money.

 

We can’t tell from the published decision whether this former firefighter continues to work a second or third job—it actually isn’t important relative to the ruling and wasn’t mentioned at all. That said, we are sure from the decision this former firefighter developed a heart condition called cardiomyopathy. In cardiomyopathy, the heart muscle becomes enlarged, thick, or rigid. In rare cases, the muscle tissue in the heart is replaced with scar tissue. In street or simple terms, cardiomyopathy is called “hardening of the heart.” For someone with his cardiac condition, as cardiomyopathy worsens, the heart becomes weaker. It's less able to pump blood through the body and maintain a normal electrical rhythm. This can lead to all sort of bad stuff. Please further note cardiomyopathy can be acquired or inherited. "Acquired" means you aren't born with the disease, but you develop it due to another disease, condition, or factor. "Inherited" means your parents or grandparents passed the gene for the disease on to you. Many times, the cause of cardiomyopathy isn't known. But in the case of IL firefighters, it doesn’t matter—if you get a cardiac problem like this, you can retire on the taxpayer’s dime.

 

Why do the people of the City of Rockford care about this former firefighter developing this unfortunate condition? Well, there is a presumption any heart or pulmonary condition is related to work because firefighters are mystically and magically supposed to come in contact with smoke and icky chemicals in smoke. We don’t agree at all that firefighters live their work lives surrounded by smoke—this is another urban legend. While some firefighters almost certainly come into contact with smoke on a rare, random and occasional basis, in many municipalities, that might happen once or three times in a given calendar year and for minutes at a time.

 

So why is this former firefighter in court?—well, on top of the fake disability pension, this former officer is seeking lifetime family health care benefits at taxpayer’s cost. It seems a trial judge in the Winnebago County Circuit Court gave him that expensive benefit via summary judgment. Please note that cost is over $13K a year for the taxpayers of the City of Rockford—it will continue to rise every year as all healthcare costs do. After careful review, the IL Appellate Court sent the whole thing back to the Circuit Court for a trial.

 

Please understand the rising cost of salaries, WC and disability benefits for disparate police and firefighter departments is a cost taxpayers won’t be able to afford in the not-too-distant future. We feel you could consolidate departments and cut the number of “doubled” police and fire public safety workers dramatically. We recommend you follow the lead of the Village of Glencoe and start to merge your public safety departments into a single unit to save literally millions.

 

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

1-25-2016; Clarification/Correction from Last Week's Lead Article; E-Filing of Civil Litigation Coming to an IL County Near You Next Year; USDC for the Northern Dist of IL Announces New Website and...

Synopsis: Correction/Clarification On Last Week’s Lead KCB&A Update Article.

 

Editor’s comment: We wrote last week about what we feel is the Illinois Appellate Court, WC Division’s expansion of our IL Workers’ Compensation Act to allow wage differential benefits to be paid, even when the employer accommodates restrictions and there is no actual loss in earnings. This decision was reported by many national workers’ comp news sources as having the IL WC system require wage loss benefits be awarded by our Commission and reviewing courts even where there was no demonstrable loss of wages or income.

 

Our frustration with the ruling in Jackson Park Hospital v. IWCC led us to recommend against further appeals to this Division of our Appellate Court from the defense/respondent side of the aisle, as we find it virtually impossible to succeed based on the Court’s recent track record. In expressing our recommendation in this regard, we may have inappropriately referenced what we felt was a “mistake” of defense counsel on the case for having appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling to that panel.

 

It was not our intention to imply the defense attorney representing the Hospital had done anything wrong or was mistaken in his litigation management of the case at all. In fact, we know the attorney to be a veteran and capable litigator and we are certain he argued well for his client’s interests. It was pointed out to us further the wage differential award under 8(d)(1) in this case was actually issued by the Circuit Court Judge based on Petitioner’s appeal, and wage loss benefits were awarded based upon that reviewing court’s ruling finding the IWCC decision was against the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard. Therefore, the employer and defense counsel appropriately felt there may be a chance to reverse on further review to the Appellate Court, WC Division--to no avail. We were probably acting as “arm-chair quarterbacks” to unfairly comment in an after-the-fact perspective on what to do with an unsuccessful Circuit Court appeal. We extend our apologies to our respected colleague who clearly made what was felt to be the best possible decision to work hard and argue harder to seek what we feel should have been an appellate reversal and reinstatement of the IWCC ruling. Our commentary was intended to emphasize our view that current and future appeals by Illinois employers, government bodies and insurance carriers to this sitting Appellate Court panel are met by what we feel is a very Petitioner-oriented group of jurists and the chances of success are statistically quite slim. Employers should be mindful of the Court’s recent track record when considering what is usually the final level of an IL WC appeal.

 

The partners at KCB&A are in the ongoing process of updating our textbook to be used in our course on workers’ compensation law and practice we teach at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago. In pursuing the exhaustive research for that treatise, we review literally every single decision by the five-member IL Appellate Court, Workers’ Comp Division. What we have seen in doing that analysis is decision after decision from our Appellate Court, WC Division where all five justices rule with a single and unanimous mindset that we feel is insuring workers’ comp benefits are being awarded at the highest possible level. In some instances, we feel the justices are ruling in a creative fashion to “judicially legislate” or creatively outline new legal concepts to expand the WC Act’s coverage and/or heighten benefit awards, as we feel happened in the Jackson Park Hospital v. IWCC ruling we reported last week.

 

As we have also repeatedly advised the WC defense community, we are seeing more and more Circuit and Appellate Court rulings where the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard does not appear to constrain our reviewing courts in the fashion one might have felt would be followed after the crystal-clear rulings on the topic in two seminal decisions from the IL Supreme Court in Sisbro v. IWCC and Twice Over Clean v. IWCC. In both those decisions, our Supreme Court cautioned the lower courts not to interject their own opinions and supplant those of the IL WC Commission. Despite those clear-cut decisions, we still see case after case where denials by the IWCC almost regularly become awards in the reviewing courts.

 

As another thought, we point out our IL Supreme Court controls the composition of the five-member IL Appellate Court, WC Division. To read the many rulings of the penultimate reviewing court, one might think our Supreme Court was entirely from Democratic roots and pro-labor. In stark contrast to such expectations, the IL Supreme Court has three Republicans of its seven members. We would then assume there might be two members of the five-member IL Appellate Court who would be from Republican roots and be pro-management. One might then think you would see regular dissents from the pro-management/Republican members with perhaps an occasional win by the minority group. Instead the vast majority of IL WC appellate rulings are unanimous for the interests of Illinois labor and a dissenting voice is rarely presented—by that, we mean we see an Appellate Court defense dissent in the work comp arena about once every several years.

 

Is There a Concern About Unanimity at the IL Appellate Court, WC Division?

 

When we see strong unanimity from a veteran, erudite and strong-willed court, such as this, you have to start wondering why defense lawyers are first recommending and then taking cases to this third level of WC appeal. As we indicate above, after the third level of appeal, defense lawyers rarely bring back anything for their clients to appreciate in exchange for taking on the cost, uncertainty and risk of that appeal--there have been no defense dissents in the vast majority of IL WC appellate rulings in the last several years. Will this “activist” harmony continue?—there is no indication any of the justices are even slightly leaning to the defense side. For now, an overwhelmingly pro-labor, pro-benefits consensus statistically reigns.

 

That is partly because some of the recent decisions were decidedly minor in scope and outcomes predictable. But the Appellate Court, WC Division justices were also unanimous in significant cases, too. When we see a concurrence, it is one or two justices seeking to add more fuel to the majority’s award. The recent unanimous cases are noteworthy for a second reason: many of our august justices truly speak with a single voice. Such authentically unanimous decisions are starting to signal a lack of hope for employers, governments and insurance carriers in getting what they might feel is a fair shake.

 

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

 

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

 

Synopsis: IL Supreme Court Orders E-Filing for Civil Claims. Will the IWCC Follow?

 

Editor’s comment: Starting in July 2017, all Illinois civil claims are going to follow e-filling protocols. We are happy to see our highest court move to streamline and automate these processes that we feel should reduce waste and save taxpayers money. We hope the practice of criminal law is soon to follow. We also feel some older lawyers may leave the practice rather than deal with the many computer-based changes that will be coming to their practices.

 

We also hope Chairperson Fratianni and her great staff are looking into taking our Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission into the land of e-filing and e-service. You may note they recently ended the use of snail mail to issue decisions—we feel all IWCC notices can and should be more streamlined and much faster. Status calls can and should be conducted online. Again, this may reduce IWCC staffing needs which should save Illinois business and governments money, as they pay 100% of the cost of operating the IWCC.

 

Here is the IL Supreme Court’s Historic Order from Last Week:

 

The exchange of information required to resolve disputes in court has, until the past quarter century, relied almost exclusively on paper documents . Technology has since evolved to provide for the automated exchange of court information. Court users, including self-represented litigants, increasingly benefit from paperless court systems that allow for electronic filing, service and access to case documents.

 

The Supreme Court of Illinois has adopted numerous rules, policies and initiatives to promote e-filing with the goal of fostering the effective and efficient administration of justice. Advances in e-filing were initiated on September 19, 2002, when the Court filed M.R. Order 18368 authorizing the electronic filing of documents with the Supreme Court on a pilot basis. However, after several years, only five counties were operating under the pilot program. To encourage expansion of e-filing, the Court approved Electronic Filing Standards and Principles on October 24, 2012, thereby concluding the pilot status of civil case e-filing and authorizing permanent e-filing upon circuit court request and Court approval. In September 2014, the Court amended the Electronic Filing Standards and Principles to include e-filing in criminal case types and traffic citations. Yet, to date, only 15 of 102 Illinois counties have sought and been granted approval for e-filing. The scant use of e-filing statewide brings to bear what the Supreme Court has long recognized -- the barriers to statewide e-filing revolve primarily around the wide variances in funding and technology resources available to the state 's 24 circuit courts, including the 13 different case management systems currently operating in Illinois.

 

Committee Review and Recommendations

 

To address this challenge, the Technology Committee of the Conference of Chief Circuit Judges was tasked in 2013 with considering statewide standardization of data definition and exchange methods for e-filing and e-records. On June 21, 2013, the committee included within its recommendations to the Conference the conclusion that statewide e-filing efforts will develop if courts are mandated to e-file and follow a common set of standards for data packaging and organization.

 

On November 26, 2014, the Court created the e-Business Policy Advisory Board and Technical Committee comprised of judges, court clerks, attorneys and court technology personnel. The e-Business Policy Board is charged with providing recommendations, advice, and guidance to the Supreme Court and its Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts regarding the implementation of e-Business applications and data exchanges in Illinois circuit courts. On December 15, 2015, the e-Business Policy Board made several recommendations to the Court, including: (1) set a date certain for the implementation of mandatory e-filing of civil case s for all counties in the state; (2) require a single e-filing manager (EFM) to integrate e-filed documents into the case management systems of all counties not presently approved to conduct e-filing; and, (3) allow counties currently approved for e-filing to continue with their current e-filing systems, including EFMs, until one year after the centralized EFM has been operational for all other counties in the state, during which time a review should be conducted to recommend a date certain for those counties to begin using the centralized EFM for the e-filing of civil cases.

 

In spite of the rules, policies and standards in place, the implementation of discretionary e-filing program s has not achieved the desired goal of statewide e-filing on civil matters. As such, in reliance upon the recommendations of multi-disciplinary committees, boards, and court staff who have spent years evaluating this issue, this Court concludes that e-filing in civil cases in Illinois must be made mandatory.

 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:

 

1. This Order governs e-filing in civil cases for the Illinois Supreme Court, Illinois Appellate Court and Illinois Circuit Courts.

2. E-filing of civil cases shall be mandatory in the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Appellate Court effective July 1, 2017.

3. E-filing of civil cases shall be mandatory in Illinois Circuit Courts effective January 1, 2018.

4. In the Illinois Supreme Court and Illinois Appellate Court, e-filing of civil cases shall occur consistent with applicable policies, guidelines and/or standards authorize d by the Supreme Court and through the utilization of a centralized electronic filing manager (EFM) authorized by the Supreme Court. The centralized EFM shall be integrated with the Supreme Court Clerk and the five Illinois Appellate Court Clerk case management systems.

5. In all Circuit Courts which have not implemented an authorized local e-filing program by the filing date of this Order, e-filing of civil cases shall occur per the applicable policies, guidelines and/or standards authorized by the Supreme Court, and through the utilization of a centralized electronic filing manager (EFM) authorize d by the Supreme Court. The centralized EFM shall be integrated with each Circuit Court's case management system.

6. In all Circuit Courts operating an approved local e-filing program by the filing date of this Order, e-filing of civil cases shall occur per the applicable policies, guidelines and/or standards authorized by the Supreme Court, and through the utilization of an electronic filing manager (EFM) authorized by the Chief Circuit Judge and Circuit Clerk or the centralized EFM authorized by the Supreme Court. After January 1, 2018, and following evaluation of the implementation and operation of the centralized EFM, the Supreme Court may designate a future date certain at which time all such Circuit Courts shall utilize the centralized EFM authorized by the Supreme Court for the e-filing of civil cases. The centralized EFM shall be integrated with each Circuit Court's case management system.

7. Once a court is subject to mandatory e-filing under this Order, attorneys and self-represented litigants must e-file all documents in civil cases, except documents exempted by rules adopted by this Court. Attorneys and self-represented litigants may not file documents through any alternative filing method, except in the event of emergency. Courts may not accept, file or docket any document filed by an attorney or self-represented litigant in a civil case that is not filed in compliance with this Order, except in the event of an emergency. The Supreme Court, Appellate Court and Circuit Courts must provide designated space, necessary equipment, and technical support for self-represented litigants seeking to e-file documents during regular court hours.

8. Effective July 1, 2017, all trial court records on appeal will be standardized and transmitted using the central electronic filing manager (EFM) service from each county to the respective reviewing court.

9. The Supreme Court will adopt rules governing e-filing and e-service in accordance with the mandate schedule in this Order.

10. Courts who believe they cannot comply with this Order by the mandatory implementation date specified may petition the Supreme Court for an extension. Such extensions shall not be favored but may be granted for good cause shown.

 

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

 

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

 

Synopsis: On the Federal Side of Our Newly Computerized Courts, the USDC for the Northern District of Illinois Announces Their New Website.

 

Editor’s comment: We want the legal/government and insurance community to get a sense of how computerization is rapidly coming at every level of the practice of law. You need to get used to it and work to learn all of it. We assure you the defense team at KCB&A is on the forefront of this trend.

 

Welcome to the Northern District of Illinois' new website

We are pleased to announce the launching of the court's newly redesigned website.  www.ilnd.uscourts.gov

Averaging 24,000 visits a month, the court's website has increasingly become an important place for parties and the public to access information about cases, judges, and court news.

In creating the new website, we aimed for a cleaner look that is responsive to any browser resolution size and a design that we hope will simplify your web visit by allowing you to reach important applications with fewer clicks.  We hope you will find the new website both visually pleasing and easy to use.

Among the improvements you will notice, we would like to highlight the following:

  • More keyword searches and clickable index numbers
  • Direct links to individual judge's pages
  • Quick links and courthouse information on the footer of each page

In addition to aesthetic and function changes, the court's website will not be hosted on an offsite server, which will allow for uninterrupted use in the unlikely event of a power outage at the courthouse.

Thank you and visit us at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov

 

1-18-16; IL WC Appellate Court May Be Our Super-Commission?; Facebook Retraction Can't Be Ordered by Courts, analysis by Ellen Keefe-Garner; John Karis on Important Ruling about Intentional Acts...

Synopsis: IL Appellate Court, WC Division Continues to Define Its Role as What May Be Our Super-WC-Commission.

 

Editor’s comment: We have seen so many unanimous rulings from the current five-member IL WC Appellate panel, it almost seems like we are dealing with a single justice and not five separate men. We also just saw another “manifest weight of the evidence” reversal to insure claimant receives the highest possible IL WC benefits after the IWCC awarded less than the highest amount. We continue to await the first manifest weight reversal from the members of this panel to see an IL WC Commission benefits award lowered even a penny or fully vacated. We assure our readers from the business, claims and legal community, this panel hasn’t gotten the quiet message that some members on both sides of the IL WC matrix quietly want Illinois WC awards and benefits to be brought back to the middle of the pack of U.S. WC systems. We assume the claimant bar is watching and when a claim is denied by a conservative IL WC Commission award, an appeal to this panel for more do-re-mi will be a viable option. On the other side, we see no reason for any Illinois employer or WC insurance carrier to bring an appeal to this activist, liberal and pro-labor group unless you like losing and truly losing big.

 

What Happened to Sisbro and Twice Over Clean?

 

About a decade ago, the IL Supreme Court went back and forth on these somewhat famous rulings. The clear and abiding message was our penultimate reviewing court wasn’t supposed to interject their own view of the facts in handling WC appeals. In Sisbro, our highest court said

 

The Commission must decide whether there was an accidental injury which arose out of the employment, whether the accidental injury aggravated or accelerated the preexisting condition or whether the preexisting condition alone was the cause of the injury. Generally, these will be factual questions to be resolved by the Commission. However, the Commission's decision must be supported by the record and not based on mere speculation or conjecture. If there is an adequate basis… the Commission's award…must be confirmed.

 

In short, it seems to us the reviewing courts aren’t supposed to reverse an IWCC ruling without a very, very strong basis to do so. That said, we have seen at least five rulings in the last couple of years where the Appellate Court, WC Division is obviously and unanimously substituting their view of the facts for that of the Commission. In each and every claim, they are doing so to insure benefits are either awarded or enhanced for a claimant. With respect to the members of the Court, we think they are acting as a “Super-Commission” when they ignore the Commission and do what they feel they want to do with even the simplest set of facts.

 

What Just Happened?

 

Well, the Court just flipped another reasonable award by the IWCC to insure the highest conceivable WC benefits are awarded. Wage-differential awards are one of the two forms of PPD compensation provided by the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. Section 8(d)(1) of the Act provides that a worker is entitled to a wage differential award when her or she is partially incapacitated from pursuing their usual employment when there is a difference between the average amount Claimant would be able to earn in their job and in the average amount which they would be able to earn after the accident.

 

Alternatively, if the IWCC doesn’t use their discretion to award wage differential benefits, Section 8(d)(2) or the “person as a whole” provision provides for a PPD award based on a percentage-of-the-person-as-a-whole when the worker is partially disabled from continuing their job but also suffers a limit on earning capacity.

 

Is it Section 8(d-1) or 8(d-2), Who is Supposed to Make the Call?

 

The IL WC Appellate Court, in its decision for Jackson Park Hospital v. IWCC was dealing with an employer in the poorest part of Chicago. In our view, Jackson Park Hospital is hanging on by a thread and a prayer. We don’t truly know but we doubt they are paying hourly fees to their defense lawyer with any regularity. We assure our readers, most of their patients are on Medicare/Medicaid/ACA or some government medical program and they are patiently waiting to get paid at every step of the treatment process.

 

Claimant  worked as a stationary engineer for Jackson Park Hospital on the east side Chicago. It was her job to address plumbing, heating, and electrical maintenance issues throughout the hospital facility. She had to have training needed to understand these mechanical concerns. Claimant hurt her back in October 2005 while trying to climb into a locked office through a sliding glass window. Her treating doctor authorized her to return to sedentary work in February 2007. Jackson Park Hospital offered Claimant a clerical position in its accounting department. The hospital later moved Claimant to another clerical position in its employee health department, and then to its security department. Even though she wasn’t working as a stationary engineer, the Hospital continued to pay Claimant at the same rate she had earned as a stationary engineer in each of these positions. Claimant still filed a request for lifetime wage loss benefits based on Section 8(d)(1) of the IL WC Act. There is no evidence in the record of any effort of the Hospital to locate work for her outside the Hospital. We don’t see any evidence of a voc rehab provider testifying she can and should be working today.

 

Arbitrator Cronin carefully considered the facts and determined Section 8(d)(1) which provides for wage loss differential benefits was inapplicable to Claimant because she suffered no actual reduction in her income. He instead awarded Claimant substantial “person as a whole” PPD benefits based on Section 8(d)(2). Like Section 8(d-1), this section of the IL WC Act also clearly covers loss of wages.

 

After receiving the Arbitrator’s award, Claimant appealed to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission. For reasons unstated in the record, the Hospital coincidentally terminated her while her administrative appeal was pending. She filed an emergency motion to remand the case to the arbitrator in order to reopen proofs to allow additional evidence relating to termination. The Commission carefully considered the motion but denied it. The Commission panel later affirmed Arbitrator Cronin’s award and adopted the arbitration decision as its own ruling.

 

Clamant sought judicial review, and the Cook County Circuit Court judge reversed the Commission. The Judge said the Commission's decision to award benefits under Section 8(d)(2) instead of 8(d)(1) was against the manifest weight of the evidence and the opposite conclusion was clearly apparent. He ordered the case remanded for the Commission to issue Claimant a wage-differential award. Please note both Section 8(d-1) and Section 8(d-2) unquestionably provide for loss of income in a post-injury setting. There is no legislative guidance on which Section of the IL WC Act that prevails in a dispute. In essence, the Commission and reviewing courts randomly get to do whatever they want. In trying to resolve this legislative discrepancy, ten years have passed.

 

On remand, the Commission panel ruled they thought there was no evidence in the record that warranted altering its prior decision but it complied with the Judge’s order and awarded Claimant $389.60 per week, from Feb. 19, 2007, through the duration of her disability which most folks would feel will be the end of her life. She is going to be paid $20,259.20 a year on a tax-free basis by this struggling hospital from now on. We can’t tell how long that exposure will last as we can’t learn Claimant’s age from the web or the IWCC website. We also don’t see the IWCC or courts outlining the needed voc rehab and job search efforts in the decision on appeal.

 

The Hospital appealed the wage loss award, but the Circuit Court upheld the award. The Hospital’s attorney then made what we consider a mistake to take the claim to the activist IL Appellate Court, WC division. The unanimous five-member IL WC Appellate panel ruled the Hospital now has to pay Claimant that money on a weekly basis for life. Instead of owing her for 200 weeks, they could pay her for 20, 30 or 40 years, depending on how long she lives.

 

In short, we have no idea when wage loss under Section 8(d-1) should be awarded in contradistinction to similar PPD benefits under Section 8(d-2). We are sure Section 8(d-2) provides lesser monies for IL WC wage loss awards but it appears the reviewing courts are putting themselves in the place of the Commission, as what may be a “Super-Commission” in making such policy decisions.

 

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

 

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

 

Synopsis: IL Courts Can’t Require Facebook Messages to Retract Prior Posts. Analysis by Admitted Facebooker Ellen Keefe-Garner, RN, BSN, JD.

Editor's comment: Facebook is an online social networking service headquartered in Menlo Park, California. Its website was launched February 4, 2004, by Mark Zuckerberg with his Harvard College roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. The founders initially limited the website's membership to Harvard students, but later expanded it to other colleges. It gradually added support for students at various other universities and later to high-school students. Since 2006, anyone who is at least 13 years old was allowed to become a registered user of the website, though the age requirement may be higher depending on applicable local laws. Its name comes from the “face book” directories often given to American university students.’

 

No one can disagree with the premise Facebook has changed our lives forever. Information posted on Facebook is out on the Internet forever and is there for everyone to read. There is no doubt controversial subjects often find their way into a Facebook post. Lawyers have learned they can discover information on Facebook that can be used to help or hurt a litigant's position in a legal matter, such as a workers’ comp or employment law claim. In fact, courts on all levels are considering legal issues related to Facebook postings. Recently the United States Supreme Court heard arguments about whether violent statements posted on Facebook show proof of a person's intent to commit harm.


An interesting issue concerning a Facebook post was recently litigated in the Illinois Fourth District case of In Re Marriage of Weddigen. In Weddigen, a divorcing father published a Facebook post in which he claimed to have secretly recorded a hearing in his child custody case. His wife subsequently filed a motion requesting the court hold the father in contempt of court for writing the post and for recording the child custody hearing. Several hearings were subsequently held, after which the court ultimately entered an order holding the father in contempt of court. In addition, the court required the father publish a Facebook post to apologize to "everyone" as well as to encourage others to refrain from making recordings of child custody proceedings.

 

Although the majority chose not to address any First Amendment and/or freedom of speech issues, it did overturn the contempt order for other reasons. The most interesting discussion in the opinion was in Judge Steigmann's special concurrence. In his concurrence, Judge Steigmann made a colorful argument in which he called the order to publish an apology "compelled speech" reminiscent of that demanded in totalitarian regimes in which there is no right to free speech. In his concurrence, Steigmann made sweeping statements to express his dismay the contempt order violated the father's First Amendment rights. In his written opinion, Steigmann referenced the case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio State, in which the court stated: “The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from government because speech is the beginning of thought." Steigmann went on to conclude requiring the father to publish an apology on Facebook was reminiscent of the Vietnam "reeducation camps" and he stated the trial court was completely without legal justification to impose such an order.

 

This Appellate Court opinion may make people believe they have an endless amount of freedom to publish anything they like on Facebook. However, the same people should remember their postings on Facebook can backfire in ways not protected by the First Amendment. Social media snooping has become very popular and is often done to garner information intended to be used against the person doing the posting. Notably, potential employers often look at an applicant's Facebook page to determine if the applicant is deserving of employment. If the potential employer observes Facebook posts revealing wild behavior like excessive drinking or drug usage, the employer may have reservations about extending a job offer to an applicant. Also, attorneys frequently search through social media sites to obtain "dirt" that can be used against adverse parties in legal cases. In fact, some legal ethicists have proposed that attorneys have an affirmative duty, and not just a right, to investigate facts they could or might find on Facebook or other social media sites in the context of performing discovery in a legal matter. So, even though the First Amendment might protect any speech found on Facebook, individuals should be careful about what they post in order to avoid embarrassment if an attorney or a potential employer decides to use the post against them.

 

This article was researched and written by Ellen Keefe-Garner, RN, BSN, JD. She can be reached for questions and concerns at emkeefe@keefe-law.com.

 

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

 

Synopsis: Important WC Ruling Where the Workers’ Compensation Act Bans Civil Claim for Failing to Show Employer’s Acts were Intentional. Analysis by John Karis, J.D.

Editor’s Comment: On December 4, 2015, the New Jersey Appellate Court upheld a trial court’s decision preventing a Plaintiff and her husband from suing plaintiff’s employer for assault and sexual harassment stating it was barred by the exclusive remedy provision within New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Similar provisions apply in the five states KCB&A has licensed defense lawyers.

Claimant worked at a Burger King restaurant in the Monmouth Mall in Eatontown, New Jersey. On August 29, 2008, Claimant was working in a walk-in freezer when an assistant manager followed her into the freezer and proceeded to touch her through her clothes, kissing her.  While she was in the freezer, the BK manager of the restaurant, opened the door, looked at both employees, and then left.  When the door had been briefly opened, the assistant manager ceased touching Plaintiff, but later in the same day, this ass’t manager again touched her and kissed her while they were both at the workplace.

Clamant did not report either incident on the day the two incidents occurred.  However, the following day, Plaintiff’s husband called to complain about how his wife had been treated. Claimant’s husband then came to the restaurant the following day to provide more details of the alleged assault. Burger King had a written policy prohibiting workplace harassment, which all employees received.  The manager followed the policy and reported the allegations to the district manager, who conducted an investigation. The assistant manager was suspended, then transferred to another store, and eventually terminated when he did not report to work.  Plaintiff ceased her employment with Burger King two weeks after the alleged assault.

On September 10, 2008, Claimant reported the two incidents to the local police, who arrested the assistant manager and charged him with fourth-degree criminal sexual contact. He pled guilty to a lesser charge of violating an ordinance.

In March 2009, Plaintiff brought a workers’ compensation claim against the restaurant owner, alleging workplace injuries and sexual assault. That case was settled for $7,500. Claimant and her husband also brought a civil claim against the assistant manager, Burger King Corporation and their manager.  The claims against Burger King were dismissed and the claims against the manager were settled and dismissed. The remaining Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the civil suit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the NJ Workers’ Compensation Act.

Generally, when an employee's claimed injuries fall within the coverage of the WC Act, the employee is barred from seeking further legal redress from an employer or co-employee. The WC Act's exclusivity can be overcome if the case satisfies the statutory exception for an intentional wrong.

The trial judge dismissed the suits, and Claimant and her husband appealed. They relied on a 1988 federal case, Cremen v. Harrah’s Marina Hotel Casino, where the Court held the civil suit survived the workers’ compensation bar. The Appellate Division in this case held the facts in Cremen were distinguishable.

The Appellate Division held this case was simply a matter of negligence.  It felt the manager acted negligently in that he should have asked what was going on when he walked in to the freezer. To get past the exclusivity of the WC Act, Claimant had to prove intentional conduct, but the court said this sort of inaction is not intentional harm.  The Court also held the owner engaged in no intentional conduct. Instead, it acted consistent with its harassment policy once the claim was reported. Therefore, the WC Act barred the civil suit against both the manager and owner.

This article was researched and written by John Karis, JD. You can reach John 24/7/365 for questions about general liability and workers’ compensation at jkaris@keefe-law.com