5-15-2017; RBVRS to Hit IL WC--Snoozefest, Savings or Both?; Consider Reassignment to Fulfill ADA Requirements; When to Do Ex Parte Depositions in IL WC and more

Synopsis: IL Labor/Democrats Offer RBVRS (?!) as New and Blurring Part of IL WC Reforms.

Editor’s comment: A Chicago Democrat presented new IL WC reform legislation incorporating a “resource-based relative value scale” or RBRVS as the physician-healthcare payment system as a cost-savings mega-plum for IL employers and local governments. This concept is now included in the pending workers' compensation bill as part of a compromise with IL Republicans to solve our nutty State's budget deadlock. Please note our State hasn’t had a real “budget” under the current Governor Bruce Rauner. 

Sen. Kwame Raoul filed Amendment No. 4 to the “Grand Bargain” or Senate Bill 12 last Wednesday; it remains in the IL Senate Assignments Committee. The proposed change calls for a RBRVS or Medicare-based fee schedule to lower some of the highest workers’ comp medical costs in the U.S. In short, it appears the doctors, hospitals and other health care givers are again being pushed to take moderate to dramatic cuts to demonstrate WC cost savings. This will be the third major cut in medical costs in the IL WC industry since the 2005-2006 Amendments to the IL WC Act were created.

From what we can tell, the IL State Chamber and other business and insurance interests cautiously support this unexpected WC amendment.

What In Tarnation is RBVRS?

As my wife said yesterday—sounds like a complete SNOOZE-FEST! But it seems to be important for many IL WC industry folks to study, learn and start to understand. We assure you we feel it could only be loved by nerds and dweebs but sometimes those folks save you more money.

The AMA has an RBVRS overview online here:

https://www.ama-assn.org/rbrvs-overview

In their clear-as-mud explanation, they say:

The resource-based relative value scale (RBRVS) is the physician payment system used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and most other payers. The RBRVS is based on the principle that payments for physician services should vary with the resource costs for providing those services and is intended to improve and stabilize the payment system while providing physicians an avenue to continuously improve it.

Sounds simple, sort of like quantum physics--right? Huh?

The RBVRS concept appears to have been implanted into California’s work comp system by their nerds some years ago.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVvYktBlZWCcATwonnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEybHVoZHJhBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDQjM4ODhfMQRzZWMDc3I-/RV=2/RE=1494885540/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dir.ca.gov%2fdwc%2fRBRVSReport%2fRBRVS_May2008.pdf/RK=0/RS=mV2cfHQLZDxOGDd06kjpoHXB9SQ-

Back to How RBVRS May Come to an IL WC Claim Near You

Stakeholders in the IL WC system feel the expected savings from RBVRS would depend on the percentages of Medicare reimbursement that would be allowed for doc’s and hospitals by the IL Workers’ Compensation Commission, should Amendment No. 4 and “the Grand Bargain” in SB 12 pass and then be signed by Gov. Rauner. The new bill directs the IWCC to set the rates, but establishes parameters tied to where current medical reimbursement rates stand.

Jay Dee Shattuck, executive director of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce’s Employment Law Council was quoted as saying “We believe the change will bring Illinois’ workers’ compensation medical fee reimbursements more in line with medical fee schedules of other states around the country.” He also said “It more fairly reimburses management and evaluation service codes, which are some of the lowest in the country, and reduces the codes — such as surgery — that are some of the highest in the country.” As we have advised our readers in the past, Jay Shattuck and Todd Maisch, the President of the IL State Chamber are among the top business leaders in the WC field in this state. If they did their homework and still like RBVRS, it is probably a solid idea, not matter how difficult and boring RBVRS may be to understand. If you are interested in learning more about IL WC reform and/or cutting workers’ comp costs, consider joining the IL State Chamber and the ELC—check out their website at www.ilchamber.org.

Illinois currently has a home-grown, charged-based medical fee schedule based on geographic areas called "geozips." Illinois medical reimbursement rates are considerably higher than our State's neighbors, even with a 30% across-the-board reductions created from the 2011 Amendments to the IL WC Act, per the Illinois Policy Institute.

WCRI or the Workers’ Comp Research Institute’s recent stat-rat study confirmed the average total cost per workers’ compensation claim in Illinois has decreased 6.4% since 2010 primarily due to significant cuts in medical costs. However, our overall WC costs continue to outpace most of the 17 other states studied in WCRI’s recent report. Before that overall WC claim decrease, Illinois had the second-highest WC Medical Fee Schedule — behind only Alaska — in a comparison with 43 other states and the District of Columbia, WCRI said in a 2016 study. After the IL WC Medical Fee Schedule reduction, Illinois had the 10th highest fee schedule rates among those 43 states when measured as a percentage of Medicare's maximums, WCRI said.

So How Would RBVRS Happen? How Would It Affect Your Claims?

Senator Raoul’s proposed IL WC Medical Fee Schedule would continue to use four regions for non-hospital fee schedule amounts and 14 regions for hospital schedules. It would task the IWCC, within 45 days of the bill’s enactment or sometime later this summer, to determine the Medicare percentage amount for each current procedural terminology and diagnosis-related group code using the most recent data available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Within 30 days after the IWCC determines the percentage rates, it would be required to make several adjustments:

• If the percentage for a particular CPT or DRG code is 125% of the Medicare rate or less, it would be set at 125%.
• If the percentage is more than 125% but less than 150%, the rate would not be adjusted.
• If the rate is greater than 150% of Medicare but less than 225%, the rate would be set at the higher amount of 150% or 85% of the most recent maximum amount allowed for that CPT or DRG code in the current fee schedule.
• If the Medicare percentage is greater than 225% but less than 428.57%, the amount would be set at 191.25% of Medicare or 70% of  the current maximum rate.
• If the percentage is greater than 428.57%, it would be set at 300%.

By Sept. 1 of each year, the IWCC would be required to raise the maximum fee for each CPT and DRG code by exactly half of the most recent annual increase in the urban consumer price index.

Assuming you are still awake, we appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

Synopsis: Consider Reassignment to Fulfill ADA Responsibilities to Injured/Disabled Workers.

Editor’s comment: U.S. Employers may not realize you can safely reassign an injured or disabled worker to a vacant position within your organization to reasonably accommodate his or her disability. Instead, some HR and risk managers may mistakenly think a leave of absence is the last reasonable accommodation you should provide.

An employer that offers reassignment as a reasonable accommodation should document, document and document more, says Brad Smith of KCB&A. Send a letter to the injured/disabled employee you are accommodating to confirm for him or her you are seeking to reassign the worker to your open spot. The letter is a necessary step to keep the employer from having to offer reassignment indefinitely. The letter also should explain the worker can't currently be reasonably accommodated in their current job.

Once the letter is delivered, the employer has time to identify an appropriate reassignment.

Whenever and wherever possible, an employer should first attempt to reasonably accommodate the person in his or her current position. Then a leave of absence may be required under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or both. Once leave starts to disrupt operations to the point reasonable accommodation is no longer “reasonable,” the employer should consider whether the employee can return to his or her current job with or without reasonable accommodation. If not, the employer should consider reassignment as a backup option.

The employer should look at vacant positions at all its facilities, not just the one the employee works at. If you find an open position at another facility, the employee may decline or accept the offer but you may be able to argue you have satisfied ADA to identify and offer the position. An employee with a disability may be required to apply for a transfer before being reassigned as long as all other employees seeking a transfer are required to do so.

Whether the employer has to give a preference to the employee with a disability for the vacant position over other employees is a challenging legal question and ultimately may have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This question may come down to what level of risk you as an employer are willing to accept. Reasonable accommodation is by its very nature something “extra,” for an injured or disabled worker. If an employee with a lasting injury or disability isn't given a preference in assignments/reassignments, then he or she is not receiving anything additional.

Please also note the concept of reassignment is one source of what I feel is appropriate criticism of “benefit-ocracies” in IL State and local governments. For one example, prison guards/correctional officers who are attacked by inmates suffer moderately disabling injuries. Following care to the point of MMI, they may not be able to return to correctional work.

Rather than bring them back to work at other administrative or low-impact light duty positions, they are allowed to remain off all work for months and years to then potentially become “odd-lot” total and permanent disability claimants who may receive several million dollars in benefits. The former gov’t workers become politically beholden to their “sponsors” who give them the biggest “perk” in government—tax-free money from taxpayers. In this government setting, I feel we are going to need to pass laws requiring government officials re-hire or re-assign such workers when light and sedentary work opens up appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

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

Synopsis: Practice Tip for IL WC Attorneys and Claims Handlers—How To Handle an IL WC Deposition When the Other Side Doesn’t Show.

Editor’s comment: Please note depositions in IL workers’ comp are evidence depositions only. Unless the other side agrees, you can’t do a discovery dep in a WC proceeding.

IL WC deps are not technically “set” by notices of deposition—there is no statutory provision for WC dep notices, as there is at common law.

If an IL WC attorney receives a WC dep notice, we still have to agree to attend—if you are going to agree to depose the other side’s expert, confirm you will do so. If you aren’t going to attend upon receipt of a WC dep notice—tell the other side in writing.

The other side either “agrees” to the deposition date/time or the dep is set by an odd process called a dedimus potestatem (I am not going to explain that moderately complex process here—send a reply if you want that info).

Those are the only paths to set/conduct a dep in IL WC.

If we set our expert’s dep and the other side forgets or isn’t there and is unwilling to proceed by phone, we vote DO THE DEP.

About three months ago, we had a deposition scheduled and OC knew of the dep and then forgot about it. Our attorney was there with the doctor and court reporter. Our doctor was already paid in advance and the court reporter will always bill for attendance. As OC didn’t show up, our attorney then mistakenly “cancelled” the dep and left.

In my view, I strongly recommend IL WC attorneys NOT do that—if you are there for your doctor’s dep--take the deposition without opposing counsel present. You and our client paid for the doctor’s time and attendance. You will be billed for the court reporter’s attendance. No client will want to pay again and you will get into a total storm to then have to go before an Arbitrator and fight over who has to pay for the second setting to allow cross-exam, etc.

Do the deposition as an “ex parte” dep—do the normal preliminaries but also put into evidence the correspondence/emails from and to OC confirming they were aware of the dep and were supposed to attend. Then ask all the questions you need from your expert.

If the other side wants to cross-examine your expert (and they should due to malpractice concerns), it is on them to set the second dep by agreement and pay for the doctor to attend and the court reporter.

If you appear at the dep of the other side’s expert and OC doesn’t attend, if the expert will proceed, it is a judgment call to go forward without your opponent.  In that setting, I would typically tell the doctor to contact the attorney and reset at the other side’s expense. I would also confirm all of it in writing to OC and your/our clients

Happy to discuss—send a reply. we appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

5-8-2017; Do You Want A College Intern, Student or Layperson to Write Your IME Background Letters?; Another IL Police Officer/Firefighter Forced to Deal with Combined WC and Line-of-Duty Denial

Synopsis: Are You Sure You Want A College Intern, Student or Other Layperson to Write Your Claim-Changing IME Background Letters?

Editor’s comment: The defense team at KCB&A has been mildly surprised to note a recent development in our WC defense law practice. Along with the growth of IME vendors that select IME doctors and set appointments for national and regional defense clients, we note many of these vendors are now trying to “take over” the practice of doing IME letters. Our concern is the vetting of such persons at the IME companies—are they college interns, students, laypersons, as we have been told? Whose fault is it if an unnamed and questionably qualified individual messes up an IME background letter so a defensible and major WC claim turns sour?

We are sure a typical WC claims adjuster is swamped by the exigencies of this business. Most claims adjusters are overwhelmed with claims and don’t have time to do detailed and lengthy IME background letters, so they don’t particularly mind letting anyone else in the WC matrix provide that service for their accounts.

We have also seen nurse case managers try to take over this aspect of the claims process. With respect to the nurses we work with and who do a great job tracking and managing ongoing medical care, they aren’t lawyers and don’t have the legal background required to cover all the bases in a litigation dispute.

Please note just about every workers’ comp claim can turn into a major financial issue—I know of many WC claims where minor surgery went south resulting in lifetime benefits that can go into the six and seven-figures. Risk managers and claims handlers don’t spend the money on IMEs for fun and games—if you need a medical-legal expert on a WC claim, be sure you are getting value from the money you are spending.

We assure all of our readers, workers’ comp litigation is the only area where anyone would even consider using the help of an uneducated vendor or even the claims handler to write a background letter to a medical, technical or engineering expert.

For one simple example, in Illinois workers’ compensation, it is crucial to ask the IME expert if their opinions are voiced “within a reasonable degree of medical and surgical certainty.” Illinois case law requires such a statement if the opinions voiced are to be admissible. The reasoning behind that requirement isn’t truly pertinent other than to render an IME opinion admissible and something a claims handler can rely upon. Very few outside IME vendors or nurse case managers know of this requirement or include it in IME form letters.

We were recently advised a WC IME vendor was writing or had written the IME background letter on an important claim for our client. With respect, we have to advise we don’t agree with having the lead medical expert respond to “one-letter-fits-all” questions from a vendor that may or may not have any idea what IL WC law requires. We also wonder—is the IME vendor using a form letter as the background information for the expert?

We confirmed for the client and the WC claims handler, they hired this medical expert to get a solid opinion on their claim. The client will be paying a lot of money for the medical-legal opinions. In other claims, we have seen vendors/clerks/NCM’s ask questions or possibly not ask important medical-legal questions that may “cook” the claim and possibly render it indefensible by asking poorly thought-out questions in an IME letter.

I personally feel it borders on negligence to use many of the blanket “form” IME background letters that have sprung up across our industry—each WC claim is unique and a blanket inquiry almost never works to get the important opinions needed on a single WC claim.

It is hard to blame the medical expert who may be innocently responding to poorly drafted or form interrogatories, as the result of being asked important questions by someone that doesn’t know what to ask.

At a minimum, we recommend you allow your defense attorney to quickly review the IME background letter for medical-legal accuracy and cover all your defense needs for the litigation.

If you don’t do this, let the buyer beware! The IME may come back to bite you, “cook” the claim against you and/or a valuable medical-legal opinion may be rendered worthless due to missing information.

We are happy to assist in finalizing IME background letters in both litigated and non-litigated claims. Just email the letter with enough time to allow us to rapidly review and return it.

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

Synopsis: Another Illinois Police Officer/Firefighter Forced to Deal with Combined Workers’ Comp and Line-of-Duty Pension Claim Denial.

Editor’s comment: We are mildly amazed to see Illinois’ hyper-liberal Appellate Courts now turn down the third reported claim in a row by an Illinois firefighter or police officer. We are not sure this has ever happened in our State!

In Village of Alsip v. Portincaso, 2017 IL App (1st) 153167 (May 5, 2017) Cook Co., 5th Div., the Appellate Court considered a claim by an Alsip police officer in which the officer responded to a domestic relations beef and claimed he was injured.

We note, some years ago, the IL WC Commission panel heard the underlying WC claim involving this officer claiming injury in response to the domestic relations call. The IWCC panel denied the claim for lack of causal connection and their ruling was later affirmed after multiple appeals.

Following the denial, this ruling incorporated the longstanding legal term “res judicata” or what is also called issue preclusion for any related accident/injury claim about the event. Please note it is our experience Illinois’ reviewing courts don’t always follow longstanding rules, particularly when their decisions involve police officers and firefighters who have influential and politically powerful unions. Sometimes the rules get “bent” in this nutty state—not here.

The IL Appellate Court was asked to consider a claim for line-of-duty disability benefits that would require the Village to pay the officer line-of-duty disability benefits for the rest of his life.

In consideration of that claim, the IL Appellate Court reversed the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund's award of a lifetime line-of-duty disability pension to Plaintiff.

The Court ruled the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund abused its discretion in denying the Village of Alsip's petition to intervene. The Court ruled to reach the issue of res judicata or issue preclusion, the Village would need to have been made a party to proceeding, as it was the only party with an interest in raising the defense.

As the discreet question of whether Plaintiff had been injured during an arrest for domestic violence incident had already been answered and fully litigated in front of Workers' Compensation Commission, that litigation and outcome precluded any redetermination of whether Plaintiff was, in fact, injured during the domestic relations call. The Commission’s ruling was a final determination of such claim, rendering a contrary ruling impossible.

We salute the IL Appellate Court for adhering to longstanding and well-settled legal principles.

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

May 1, 2017; The Odd Intersection of ADA and WC; WCRI Stat-Rate Confirms IL WC and Other States WC Costs Are Dropping; Happy Anniversary!! and more

Synopsis: How ADA and Workers’ Comp Interact and Sometimes Oddly Intertwine.

Editor’s comment: At the suggestion of one of our readers, I want to provide some thoughts on this federal ADA or Americans with Disabilities Act and typically state-run work comp concepts. Sometimes they work in unison and harmony, sometimes the results are odd.

The purpose of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was to prevent U.S. employers from discriminating against current or prospective employees based on disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H.W. Bush and has been in place with a couple of ruffles for about 27 years.

On the other hand, state workers’ compensation laws were intended to provide a mechanism for the prompt and fair resolution or litigation of employee claims against their employers for occupational injuries and diseases.

The ADA and Workers’ Compensation laws generally coincide to provide somewhat different protections and benefits. However, when an employee seeks relief under both sets of laws, various complications can arise. To address these issues, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regularly issues their so-called “Enforcement Guidance” on the ADA and how they feel it may impact workers’ compensation laws.

Work-Related Injuries/Disease May Not Represent an ADA “Disability”

An “injured” employee eligible for Workers’ Compensation benefits is not necessarily “disabled” for the purposes of ADA protection. Under the ADA a “disability” may be one of three things:

• A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity;
• A record of such an impairment; or
• Being regarded as having such an impairment.

In other words, a worker who suffers a work-related injury or impairment might be entitled to receive Workers’ Compensation benefits but the injury or illness may not rise to the level of “substantially limiting a major life activity,” and therefore may not qualify for ADA protection.

A Work Injury or Disease May Become “Regarded as” a Disability

Suppose an employee suffers a spinal injury on the job. If the injury is temporary and does not substantially limit a major life activity, it would not also be an ADA disability. However, if the employer refuses to let the injured employee return to his position at work, the employer may have effectively “regarded” the employee as “having such an impairment,” or disability, potentially bringing the injury within the ADA definition. In such a case, the employer’s refusal to allow the employee to return to his job may violate the ADA.

Thus, although an applicable workers’ compensation statute may not require the employer to require the injured employee to return to work, the ADA might. Accordingly, the employer’s treatment of the injured employee could create liability against the employer based on both a workers’ compensation claim and the federal ADA.

Making Careful Pre-Hiring Inquiries Which Fulfill Both Workers’ Comp Laws and the ADA

Since the ADA was passed in 1990, the EEOC and the courts have attempted to clarify the interaction between work comp and the ADA. In 1996, the EEOC issued a set of “guidelines” to describe several questions and answers about the relationship between the two sets of laws.

When hiring new workers, an employer might wish to ask applicants whether they already have existing occupational injuries or workers’ comp claims in an effort to be mindful of future or potential workers’ comp claims. However, such questions might conflict with the ADA’s prohibition on discriminating against prospective employees due to a disability. The EEOC guidelines state an employer may make some Workers’ Compensation-type inquiries of applicants that will also satisfy the ADA, provided some requirements are met.

Post-Offer Workers’ Compensation related inquiries must be:

• Asked after a conditional offer of employment is made but can be asked before actual employment has begun; and
• Asked of all entering workers of the same job category.

If these requirements are met, the employer may inquire about prior workers’ comp claims or work-related injuries or may require medical exams to obtain information about the existence or nature of the prior work injury.

Unions Typically Hate ADA and May Try to Refuse/Block Reasonable Accommodation for Their Members

In Illinois workers’ comp, we have seen union representatives write letters “To Whom It May Concern” outlining their unusual position that all of their union members have to fully recover from any injury or illness to be returned to work at a union position. Unions stewards and leadership will literally work to block anyone from returning a union worker where they have any permanent restrictions. We typically see this done in an effort to guarantee expensive wage loss differential claims where a worker might be able to return to a union job in a permanent light duty capacity, as ADA contemplates.

The odd or unusual part of a union taking such a position is the idea of blocking a worker from returning to union labors due to a restriction is ADA is designed to force employers to do what the unions are trying to block! The reason I characterize this situation as unusual is the employee could care less about what ADA wants—the federal statute is disregarded and enforcement is tentatively blocked to allow the employee to cash in on six- and seven-figure settlements.

Refusal to Bring Government Workers Back to Available Light Work is Almost Criminal From The Perspective of Taxpayers

One shocking aspect of ADA occurs in the government sector where police, firefighters, prison guards and other workers suffer serious or life-changing injuries or illnesses that might make it difficult for the admittedly injured worker to return to their former position. In such settings, we don’t typically see ADA being used or followed to have the State of Illinois, county, municipality or other government bring the police officer, firefighter or other worker back to a sedentary or light position when such positions regularly open up.  

Instead, the worker is provided a going away party and perhaps a parade when they are awarded substantial workers’ comp benefits for “loss of trade” along with lifetime line of duty disability pensions. On top of this, they are either given personal lifetime health care coverage or in some cases, lifetime family health care coverage. All of these benefits come at a staggeringly high cost to the taxpayers that may run well into the millions for many workers.

If you think about it, why do we pension off young men and women in this situation when they could return to numerous other sedentary or light positions using the training and background we have already provided them at high expense? Couldn’t a disabled police officer, firefighter or prison guard be transitioned into administrative work? Doesn’t ADA contemplate our governments should and must do so?

Conflict of Workers’ Compensations Laws and the ADA

Most workers’ comp laws are generally “no fault” laws and contain provisions which prevent employees from bringing lawsuits against their employer or third parties for occupational injuries. As such, workers’ comp claims are typically the only recourse available to employees for their occupational injuries.

Once an “injury” is also considered a “disability,” the federal ADA applies in addition to the workers’ comp statute. It is possible you might need a defense team member from KCB&A to protect you and handle both the state administrative proceeding and a federal EEOC charge or direct state claim for retaliatory discharge. Such claims are not consider “no fault”—the worker has to show you had animus for them in some way in violation of the federal ADA. The disabled employee could enjoy the ADA’s additional protection to be free from job discrimination based on the disability arising from a work accident or exposure.

The defense team at KCB&A handles/defends state WC claims, EEOC charges and all sorts of related litigation in state and federal courts. If you need help or direction in handing such claims, please send a reply.

We thank our reader who recommended this article. We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

Synopsis: Illinois WC Claim Costs Are Dropping--New WCRI Studies Examine Trends in Claim Costs and Impact of Reforms in 18 State Workers' Compensation Systems

Editor’s comment: The WC claim costs and other metrics of 18 state workers' compensation systems are analyzed in depth in a new series of studies, CompScope™ Benchmarks, 17th Edition, released by the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI).

“The research can help policymakers and other stakeholders identify current cost drivers and emerging trends in a wide variety of workers' compensation system components,” said Ramona Tanabe, WCRI's executive vice president and counsel.

The studies examine trends in workers' compensation medical and indemnity payments in a number of states with significant changes, either through new laws or through court rulings. They also examine how income benefits, medical payments, duration of disability, litigiousness, and benefit delivery expenses changed over time, and they compare how these measures differ from state to state.

The following are sample findings for some of the study states:

• California: Total costs per claim remained stable between 2010 (claims with experience through March 2013) and 2013 (claims with experience through March 2016), likely reflecting the impact of Senate Bill 863.

• Florida: Total costs per claim grew moderately from 2010 to 2015, but two 2016 Florida Supreme Court decisions are expected to increase workers' compensation system costs.

• Illinois: Total costs per claim decreased 6.4 percent since 2010, reflecting the impact of a 30 percent reduction in fee schedule rates for medical services following the 2011 Amendments to the IL WC Act.

• Indiana: Total costs per claim decreased 4 percent from 2014 to 2015, the result of a nearly 10 percent decrease in medical payments, partly offset by a nearly 5 percent increase in indemnity benefits per claim. Those changes are likely related to provisions of House Enrolled Act 1320, which enacted a hospital fee schedule and increased income benefits paid to injured workers.

• North Carolina: Total costs per claim remained steady since 2009, a contrast from earlier years, following several fee schedule changes and House Bill 709 in 2011, which focused on income benefits.

CompScope™ Benchmarks, 17th Edition illustrates the performance of 18 state workers' compensation systems over time and how they compare. In addition to the states mentioned above, WCRI is also publishing studies for Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The state studies explore the time from injury to first indemnity payment, the average total cost per claim, the average payment per claim for medical care, and the average payment per claim for indemnity benefits.

For more information on these studies, visit https://www.wcrinet.org/reports/compscope-benchmarks-17th-edition.

The Cambridge-based WCRI is recognized as a leader in providing high-quality, objective information about public policy issues involving workers' compensation systems.

Synopsis: Happy Anniversary!

Editor’s comment: I was sworn in as an IL lawyer on May 1, 1980. 37 years later, I am still fighting the good fight to insure reasonable benefits are provided to injured workers with real injuries while employers pay fair amounts to cover them.

I have been writing this KCB&A Update since the summer of 1992 when it was a three-fold pamphlet that we addressed, stapled and snail-mailed to clients and potential clients. Yes, it has been 25 years! I am fairly sure something like 50,000+ readers have reviewed the KCB&A Update over the decades. I appreciate your thoughts, comments and suggestions.