1-2-2017; Easy and Effective IL WC Cost-Cutting Reforms From KCB&A for Governor Rauner and Everyone To Consider; Ellen Keefe-Garner on New Medical Techniques; IRS Mileage Change and more

Synopsis: Easy and Effective IL WC Cost-Cutting Reforms From KCB&A for Governor Rauner and Everyone To Consider.

 

Editor’s comment: Is there some way to get Governor Rauner to “Turnaround” his obsession with most of his proposed Illinois WC reforms that won’t “work?” We saw a recent op-ed piece in Crain’s Chicago Business by our great Governor Bruce Rauner and feel it is again time to provide our readers and our fearless leader the inside scoop. Here is the safe link to Governor Rauner’s latest plea for WC reform

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161228/OPINION/161229933#utm_medium=email&utm_source=ccb-morning10&utm_campaign=ccb-morning10-20161228

 

I feel Governor Rauner is an amazing scholar, business-person and now government executive. I consider our nutty State government very lucky to have him as a leader. I do feel his priorities as Governor need careful retooling, particularly in his view of the problems facing our state. I ask our readers for your thoughts—what are the biggest challenges facing Illinois government? In my view, the number one problem is skyrocketing IL state debt that is now $163B. The second biggest problem is income and corporate taxes that are going up or need to go up to pay for budget deficits and the skyrocketing debt. Governor Rauner, you have accurately pointed out the many problems with the awful 2016 state budget proposal of the Democrats in Springfield who haven’t passed a balanced budget in a decade. Our third biggest issue is Illinois has thousands of redundant and overlapping taxing bodies/districts—more than any other in the entire country by almost triple.

 

When you look at these major economic crises facing Illinois state and local government, the work comp system is like a tiny blip on the radar. We can and should bring the WC costs down a tad but keep the concept in its proper place, please.

 

Don’t take my word for it—review this link from the Chicago Tribune about the crushing government and economic problems our State faces right now—you may note they don’t mention IL workers’ comp and/or any need to reform it even once!

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-madigan-cullerton-rauner-illinois-budget-edit-0101-20161229-story.html

 

That said, Governor Rauner, I feel workers’ compensation reform should be about your 10th priority. We agree lower WC costs will help bring in new business and have somewhat more competitive benefits but please don’t toss the baby with the bath water. In a state that is doing about as well as our beloved and bumbling 3-13 Chicago Bears football team, let’s make a couple of WC cost-cuts and go on to the big stuff! Something can and should be done to continue to tweak benefits lower but, please keep reading, good things may come from a couple of careful changes/tweaks that we are certain will “work.”

 

We feel our proposed work comp “math” below will bring a savings of around 10% to IL business and government. We feel the hard numbers from the KCB&A simple reform plan to save WC benefits but keep them reasonable should save IL business and government about $300 million a year.

 

Be Careful What You Wish For--You May Not Want Illinois to Become a Cheapskate, Ooops, I mean Cheap-State for WC Benefits!

 

Governor Rauner, like many of us, has a number of wonderful children. The Illinois widow I reported about last week, Sara Foster had five little kids. In year 2003, her husband was killed in an unquestioned and unfortunate industrial accident at a car manufacturing plant. The widow was supposed to receive about $1,000 a week or about $52,000 a year plus our IL RAF or cost-of-living adjustments. At the time, she was entitled to combined WC death benefits for 20 years which should and did take care of her kids through college.

 

If Widow Foster was in Indiana when her husband was killed in 2003, their IN WC death rates capped at weekly death benefits that were and remain staggeringly lower than IL. For an IN worker killed today, I believe their death benefits cap at $780 a week or about $40,000 a year. To my knowledge, there is no COLA increase for death benefits in cheap-o Indiana. Sorry, I don’t think that is enough to raise five kids, particularly if you live in an urban area. And worse, the IN WC death benefits end in the middle of the ninth year. That means most minor dependents of IN decedents don’t have money to eat, for decent housing or college after less than ten years. In my view, that means the IN WC system creates impoverished widows and teenage children. I can’t and won’t believe Governor Bruce Rauner understands that might be what you are asking for when seeking uncontrolled IL WC cost-cutting to match us with Indiana.

 

As another rapid example, I have a son in his mid-20’s who has two small kids. If he suffered a closed head injury and every doctor he saw said he couldn’t work ever again, the “cheap-state” IN WC system provides him, his wife and small children T&P benefits for less than ten years. After that, it is the welfare line. In summary

 

•      Indiana WC is cheap but isn’t the Garden of Eden for reasonable and fair workers’ comp benefits. They have a system that, in my view, doesn’t truly protect injured workers and their families and reasonably provide for serious injuries and workplace deaths.

•      A report from the U.S. Department of Labor in October 2016 says: "Working people [seeking WC benefits] are at great risk of falling into poverty," the agency confirmed when reviewing changes in state workers' comp laws.

•      They further outline the WC reforms have resulted in "the failure of state workers' compensation systems to provide [injured workers and widows/widowers] with adequate benefits."

•      The report further indicates many States across the country have enacted new laws, policies and procedures "which have limited benefits, reduced the likelihood of successful application for workers' compensation benefits, and/or discouraged injured workers from applying for benefits."

 

Please Also Understand Illinois Work Comp Benefits Dropped Under The Last Administration and Continue to Drop Your Aegis.

 

Under the prior Governor, Senate President Cullerton took an across-the-board review of workers’ comp costs and supported the 2011 reforms that unquestionably trimmed rising costs. As one prominent Plaintiff/Petitioner lawyer put it, “everyone got a haircut” and IL WC benefits were similarly clipped. We feel Senator Cullerton is an honest and fair man and wants good things for the State where he has raised his children. We hope Senate President Cullerton and other Democratic leaders will compromise on these simple and non-toxic changes to a system that continues to need trimming to be even better for new, existing and potential business.

 

I also feel Governor Rauner and other WC analysts shouldn’t put too much faith in the ‘every-other-year’ State of Oregon state-by-state study of WC premiums—car insurance premiums for bad drivers don’t drop the first year they stop having accidents! There is certain to be a delay in any stat-rat analysis of insurance premiums. The lower costs for WC benefits in IL will take a couple of years to show on the books and on the Oregon study but if we cut them, the statistics will show it.

 

In October 2015, Crain’s Chicago Business reported IL WC medical payments fell nearly 15 percent, to an average of $14,513 per claim, during the 12-month period ended Sept. 30, 2013 (measured as of March 31, 2014), down from $17,140 per claim in 2010-11, according to the Workers Compensation Research Institute, which is mostly funded by the insurance industry. Illinois' average WC payments were lower than Indiana's ($18,863), Wisconsin's ($17,787) and Iowa's ($16,051), according to the study, which compares 17 states that handle more than 60 percent of the workers' comp cases nationwide.

 

Another study by the stat-rats at WCRI in November 2016 confirmed medical payments per claim in Illinois increased annually an average of only 3.1 percent between 2012 and 2014. Before Governor Rauner was in office, Illinois used to have the highest medical payments per workers’ compensation claim of all the states WCRI studied prior to 2011, the year in which Illinois reduced by 30 percent its fee schedule for all medical services. “Medical payments per workers’ compensation claim in Illinois remained higher than the other states we examined but have moved closer to the median study state, and the shift can be attributed in part to the state’s 2011 reforms,” said Ramona Tanabe, WCRI’s executive vice president and counsel.

Medical payments per claim to hospitals, for both outpatient and inpatient care, were similar in Illinois to other study states. WCRI studied medical payments, prices, and utilization in 18 states, including Illinois, looking at claim experience through 2015 on injuries that occurred mainly in 2009 to 2014.

 

Based on the statistics above, Illinois has already grown more competitive in the medical aspect of WC in relation to our “sister” states.

 

My View, Governor, Is Re-calibrate Your Focus for WC Reform—Here Are My Best Thoughts!

 

Whoever told you to fight for these four IL WC reforms didn’t give you the inside scoop. You have four “turnaround” proposals which focus on

 

1.    “Causation”

2.    “Traveling Employee”

3.    Evidence Relating to Impairment Ratings

4.    Changes to the IL WC Medical Fee Schedule.

 

I have told my readers before and I will stake a reputation of 37 years of teaching, writing and winning defense claims in the workers’ compensation system in this state, you are completely wasting your time on the first three. First, if you get the “causation” language you seek, nothing will change other than to see hearing officers address the language and still routinely find causation unless the culture of the Commission changes. Second, whoever wrote the proposed changes to the “traveling employee” concept did not appreciate the adverse effect this poorly conceived “reform” may have on business—please, please don’t pass that legislation, as I am sure it will expand the odd and undefinable traveling employee concept. Please just leave well enough alone unless our courts attempt to judicially legislate expansion again. Third, I will address how to bring PPD or permanency values lower later in this KCB&A Update—you don’t need to worry about evidence considered in reaching lower impairment ratings or permanency. Fuggeddaboutit!

 

If you change the IL WC Medical Fee Schedule as proposed in your reforms above, those are “hard changes” and like the 2011 Amendments, they should “work” and save WC costs. I vote you or your team discuss the changes in a confab with Dr. David Fletcher or the IL WC Medical Fee Schedule Advisory Board and continue to fight for what is best for our state and its WC system.

 

So What Else Should Our Fearless Leader “Reform” To Continue To Reasonably Bring Down IL WC Costs?

 

Workers’ comp benefits are three main things—medical benefits, lost time or TTD benefits and permanency/impairment. Illinois’ business and local government are estimated to pay about $3B a year in such benefits. If you cut them by about 10%, you are saving $300M.

 

1.    As I outline above, medical costs are dropping and may continue to drop. Other than your one reform above, we can all keep watching to insure progress continues.

 

2.    On the issue of lost time or TTD benefits, consider cutting the TTD rate by about 10% or from 66-2/3% to 60% of the average weekly wage—that is a fight worth winning because if you can put that into place, I assure you no one can mess with the legislation, savings would be immediate and the changes won’t be that painful for injured workers who may need more incentive to go back to work due to lower compensation when off.

 

3.    On the third main benefit—permanency or PPD--Governor Rauner, you don’t control our General Assembly but you DO control administrative jobs at government agencies. In my view, you appear to have forgotten how powerful a position that can be. If you actually want IL WC permanency or PPD costs to go down about 10% in the next year:

 

·         I recommend you or your people personally meet with IWCC Chairman Joann Fratianni-Atsaves along with the other nine members of the IL Workers’ Compensation Commission, the 30 or so IL WC Arbitrators and the IL WC Advisory Boards in a major convocation. All of those folks report directly to you via an Illinois law passed in 2011 by Speaker Madigan.

 

·         I would recommend you or your people explain/discuss your concerns about cutting IL WC costs carefully with these administrators. Ask the attendees to take notes to convince you they are listening.

 

·         I recommend you or you people press for a return to the pre-2005 changes and scale back the PPD schedule by about 7-7.5%. Petitioner’s and their attorneys survived for decades before 2005 and will do just fine with the pre-2005 PPD schedule. For one quick example, prior to 2005, a leg was “worth” 200 weeks of compensation. When the liberals in the Blago administration got in, they raised the 200 weeks by 7.5% to 215 weeks—let’s go back to 200 weeks!

 

·         I would recommend you or your people let the IWCC administrators know he will be watching and will carefully consider reappointing the administrators who heed the call. I would recommend you quietly tell the administrators who don’t heed the call, they may want to polish up their resumes.

 

·         Consider creating an IL WC “complaint box” for Illinois business and government to send what they feel are their worst arbitration and IWCC decisions to—have one of your top folks take a look at what the administrators are doing and report back so you know what is happening at this agency.

 

Going beyond the issues of medical, lost time and permanency, Gov. Rauner, you and your team should ask for and then meet with new IL Supreme Court Chief Justice Lloyd Karmeier along with any other interested justices. Try to invite IL Chamber President Todd Maisch and his WC guru Jay Dee Shattuck to the confab. I would recommend you or your people discuss the makeup of the five-member IL WC Division of the Appellate Court to see if the Supreme Court’s distinguished members can appoint at least two or maybe three moderate/conservative or “pro-business” justices who will heed the same call and try to cut work comp costs and stop flipping denied claims on “manifest weight” and expanding WC coverage and all the other benefit-increasing actions the current judicial panel keeps doing. We haven’t seen a moderate or conservative justice on the IL WC Div. of the Appellate Court in about a generation and the blame for that lies with our IL Supreme Court.

 

Then Gov. Rauner, we suggest you take a look at your own IL State workers’ comp program that pays millions upon millions of dollars to state workers who are on TTD and total and permanent disability benefits when they can and should be trained and then brought back to the thousands of sedentary and light jobs in Illinois State government. As stupid as it might sound because most folks don’t understand it, start the fight to pass a law requiring all IL injured workers, including police officers and firefighters who can work at all in any capacity have to be brought back to light and sedentary jobs and can’t be paid TTD or T&P or line-of-duty disability benefits if light/sedentary work is available but refused. The same requirement should be applied to Illinois’ largest city—Chicago. The State and the City of Chicago are two of the biggest employers in Illinois and obvious decades-long mismanagement of your/their WC and disability programs poisons the private sector. Happy to explain further if asked. Please also consider hiring a third party administrator from our state to keep the State’s WC business here!!

 

In your recent op-ed article in Crain’s Chicago Business, you referred to IL WC and said “We can’t afford to fail.” The defense team at KCB&A agrees with you—so start using the tools at your disposal to attack Illinois workers’ comp costs whenever and wherever you and your team can. We are happy to meet with you and your team at any time and discuss/explain all of this—just let us know when and where.

 

We appreciate everyone’s thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

 

 

Synopsis: Less Recovery Time Equals Less Settlement Monies Paid to Injured Workers Who Experience Knee Injuries. By Ellen Keefe-Garner, JD, RN, BSN

 

Editor’s comment: All those involved in U.S. Worker's Compensation claims know that compensation settlements involve payments for lost wages and medical expenses. Knee injuries experienced at work can result in a costly Worker's Compensation claim for the employer and the insurance carrier. Any measure that can reduce the cost of lost wages and medical expenses will help save money for employers and insurance carriers who are paying for these claims.

 

The knee is the largest joint in a person's body, and it bears the load of the body's weight during movement. Knee pain is one of the most common musculoskeletal complaints that brings people to their doctor for treatment. Such knee pain has a wide variety of specific causes and treatments. Strains and sprains in the knee and in other joints top all lists for one of the most common types of injury in Worker's Compensation cases.

 

The workplace can give rise to a myriad of knee injuries. Workplace knee injuries can result from numerous movements, including slipping and falling, twisting, crushing, bending, and turning. Knee injuries can culminate in a lengthy and difficult recovery for an employee, resulting in extended lost time at work, numerous knee surgeries, and mountains of cost to the employer and carrier. Anything that can help to shorten the recovery time from such a knee injury will result in savings in a comp case.

 

In other words, the old adage that time equals money comes to play in Worker's Compensation cases involving knee injuries. In such cases, less time recovering from a knee injury equals a speedier return to work. Thinking along the lines of saving money, a new study published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine brings good news for employers and insurance carriers.

 

The study in the American Journal of Sports Medicine examined patients who had damaged the various forms of cartilage in their knee. In the knee, there is cartilaginous tissue which acts like a shock absorber during weight bearing and impact. One type of such cartilage is called the meniscus, which acts like a pillow to cushion the knee during weight-bearing activities. Another type of cartilage is called articular cartilage. The articular cartilage covers and protects the ends of the long bones that come together in the knee joint.

 

Incorrect movement at the knee joint can result in damage to or tearing of the cartilage in the knee. Such movement can also result in the loss of some of the cartilage at the articular joint of the knee, resulting in bone-on-bone grinding in the knee joint. Damage or loss of such cartilage can result in pain and significant problems for an injured worker. Treating doctors often resort to ordering various knee surgeries to fix the damage to the cartilage and to speed recovery for the injured worker. One such surgery involves implanting new cartilage into the knee where it can grow and repair the damaged cartilage.

 

The study published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine proposed that workers who received a graft of their own knee cartilage during surgery would fare better and recover more quickly if they got back to full weight-bearing activities in six weeks rather than in the traditional eight-week period for recovery. In the six-week group, the injured patients had the potential for getting back to work two weeks faster than the eight-week recovery group. The patients who participated in the study all had experienced damaged cartilage in their knees. All of the patients subsequently underwent a two-step surgery called matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation surgery, or MACI surgery.

 

During the first step of the MACI Surgery, healthy cartilage was collected from the patient's knee. After it was collected, it was sent to a lab where it was encouraged to grow under special laboratory conditions. After more cartilage was grown in the lab, the second surgery was performed. During the second surgery, the surgeon implanted the now-larger cartilage into the knee where it would ultimately integrate with the surrounding damaged cartilage. In other words, the newly grown cartilage was inserted into the knee to "patch up" the damaged cartilage.

 

Of course, the MACI patch would initially be very delicate following the implantation surgery. Because it was delicate, the patients were required to rest with no weight-bearing on the knee.

 

Information found during the study showed that some weight-bearing and movement in the knee area might promote growth of the newly implanted cartilage cells. Emboldened by this finding, the authors of the study proposed that earlier weight-bearing on the knee joint might actually speed recovery. Based on testing performed during the study, it was noted that the group of patients with the accelerated six-week recovery period showed slightly better overall performance on tests of the MACI-repaired knee's function than the patients who recovered for eight weeks.

 

In other words, the study of the MACI graft patients showed that workers with knee injuries could possibly get back to work after a six-week rather than the usual eight-week recovery period. Of course, this shortened period of recovery would result in a savings of at least two weeks of lost wages in a Worker's Compensation case. Considering that knee injuries can be very expensive compensation cases to settle, any savings of lost wages would financially benefit the employer and the insurance carrier.

 

This article was researched and written by Ellen Keefe-Garner who is a lawyer and nurse. Ellen provides advice and defense counsel in Michigan and Illinois, as she is a licensed attorney in both states. Ellen is happy to consult and advise you on complex medical and legal issues. She can be reached at emkeefe@keefe-law.com.

 

Synopsis: IRS Travel Reimbursement Rates Decreased.

Editor’s comment: IRS has cut the mileage reimbursement rates effective yesterday, January 1, 2017. 

For IL Claims Handlers and IME services, the mileage rate for IME’s in IL isn’t outlined in the Rules or IL WC Act. There is an appellate ruling that says we/you need to use the IRS business miles driven number—as you can see below, it is 53.5 cents a mile. To create a legally effective Section 12 exam in Illinois, the mileage expense has to be sent with the notice of the IME.

On December 13, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service released the optional standard mileage rates to use for 2017 in computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving expense purposes. Beginning January 1, 2016, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car (including vans, pickups or panel trucks) will be:

•53.5 cents per mile for business miles driven

•17 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes

•14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations

 The charitable standard mileage rate is set by law. The standard mileage rates for business, medical and moving purposes are based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile. The rate for business miles driven during 2017 decreased a half cent per mile, and the medical and moving expense rates decrease 2 cents per mile from the 2016 rates.

You can check out the revised IRS mileage rates here.

12-26-2016; Two Gaffes by IL Defense Attorneys--Ooops!!; Happy New Year from the Gang At KCB&A!!!

Synopsis: Oops! Missteps in Handling of IL Workers’ Compensation Claims–Why Not Consider A Better Defense Team for 2017?

 

Editor’s comment: Why Hire the Rest When You Can Hire the Best at KCB&A To Handle Intricate IL WC Death Claims And For All Your Litigation Needs!

 

Gaffe Number One—Oops! Widow Will Collect WC Death Benefits About $300,000 More Than The IL Statutory Death Benefit Maximum.

 

In Sara Foster, widow v. Mitsubishi Motors, Foster's husband was an electrician at the now-closed Mitsubishi plant in Normal, Illinois. We are sad to report the 42-year-old suffocated when he was crushed performing maintenance work on an assembly line in October 2003.

 

Widow Foster sought WC death benefits on behalf of herself and her five young sons. She received an award from the Arbitrator assigned in January 2004, which provided death benefits in weekly payments of $1,304.78, based on the wages her husband earned. Illinois has a statutory maximum and minimum payable death benefit tied to the statewide average weekly wage. The current death benefit maximum is $1,428.74, but for deaths occurring in 2003, it was $1,012.01 — the maximum death benefit is $292.77 less than what the Arbitrator awarded Foster. it appears clear Mitsubishi did not challenge the erroneous award, but when it began making payments to Foster, it paid her only $2,024.02 every other week.

 

A panel of the Illinois Appellate Court just ruled Widow Foster was entitled to weekly benefit payments in excess of the statutory maximum rate, plus interest, all because of an uncorrected but obvious mistake in an Arbitrator's award. While we can’t be sure, we believe suspect Respondent presented what is called a “death prove-up.” The IWCC website indicates there was no Petitioner’s attorney retained by the widow so the only attorneys involved in 2003-2004 were the defense lawyers. In such a setting, the Arbitrator will review all evidence and typically consider a proposed decision presented by Respondent only. In a death prove-up, the defense lawyers have to obtain and present documentation and testimony confirming the passing of the worker, the status of the widow and dependent children and the appropriate handling of medical bills, burial benefits and the payment of the death benefit. The idea is to legally lock in the death benefits due and insure the right folks are getting the right amount of support.

 

How Did This Claim Go South?

 

We safely assume but can’t be entirely sure the defense firm drafted the proposed decision for the Arbitrator and included the death benefit rate at 2/3 of the average weekly wage without referencing the IL WC Act’s statutory minimums and maximums. We also assume the Arbitrator didn’t note the mistake in calculation of the inaccurate rate. While we feel this Arbitrator can be fairly criticized for not checking, we also feel sure the Arbitrator would have asked the defense firm and reasonably relied on their representations in presenting evidence and outlining the proposed death benefit award the Arbitrator filed. Once filed, the clock starts to tick on any needed corrections/changes to the award.

 

Section 19(f) of the Illinois WC Act provides a period of 15 days in which this Arbitrator could have recalled the decision to correct computational errors. The IL WC Act also establishes a 30-day window in which the parties can appeal an arbitrator's decision to the Workers' Compensation Commission. After those periods, the Arbitrator's decision became the final and binding decision of the Commission. To our understanding, it might be later changed due to clear evidence of fraud but we have never seen that occur. We are sure there was no evidence of fraud in this ruling—it was a simple computational error. 

 

The problem in Foster v. Mitsubishi Motors was the Arbitrator's decision provided for the payment of weekly benefits at a rate of $1,304.78, when the statutory maximum death benefit limited such benefits to no more than $1,012.10. In our view, someone at an excess carrier or a manager at Mitsubishi Motors apparently noticed the mistake, because when it started making payments to Widow Foster, it paid her at the $1,012.10 rate. Whoever did so never bothered to have the obvious mistake in the Arbitrator's decision corrected consistent with the Rules. Oops! The inaccurate payments went on for 11 years and the mistake might have been buried with the passage of time. Somehow, some one tooknotice the payments the Widow was receiving didn't agree with the award she had been issued. We assume efforts to settle all of it might have occurred but again we can’t be sure. We are sure a Petitioner lawyer get involved and filed the correct pleading—a 19G Petition to collect the amounts due in the final IWCC award. The Widow’s counsel also argued she was entitled to 9% interest on the balance of the unpaid amounts dating back to the entry of the 2004 award.

 

Mitsubishi filed a motion to dismiss Foster's 19G application, arguing it was barred by the five-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure Section 13-205. In the alternative, Mitsubishi argued enforcement of the weekly award should be limited to $1,012.01, since that was the maximum statutory amount recoverable in 2004. They argued an award in excess of the maximum was void in violation of public policy. Mitsubishi also maintained any interest payable to Widow Foster should be calculated using Section 19(n) of the Workers' Compensation Act, which provides a lower interest rate.

 

McLean County Circuit Court Lawrence determined the statute of limitations barred Widow Foster from claiming any deficiency in the payment of death benefits for any payments made more than five years before she filed her application for judgment. Judge Lawrence also ruled Foster was entitled to payment at the $1,304.78 rate, which meant Mitsubishi had been short-changing her by $292.77 each week. That meant the company owed Widow Foster $81,682.83 for the five years pre-dating the filing of her 19G petition, to the date of the Court’s order. Judge Lawrence also added $19,738.15 in judgment interest, and directed Mitsubishi to make its future payments to Foster at the $1,304.78 per week rate.

 

Mitsubishi appealed and the IL Appellate Court last Tuesday affirmed Judge Lawrence's ruling in full. Oops.

 

I was quoted by WorkCompCentral to confirm failing to check the accuracy of the benefit awarded to Foster will likely prove to be a costly mistake for Mitsubishi, amounting to an initial ‘bonus” payment of more than $300K as it will be about $15,000 a year until 2023. I noted the same rules and deadlines that sank Mitsubishi in this case would also apply with equal force to a worker who got an award for less than the worker should have gotten, too, but in that scenario, I indicated our Illinois courts might "bend over backwards" to try to find some way to grant the worker the relief this major IL employer was denied.

 

Should This Outcome and the IL WC Act Be Changed/Reformed Before It Cuts Again?

 

Take a look about where I quote Section 19(f) of the IL WC Act that allows only 15 days to correct a clear computational error. I have no idea why that 15-day limit is there and don’t agree with it at all—why not be sure the benefits are accurate at any possible time? Shouldn’t the statutory limits either low and high be considered “hard” or mandatory limits? What if the widow had a stupid lawyer who made a dumb mistake and wrote a proposed decision with a typo awarding her $1 a week? If her stupid lawyer wrote such a decision and the Arbitrator assigned missed the mistake for whatever reason and entered the proposed ruling, would anyone want the widow and her children to starve because of it?

 

In short, this legal sword sliced into the fair and reasonable expectations of this major manufacturer but that sword could have cut both ways. Our courts now mandate Mitsubishi is almost certainly going to pay about $300,000 more than would otherwise have been owed—we think they should appropriately complain that is unfair. This same legal sword could have cut into the fair and reasonable expectations of the widow and her then-young kids—if the award had been under the minimum, these facts might have stripped her of any real opportunity to get money to feed and house the kids and like the poor folks in Indiana and other rock-bottom WC benefit states, they would be off work comp on welfare or some other benefit stream. Please note the IL WC death benefit which this family would have received using the accurate number of $1,012.10 a week would be a whopping $1,052,584.00! The widow and family will now receive about $1,356,971.20 from Mitsubishi (see below, as the actual payout will be signficantly higher). In contrast, the maximum Indiana WC death benefit, by our calculation is only $390,000.00, which in our view would basically cut this family’s expected annual income by more than half and possibly turn this unfortunate family into paupers. As we tell our readers all the time, Indiana WC benefits save their businesses money while possibly starving widow(er)s and children.  I fell somewhere between IL WC’s much-too-high death benefit and IN WC’s much-too-low death benefit is a fair and reasonable middle ground.

 

Remember the IL WC RAF Eventually Makes Our IL WC Death Benefits Very, Very High!!!

 

Please also remember the IL WC RAF or Rate Adjustment Fund pays staggeringly more in additional monies to widows and T&P claimants. This fund is managed by annual levies issued at the sole cost of Illinois business and local government. The annual not-actually-COLA increases are paid by the IWCC to widows like Sara Foster and her kids while eligible. As decedent passed away in 2003, by now, she would be getting almost 14 years of compounded annual increases that would almost double the weekly death benefit at the end of the 20 year term. I estimate her actual RAF benefit due by now would be about 50% of the amount being paid or what would be $1,012.10 times 50% or approx. $1,500 a week or the inaccurate value of $1,304.78 times 50% totaling $1,957.17 each week. The admitted wrong rate with RAF increases would make the widow’s approx. tax-free annual income $101,772.84 which is about 20% more than decedent’s take home pay at the time of his passing. This RAF benefit will continue to rise until she is getting about $130,000 each year on a tax-free basis at the end of the 20 year term in year 2023. I don’t know and can’t tell anyone if the RAF should be paid by calculating the weekly benefit at the arguably “wrong” weekly benefit rate or the accurate rate, using the then-applicable maximum. I do know none of our surrounding states pay anything like this giant amount of money in a death claim and these combined benefit costs are, in my view, very high.

To try to flip this outcome, it is possible Mitsubishi could bring a due process and equal protection argument to the IL Supreme Court because this ruling is forcing them to pay dollars they shouldn’t owe under the law—the chance of the ultra-liberal IL Supreme Court considering that argument and ruling for a major employer are somewhere between a scintilla and a soupçon. We do remember the Alvarado v. IWCC ruling where our Supreme Court magically re-opened a “final ruling” to resolve an attorney fee dispute—we don’t feel that magic will apply here because, it is my view, the IL courts don’t care about jobs or the best interests of IL business.

I do feel the defense industry might reach out to Governor Rauner and his great team to ask them to “reform” this sort of problem. In the instance where there are clear and unquestioned computational errors like this it would not be hard to make the maximum and minimum benefits “hard” limits. To read the court's decision, click Foster Ruling

 

We get called on a regular basis for advice from attorneys on both sides regarding the proper handling of death claims. There is a lot of money at stake, so send us an email and we will get you accurate answers and appropriate backup research. One advantage you have in retaining the defense team at KCB&A is our firm is headed by three adjunct professors of workers’ compensation law at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago.

 

Gaffe Number 2 Averted: Oops! Insurer's Legal Malpractice Suit Against Prominent IL WC Defense Attorney Fails.

 

The federal U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals just upheld dismissal of a legal malpractice suit filed by West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. against an Illinois WC defense attorney for allegedly failing to adequately represent it against a workers' compensation claim filed against one of its policyholders. We agree with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stating the bullet of legal malpractice missed its mark under these facts. It appears to be a case of Monday morning quarterbacking to some extent. That said, we do consider this ruling to be required reading for all Illinois defense lawyers to see where criticism and possibly litigation might arise. We are unsure whether the lawyers involved in such claims have a self-reporting obligation to the ARDC.

 

In West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schumacher, issued 12/21/2016, Plaintiff West Bend Mutual Insurance hired a defense law firm to defend an IL workers' compensation claim filed by a worker named Marzano against a West Bend insured. Plaintiff West Bend alleged an independent medical examiner wrote a report favorable to its position, but defense counsel decided to forego deposition of the doctor and instead appears to have taken a unilateral “short-cut” to agree with the claimant's attorney to put a redacted version of the expert report into evidence. It does not appear this strategy was cleared with or approved by the West Bend claims adjuster. Further Plaintiff West Bend alleged defense counsel did not call any potential witnesses to contradict statements made by Claimant Marzano until one day before the hearing was scheduled, only to learn a crucial potential witness who were out of town. The Complaint also indicated the Defendant (attorney) unilaterally agreed to pay temporary disability benefits to Claimant Marzano without West Bend's approval, damaging its defenses.

 

The IWCC website indicates more than four years of TTD were paid and the underlying claim settled for $350,000. After settling for this significant amount, Plaintiff West Bend filed suit against their defense attorney who handled the case. A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the action, finding the insurer failed to appropriately plead how Defendant Schumacher's alleged actions damaged the defense case. While the insurer objected to Schumacher's unilateral agreement to pay some TTD benefits, those payments did not preclude the carrier from contesting Marzano's claim, the District Court found.

 

West Bend appealed to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. The federal appellate court ruled in order to prevail, West Bend would have to allege and prove not only that its former attorney breached his duty but the breach caused the carrier to lose a valid claim or defense in the underlying WC action. The federal appellate court ruled Plaintiff West Bend gave only sketchy information about Marzano's workers' compensation claim in its amended complaint and was also not clear about the impact of Schumacher's alleged negligence. The insurer pled that Schumacher's actions placed it in a "disadvantageous position" and had "greatly compromised" its ability to defend the claim without providing a clear basis for the allegations. The Court confirmed those were "conclusory assertions and certainly do not set forth a plausible description of a lost defense that, absent Mr. Schumacher's alleged neglect, would have assured West Bend's success on the underlying claim." Similarly, Plaintiff West Bend asserted Defendant failed to seek a continuance even though a key witness was unable to testify. Yet, for reasons unclear to us, the insurer’s malpractice attorneys did not provide a detailed description of the specific evidence that could have been presented to ensure a successful outcome in the case. 

 

As we indicate above, a bullet was dodged to get the malpractice claim dismissed. Regardless, it is challenging to read about a defense attorney who was alleged to:

 

      Agree to pay benefits without authority and

      Enter into a trial stipulation without permission and

      Tried a claim without a defense witness.

 

However, it is difficult to know the nuances of the underlying workers’ comp litigation to know exactly what led to these decisions as trial approached. For example, we don’t know whether the Arbitrator compelled a hearing even without defense witnesses available. When such instances occur, we always instruct our attorneys to make a proper  “offer of proof on the record” as to the excluded evidence, preserving the issue for further appeal. An evidentiary “offer of proof” can be critical to preserving rights on appeal. If you would like to learn and understand more, please contact our office.

 

To read the decision, click here West Bend v. Schumacher. We appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Synopsis: Happy New Year from the Gang at KCB&A!!

 

Editor’s comment: There is no chance, none that we are about to enter 2017--where has the time gone?

 

Please have a safe and prosperous New Year!!

 

 

12-19-2016; Neither Borrower or Lender Be?; Simple Year-End OSHA Update; WC Insurance Dec Action Not Great for Insurer and more

Synopsis: Neither Borrower or Lender Be???--In Illinois, Staffing Temp Workers Can't Bring Suit Against 'Borrowing' Employer for Motor Vehicle Accident.

Editor’s comment: The Illinois Appellate Court ruled two staffing workers sent from a temporary agency could not sue their staffing employer's client, nor an employee of the client for alleged civil damages from motor vehicle accident that occurred within the course and scope of their employment. I strongly agree with this ruling.

In Morales v. Herrera, issued 12/07/2016, Claimants Morales and Sanchez both worked for Express Employment Professionals, a temporary employment agency. In April 2010, Express assigned them to work for their account, Radio Flyer Inc.

The two women suffered injuries in a car accident traveling between from one Radio Flyer facility in Chicago to another facility in Elwood, IL. There was no question they were in the course and scope of continued employ during the trip. At the time of the accident, they were riding as passengers in a vehicle being driven by another Radio Flyer employee who arguably contributed to the accidental event.

Prior to filing suit to recover for their injuries at the Circuit Court, it was undisputed Morales and Sanchez collected workers' compensation benefits from Express. Having received WC benefits, they also sued both the borrowing employer, Radio Flyer and the co-employee driver for negligence.

In response, Radio Flyer moved for summary judgment to summarily dismiss the claims against it. The company argued Claimants Morales and Sanchez were "borrowed employees" and that it was immune from civil liability. The trial judge agreed and granted Radio Flyer's motion to dismiss.

The Illinois Appellate Court said the fact Morales and Sanchez were offered and appropriately collected workers' compensation benefits, which are payable only for injuries that occur within the scope of employment, meant they could not now claim the accident fell outside the scope of the IL Workers' Compensation Act.

The Court also said the record clearly established Morales and Sanchez were "borrowed employees" of Radio Flyer, so Section 5 of the IL Workers' Compensation Act barred them from seeking additional compensation/recovery from the company or their co-employee, Herrera.

The rule in IL WC is both the borrowing and lending employers are fully responsible for work injuries suffered by staffing workers. The IL WC Act indicates which company may be primarily liable and which company may be secondarily liable but they are both “on the hook” during the relationship. If you have questions or concerns about primary liability, send a reply.

Other than for arguably intentional injuries, a staffing workers injured during the course and scope of work performed for either company should only be able to recover WC benefits. They are barred from common law claims.

To read the decision, click here. We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

Synopsis: Simple OSHA Update for U.S. Risk/WC/Safety/Claims Managers

Editor’s comment: We are getting lots of questions about OSHA issues during the current transition between Presidential administrations. Here are some thoughts about OSHA's electronic reporting, retaliation and “blanket” post-accident drug testing rules.

We want our readers to understand we do lots of OSHA consulting and defense work at rates that are half of what the national firms over-charge, ooops, we mean charge.

In short, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards cover everything from port-a-potties to fall protection, and tracking all of OSHA’s specific guidelines can be difficult for employers.

OSHA rules now include two components: anti-retaliation, which went into effect Dec. 1, 2016, and electronic injury and illness reporting, which takes effect in 12 days on Jan. 1, 2017. OSHA reasons that the anti-retaliation component must be put in place first, because the outbound administration feels it is necessary so U.S. employers will provide accurate data under the reporting component.

The anti-retaliation component includes these provisions:

Ø  U.S. Employers must inform employees of their right to report work-related injuries and illnesses, free from supposed retaliation. Employers can fulfill this obligation by posting the Job Safety and Health — It’s The Law poster - https://www.osha.gov/Publications/poster.html

Ø  OSHA also recommends employers make it clear in your employee handbooks and new employee orientation materials your employees have the right to report workplace injuries to OSHA.

Ø  OSHA leadership feels an employer’s procedure for reporting work-related injuries and illnesses must be “reasonable” and must not deter or discourage employees from reporting. For example, procedures that do not allow a reasonable amount of time for an employee to supposedly “realize” they suffered a work-related injury or illness could violate their views, resulting in enforcement procedures. This OSHA administration dislikes and may sanction “same-shift” or same-day reporting of work accidents.

Ø  Finally, this administration feels a U.S. employer may not retaliate against employees for reporting work-related injuries or illnesses. OSHA cites three types of policies they consider retaliatory under this provision:

§  Disciplinary policies

§  ”Blanket” drug-testing policies and

§  Anti-accident safety or incentive policies.

The rule does not prohibit a U.S. employer from disciplining employees for violating legitimate safety rules, even if the employee was injured as a result of the violation. The rule does, however, prohibit retaliatory action against an employee as a result of reporting a work-related injury or illness. Examples include suspension, harassment, reassignment and termination.

Their rule does not prohibit employee safety incentive policies, but it does prohibit incentive programs that deter or discourage an employee from reporting an injury or illness. They feel anti-accident Incentive programs should encourage safe work practices and promote worker participation in safety-related activities.

The new rule does not prohibit “blanket” post-accident drug testing, but it does provide if an injury or illness is very unlikely to have been caused by employee drug use, or if the method of drug testing doesn’t identify impairment but only use at some point in the recent past, a drug test might inappropriately deter reporting.

The electronic injury and illness reporting component requires certain employers to electronically submit the injury and illness information they are already required to keep under OSHA regulations. OSHA designed this component to increase accountability and prevent injuries. As stated above, the electronic submission requirements take effect Jan. 1, 2017, but OSHA will phase them in over time.

As we outline above, if you need help dealing with these issues or anything related to OSHA, send a reply.

Synopsis: IL WC Insurance Dispute/Coverage Doesn’t Work Out Well for Staffing Insurer.

Editor’s comment: In LM Insurance Corp. v. B&R Insurance Partners, LLC, issued December 13, 2016, Defendant B&R Insurance Partners, LLC (B&R), entered into client agreements with Southern Illinois Workers Inc. and Speed SEJA School District 802 whereby B&R would obtain workers’ compensation insurance on their behalf. Plaintiff LM Insurance Corporation issued a policy naming B&R as the insured and extended WC coverage through policy endorsements to those employees of B&R’s that had been leased to B&R’s clients.

Plaintiff LM subsequently cancelled the policy and retroactively removed B&R’s clients from the policy’s endorsements after B&R informed LM that none of its clients’ employees were on B&R’s payroll. Meanwhile, the individual defendants, all of whom were employees of B&R’s clients, filed workers’ compensation claims with the IL Workers’ Compensation Commission alleging injuries suffered during the course and scope of their employment.

Defendant B&R tendered the claims to Plaintiff LM Insurance, since the alleged injuries occurred during a time when the policy was still in effect. LM then filed this declaratory judgment action. The amended complaint sought a declaration LM Insurance had no duty to defend or indemnify against the individual defendants’ claims. The trial court denied LM’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. LM timely appealed.

The Appellate Court noted Plaintiff insurance company issued their WC policy naming Defendant B&R, which entered into agreements with staffing clients to obtain workers' compensation insurance on their behalf, as insureds. They also extended coverage through policy endorsements to employees that had been leased to its clients.

Plaintiff filed this declaratory action seeking a court declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Defendant in workers' compensation claims filed by employees of Defendant's clients. Court properly found Plaintiff had duty to defend, as all WC claims fell within or potentially within policy coverage.

The Appellate Court further noted the Circuit Court's finding that Plaintiff has duty to indemnify was premature and must await a final determination by Workers' Compensation Commission. The Appellate Court further noted the Circuit Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant B&R on Plaintiff's claim for rescission, as it required a factual determination as to whether Defendant actually leased any employees.

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

Synopsis: Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all of our readers, clients and friends from the Defense Team at Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Associates!!

Thanks to all of you for another great and prosperous year!!