9-3-2018; Busy Week in IL WC; SB 904 Amended by Gov Rauner--Will It Stick?; Governor Rauner Reappoints 11 Arbitrators; One Law Adds CE Req'ment for Opioid Prescribers and Medical Marijuana OK'd

Synopsis: Governor Rauner Amends/Nixes ISMIS Effort To Move IL WC Medical Bill Litigation to IL Circuit Courts.

Editor’s comment: Under the guise of “access to medical care” the Illinois State Medical Society or ISMIS is fighting to have some WC issues adjudicated at the IWCC and WC-related medical bills adjudicated in the Circuit Courts—what a mess. Please note if this legislation becomes law, the entire IL WC system is certain to go topsy-turvy—this will be a seminal change for risk managers, attorneys on both sides, doctors, hospitals, claims handlers. EVERYONE!!!

There do seem to be hard feelings about this legislation—I am unsure why. In my view, ISMIS and others should focus on getting faster, effective and more streamlined adjudication in the IL WC system we already have. Splitting the process is certain to be dysfunctional, as outlined below.

I received the following from Jay Dee Shattuck who is with the Illinois State Chamber. This is unedited by me but if you want the attachment mentioned, I will send it one at a time. I agree strongly with Jay and hope his effort to avoid double-trouble in handling medical bill payments in separate venues is successful.

A quick search of other states found no jurisdiction with a comp statute that authorizes or creates a comparable cause of action of allowing a medical provider to bring suit for payment of a comp claim in a court of primary jurisdiction against an employer/insurer.  

There is a provision in California law allowing a medical provider to seek a lien on an employer over disputed medical in a comp case, which serves to effectively create collateral litigation with the provider and employer as primary parties in interest. As of August 2016, California was the only state with such a provision. Hawaii had some legislation pending that has not been enacted.

A primary (and important) distinction between the provision of SB 904 and the California law is that the California lien claims are litigated and adjudicated before the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board and not in a court of general jurisdiction as proposed in SB 904. My understanding of the California process is more like allowing medical providers to seek something like a DJ (or declaratory judgment) from the Commission on the merits and validity of the claim and the necessity/extent/value of the services provided to the petitioner. Even with the substantially less burdensome approach than what’s provided in SB 904, the California lien process has been costly and has produced undesirable results, including a huge volume of lien claim litigation, the filing of a large volume of frivolous liens, and a cottage industry of pursuing claims on assigned rights on liens. 

Approximately 35% of the WCAB docket is comprised of these lien claims and employers/insurers spend about $200 million per year in loss adjustment alone. Another issue is that of assignment of rights on the liens. The 2016 brief describes the multitude of problems these liens have caused and an uptick in fraudulent practices being perpetrated by assignees of liens that the brief attributes to flaws in the system. Firms securitizing, packaging, and ultimately trolling on potential proceeds of medical comp claim lawsuits shouldn’t sit well with anyone. 

SB 904's new cause of action may also create a new industry of firms buying rights to medical, especially on questionable cases, and trolling for nuisance settlements or worse. This is effectively what the California lien system has caused, and these are just administrative adjudications, not claims in a court of general jurisdiction. 68 businesses comprising the top one percent of lien filers filed more than 273,000 liens totaling $2.5 billion in accounts receivable on adjudicated cases between 2013 and 2015. Two of the business owners are indicted and three others have pled guilty. (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/600-million-in-workers-compensation-liens-filed-by-convicted-or-indicted-physicians-providers-300316091.html)

The proponents of this legislation mislead legislators by claiming their intent is that the change to allow pursuit of circuit action is only for "authorized" care. Two problems...first, the provision in SB 904 does not limit the action to such cases. If SB 904 were enacted, the law would read:

(3) In the case (i) of nonpayment to a provider within 30 days of receipt of the bill which contained substantially all of the required data elements necessary to adjudicate the bill, (ii) of nonpayment to a provider of a portion of such a bill, or (iii) where the provider has not been issued an explanation of benefits for a bill, the bill, or portion of the bill up to the lesser of the actual charge or the payment level set by the Commission in the fee schedule established in this Section, shall incur interest at a rate of 1% per month payable by the employer to the provider. Any required interest payments shall be made by the employer or its insurer to the provider not later than 30 days after payment of the bill. 

(4) If the employer or its insurer fails to pay interest required pursuant to this subsection (d), the provider may bring an action in circuit court to enforce the provisions of this subsection (d) against the employer or its insurer responsible for insuring the employer's liability pursuant to item (3) of subsection (a) of Section 4. Interest under this subsection (d) is only payable to the provider. An employee is not responsible for the payment of interest under this Section. The right to interest under this subsection (d) shall not delay, diminish, restrict, or alter in any way the benefits to which the employee or his or her dependents are entitled under this Act.

Do you see anything that limits this section to a bill that is "authorized??? The Gov's AV (amendatory veto) limits the 1% per month interest to "undisputed" bills.

Second, as you know, it is not uncommon for care to be "authorized" but problems arise with the bill charges and a dispute occurs. Miscoding, unbundling, services that do meet the UR standards of care, etc. If medical providers have the power to pursue unpaid bills for all authorized care two results are likely: care authorization will not be offered until all services are agreed upon delaying care for injured workers; or, medical billing abuses will explode.

Another change of concern in SB 904 is the provision being added to Section 8.2a Electronic claims. The Department of Insurance is to establish rules that:

" Ensure that health care providers are responsible for supplying only those medical records pertaining to the provider's own claims that are minimally necessary under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996."

My fear is that providers will severely limit what records are available to an employer to determine causation and compensability.

The IL Medical Society has refused to negotiate any of the SB 904 provisions. There are solutions to resolve what they say are their issues without potentially creating significant problems for employers.

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

Synopsis: Governor Rauner Reappoints 11 Sitting Arbitrators.

Editor’s comment: Other than to again confirm we still have too many Arbitrators in this State, as IL WC claims continue to drop, I have no problem with the re-appointment of these great hearing officers.

1. Jessica Hegarty, an IL WC Arbitrator since 2014. She was with a very successful and connected personal injury law firm but demonstrates great perspective in pre-trials and trials.
2. Jeffrey Huebsch, first appointed as an IL WC Arbitrator in 2013. He previously was a defense lawyer who has become a moderate and fair hearing officer.
3. Nancy Lindsay, an IL WC Arbitrator since 2011. Nancy was an IL workers' compensation Commissioner from 2006 to 2011.
4. Christine Marie Ory, appointed as an IL WC Arbitrator in 2015. She was with an insurance carrier, Ralph Gabric’s office and her own shop before moving into the Commission spot.
5. Maureen Pulia, a strong hearing officer since 2003. Maureen is brutally fair and sharp in relation to legal and factual determinations.
6. Melinda Rowe-Sullivan, an IL WC Arbitrator since 2015. I have not appeared before her yet but look forward to a pretrial or trial when the time comes.
7. Douglas Steffenson, appointed by Governor Rauner in 2015. We feel Doug is reasonable, fair and professional.
8. Maria Bocanegra, who has been an IL WC Arbitrator since 2014. She is reasonable, fair and professional. She may be one of the more liberal, pro-union Arbitrators in this State.
9. Paul Cellini, an IL WC Arbitrator since 2015. Paul has settled into the position and does solid work.
10. Stephen Friedman, an IL WC Arbitrator since 2014. Arb. Friedman is a former competitor of mine and one of the most knowledgeable WC lawyers in this State.
11. Gerald Granada has worked as an Arbitrator since 2011. Gerry practiced law before the IWCC on both sides of the matrix and is a friendly and hard-working hearing officer.

Synopsis: New IL Law Strengthens Effort to Fight Opioids By Adding Continuing Education Requirement. Another Law Legalizes Medical Marijuana for WC Claimants In Lieu of Opioids.

Editor’s comment: The new law requires continuing education for prescribers on safe dispensing. It is hoped this is going to block over-prescription of these killer drugs in the IL Work Comp arena.

Last week, Gov. Bruce Rauner took another step to strengthen the State's effort to combat the opioid crisis by requiring medical professionals to take 3 hours of existing continuing education on how to safely prescribe opioid medications. The education requirement became law when he signed Senate Bill 2777 amending the Illinois Controlled Substance Act. "We're fighting this opioid crisis every day," Rauner said. "It's impacted too many families here in Illinois. We've given people who struggle with substance use more opportunities to get the help they need. We've started a 24-hour Helpline where they can get connected to treatment options. There's a standing order for using opioid reversing Naloxone. We've boosted reporting requirements to our Prescription Monitoring Program to halt ‘doctor-shopping.'"
 
"Now, we want to make sure our doctors see potential signs of abuse and are cautious when prescribing opioid medications to those who need them, cutting back on the potential for addiction," he continued.
 
The legislation was championed by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR). Impacted professions that hold a separate controlled substance license include: Physicians, Podiatric Physicians, Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, Physician Assistants, Dentists, Clinical Psychologists, Optometrists, and Veterinarians.
  
An estimated 11 million Americans have misused opioids in the past year, approximately 1.9 million Americans are addicted to opioids, and 4 out of 5 heroin users started out on prescription opioids
 
On a related front, Illinois injured workers will qualify for medical marijuana in lieu of opioids. Republican Gov. Rauner also signed Senate Bill 336, which expands the state’s medical marijuana access. Known as the Alternatives to Opioids Act of 2018, it establishes a pilot program under which physicians may prescribe marijuana for patients who are taking opioids or who have a condition for which opioids could be prescribed. 

The bill did not exclude workers’ compensation patients from the program, as other states have done.

Please remember marijuana remains illegal on the federal level.

8-28-2018; Trying to get our arms around Pritzker and Rauner and what it means to IL WC: Guidance from the NLRB About Your Employee Handbook and more

Synopsis: Trying to Get Our Arms Around Pritzker and Rauner and IL Work Comp.

Editor’s comment: The most recent polls confirmed Billionaire J.B. Pritzker is 16 points ahead of incumbent Governor Bruce Rauner. In my view, Governor Rauner made a significant but innocent mistake to sign off on a bill that will allow state funding for the Big A. If you don’t know what that means, send a reply and I will let you know. One problem with the IL Republican Party is the Big A is their most defining issue and they are rabid to jettison any candidate that doesn’t tow their ideological line about it. Most of them are openly willing to lose any and every election, so long as the party line on the Big A is followed. Current Governor Bruce Rauner is now on the irrevocably wrong side of such rabid voters. Drat.

Who is J.B. Pritzker?

He is basically Hyatt Hotels. Reports indicate he is worth or soon will be worth $3.4B. His political career is mildly checkered as he made an interesting decision to yank toilets out of a house to save a couple of bucks on real estate taxes. As a zillionaire, he is aligned with the outwardly rabid Democrat Michael Madigan who has been the Speaker of the Illinois House for about a millennium. Speaker Madigan has unquestionably created the crisis in our State where virtually trillions were borrowed to pay the retirement and health costs of several hundred thousand loyal supporters. Every election in this State is dominated by such voters who could care less about Mike Madigan or whoever the gubernatorial candidate might be—their goal is to protect their fake and unfundable government pensions that will pay them exponentially more in retirement than they made or contributed while working.

Speaker Madigan manipulated—gerrymandered--all the voting districts in this State to render any opposition or contrary opinion worthless. You can’t get into public office in mainstream Illinois without this megalomaniac supporting you.

J.B. Pritzker knows of Mike Madigan and the shenanigans that followed. Candidate Pritzker doesn’t appear to care at all, even though he is a zillionaire. We are sure Pritzker wants

• Legalization of marijuana at the State level—it will still be illegal on the federal level (Unless Mr. Bad-Hair in Washington D. C. decides otherwise);
• An hilariously high minimum wage at $15 per hour. Please note my view this is going to cause thousands of jobs to move to other bordering States, as it is almost twice the current U.S. minimum wage. Why would you keep lower-paid jobs here?;
• Higher to really higher Illinois income taxes—it is very odd to see very few voters actually care about much higher income taxes and be willing to vote for J.B. despite his open support for this issue (please note this is set to happen in about 75 days from today);
• Plans for a graduated income tax that will be pointed back at J.B. Pritzker and other millionaires/billionaires, like doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs—assume many of them may relocate out of Illinois to avoid this burden;
• Possibly lower real estate taxes—Rotsa Ruck with that one folks. J.B noted some local taxes are comically high--that is J.B Pritzker at his hogwash best because he won’t bring them down.

What Does This Election Mean to Workers’ Comp in Illinois?

My reliable sources tell me, if/when J.B. Pritzker gets into the Governor’s Mansion, the “secret-powers-that-be” who run the IWCC aren’t going to change much about what has happened or is going to happen in this nutty State’s WC system. No wacky legislative changes are planned or in the works. It would appear the lower or mid-range values for IL WC claims are going to be with us for the near future. Keep your fingers crossed.

A couple of Arbitrators may be let go but lots of the current mainstays will remain. J.B. Pritzker isn’t going to sweep the IL WC house clean.

It is very odd to note the State of Oregon WC Premium Rankings may be issued just days or a week or two after our state-wide election. Governor Rauner isn’t going to be able to point to the various improvements in lower WC costs due to his actions in locating/selecting reasonable and fair Arbitrators across our State. Watch this space for the rankings when they are published.

Please also watch this space for any moving-forward trends or changes to IL WC law and practice—if we hear/learn about it, we promise to tell what we hear.

In Short

Our current worry isn’t changes/amendments to the IL WC Act. Our main concern will be the zillionaires of ITLA or the Illinois Trial Lawyers Assn. In my view, these megalomaniacs are going to want “bang for their buck” to modify/re-define the law to insure they get six, seven and eight figure verdicts. For the next four years, anyone who gets in their way may get mowed down. We expect lots of employers and other humans to move away, as fast as they can.

We will have to wait and see and report to you, as we always do. We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

Synopsis: NLRB General Counsel Issues Much Needed Guidance on Lawful Employee Handbook Provisions.

Editor’s comment: Our newly appointed General Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board, Peter B. Robb, recently issued comprehensive new guidance on employee handbook provisions. The guidelines direct the NLRB's Regional Directors throughout the country to reverse course from years of decisions issued by the Board majority appointed by our prior President.

Under the previous Board numerous workplace rules commonly found in employee handbooks, were declared unlawful. Specifically, a long line of NLRB decisions considered many standard provisions interfered with or restrained employees in exercising their right to engage in "concerted activities" protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. The rationale used to justify such an extraordinary expansion of labor law was based on a hypothetical question: "could" employees interpret a given handbook provision to tamp down their right to strike, or to join together in protest of wages or other terms and conditions of employment?

All too often the NLRB answered this hypothetical question in the affirmative, declaring basic workplace rules on civility, confidentiality, misconduct, etc. violated employee rights. These decisions and the vague, hypothetical theory on which they were based left employers in the dark as to what they could include in their employee handbooks without breaking the law. The new guidelines restore the rights of employers to maintain reasonable work rules.

The guidelines break typical handbook provisions into three categories

• those likely to be legal,
• those that might be legal depending on the details, and
• those that are illegal.

Obviously, these categories are to be used merely for general guidance and the legality or illegality of any handbook provision may turn on the specifics; e.g., any provision adopted/implemented, or selectively enforced purely to restrain union organizing or to interfere with other protected rights of employees, is unlawful. Nevertheless, General Counsel Robb's guidelines are helpful to employers and labor attorneys, alike, making handbook drafting much easier and much more predictable when it comes to complying with federal labor law.

Here are the categories and major types of workplace policy the General Counsel has placed in each:

Category 1: Rules that are generally lawful to maintain.

A. Civility rules.

B. No-photography rules and no-recording rules.

C. Rules against insubordination, non-cooperation, or on-the-job conduct that adversely affects operations.

D. Disruptive behavior rules.

E. Rules protecting confidential, proprietary, and customer information or documents.

F. Rules against defamation or misrepresentation.

G. Rules against using employer logos or intellectual property.

H. Rules requiring authorization to speak for company.

I. Rules banning disloyalty, nepotism, or self-enrichment.

Category 2: Rules warranting individualized scrutiny.

A. Overly broad conflict of interest rules that do not specifically target fraud and self-enrichment and do not restrict membership in, or voting for, a union.

B. Confidentiality rules broadly encompassing "employer business" or "employee information" (as opposed to confidentiality rules regarding customer or proprietary information or confidentiality rules more specifically directed at employee wages, terms of employment, or working conditions).

C. Rules regarding disparagement or criticism of the employer (as opposed to civility rules regarding disparagement of employees).

D. Rules regulating use of the employer's name (as opposed to rules regulating use of the employer's logo/trademark).

E. Rules generally restricting speaking to the media or third parties (as opposed to rules restricting speaking to the media on the employer's behalf).

F. Rules banning off-duty conduct that might harm the employer (as opposed to rules banning insubordinate or disruptive conduct at work).

G. Rules against making false or inaccurate statements (as opposed to rules against making defamatory statements).

Category 3: Rules that are unlawful to maintain.

A. Confidentiality rules specifically regarding wages, benefits, or working conditions.

B. Rules against joining outside organizations or voting on matters concerning employer.

These federal guidelines are purportedly based on a balancing of employer's rights to maintain a safe and productive workplace, through work rules, against the rights of employees to engage in protected, concerted activities.

This differs drastically from the Board's decisions in recent years, which emphasized only employee rights and viewed handbook provisions only in the hypothetical (i.e., "could they" restrain employees, not do they).

With this in mind, employers are well-advised in drafting any workplace policies to ask themselves: why do we need this work rule and what legitimate business purpose does it help accomplish? Answering this question not only helps craft well written, focused handbook provisions on employee conduct, it also supplies the sort of justification the new National Labor Board may be willing to consider in determining the lawfulness of any handbook provision, by balancing the employer's and employees' rights.

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

8-20-2018; Understanding Discovery in IL Workers' Comp; Chicago Tribune Barbeques Billionaire Alderman Burke’s Mishandling of Chgo’s WC “Defense” Program; Shawn Biery to Present on IL WC and more

Synopsis: Understanding Pretrial Discovery in IL Workers' Comp for All Sides.

Editor’s comment: We hear attorneys and some observers claim “there is no discovery” in Illinois workers' compensation. This urban legend is sort of right but also sort of wrong. I want to clear the air about it. I assure all of my readers there is “pretrial discovery” in Illinois workers' compensation but you have to understand the Rules Governing Practice and the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act to make sense of the concept.

 
When lawyers and claims handlers talk about “pretrial discovery,” they are referring to the civil litigation pretrial process of finding out what the other side’s claim might be. In typical civil litigation, for example, a motor vehicle accident, the parties are usually complete strangers to each other. The pretrial process of “discovery” allows either side to:

• Ask for sworn answers to written interrogatories about relevant issues relating to liability and damages;
• Ask for production of relevant documents and other written information to be used at a later pretrial or hearing;
• Allow one party to demand admissions or denials of ultimate facts relevant to the claim;
• Allows both parties to conduct “discovery” depositions of lay and expert witnesses to figure out what they might say at any hearing; and
• Allows both parties to get advance disclosures of evidence and witnesses to be presented at a trial.

The idea of discovery is to get to the strengths and weaknesses of each sides’ case and hopefully move the matter to settlement or hearing. In the Illinois workers' compensation system and many U.S. Workers' Comp systems, there are limited opportunities for such “discovery” to take place. In fact, in most workers' comp systems written and oral pretrial discovery is greatly limited.

In the Illinois workers' comp system, if you don’t know the rules, the first time you may hear claimant’s story may be when they testify at any hearing. That sets up what we call “trial by ambush” because your attorney may not know what is coming at them until the parties sit down and try the claim. A wise risk manager and/or claims handler should be devoted to investigating fully and avoid surprises.

Why is the Illinois workers' compensation system like this? Isn’t it a scary thing when a witness tells their story for the very first time to an arbitrator or hearing officer? Well, it was considered a way to save money and streamline the system. However, it also assumes employers are going to push for accident investigation and not wait until the last possible moment to act on and prevent accidental injuries.

How does that work? Well, the parties in a workers’ comp claim aren’t supposed to be strangers. In Illinois workers' comp, there is a statutorily required 45-day reporting rule—the employer has to be made aware of the event or they can fight it on that basis alone. We have many clients who are ramping that rule forward to require accident reporting within the same shift or same 24-hour period. If the employee doesn’t report, some of our clients are disciplining the worker or even terminating. If you aren’t already doing so, we urge you to consider it. Even in union environments, we are seeing unions allowing for termination or discipline if the employee doesn’t timely report an accidental injury. If you want thoughts and comments on accident reporting rules, please send a reply.

 
Once learning of the event, it is incumbent on the employer to investigate, investigate and investigate. If you need questions or thoughts on thorough accident investigation, send a reply. If you don’t investigate a work accident report, you become the equivalent of a ship without a rudder—you are going to drift along and possibly run aground on the rocks. In my view, it is impossible to accurately reserve a claim, target maximum medical improvement or return to work or make any financial sense of your workers' comp claims without a thorough accident investigation.

 
Other than a thorough accident investigation, what other pretrial workers' comp “discovery” tools are out there?

 
A.   Webcam or audio recorded statements of claimant;

B.   Witness statements;

C.   Safety committee—supervisor review of accident;

D.   Nurse case management;

E.    Surveillance/security cameras;

F.    Medical histories;

G.   Web research;

H.   Independent medical evaluators;

I.     Vocational counselors;

J.    Pre-trials;

K.   The IL WC ”stip sheet” or request for hearing form.

 
All of these concepts allow an employer and your defense lawyer to learn about the pending claim in various ways. Most of the concepts are informal but can lead you to best understand if your reserves are accurate, your defenses have merit and how to best proceed in any claim.

 
After you have the initial accident report and a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Genetic Information Privacy Act (HIPAA-GINA) compliant release signed by claimant (if you need one, send a reply), you then can move to the following tools to document/question any claim.

 
A. Webcam recorded statements of claimant--If you get to it rapidly enough, you can “burn” a DVD of claimant in the right situation to document their account of the event. This creates compelling evidence if later versions arise or if the recorded statement doesn’t match the medical histories. We consider this option to create a strong incentive for ramped-up accident reporting requirements. If you demand timely accident reporting, you can then get these statements before claimant “lawyers up.” If you want our webcam questions, send a reply.

 
B. Witness statements—in a serious claim, you will then have documentation needed to accept or deny any claim. Consider webcam statements of co-employee witnesses to confirm their future testimony.

 
C. Safety committee-supervisor review—in a moderate to serious injury, you will go miles to documenting an event and buttressing any defenses if you go the extra mile.

 
D. Nurse or medical case management isn’t truly supposed to be a “discovery” tool but the medical information moving to the treating doctors, claimant, claimant’s counsel, the employer and insurance carrier/third-party administrator has to be viewed as such.

 
E. Surveillance/security cameras are unquestionably “discovery” tools that can be used to document the accidental occurrence and also be used to fight any dispute about MMI or return to work.

 
F. Medical Histories--as I have told my law students and readers, the best analysis to confirm or rebut any claim is to analyze the accident report vis a vis what claimants are telling the treaters. Treating doctors have sharp objects and may perform surgeries and other challenging care so a patient is usually likely to be very forthcoming in telling the doctors what happened to them.

G. Web research—although this has become somewhat limited due to heightened security on many social websites, it still is one way to learn information about a claim, a doctor or witnesses.

 
H. IME’s—like the histories to a treating doctor, what an IME doctor learns in the examination should be considered “discovery” and can assist in reserving, accepting or defending a claim.

 
I. Vocational counselors also provide “discovery” to veteran claims handlers and will give you background and details upon which to manage major WC issues.

 
J. Pre-trials can be helpful for both sides to give their version of the claim with the hearing officer present—you can update reserves or hone defenses if your defense lawyer listens and learns from the process (and the claim doesn’t amicably settle).

 
K. Last but not least, claimants’ counsels are supposed to fill out and complete a “stip sheet” or Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission request for hearing form to get a hearing date. This form can provide the basis of disputes about temporary total disability/lost time, medical bills, the supervisor to whom they assert notice of an injury was provided, any claim for penalties/fees and other issues.

 
We assure you all of these tools provide lots of information when and if they are used wisely. All risk managers, claims handlers and attorneys on both sides should be thoroughly aware of their nuances—my students and readers should now understand there is lots of “pretrial discovery” in the process, if you have the right defense lawyers on your side.

Synopsis: Chicago Tribune Barbeques Billionaire Alderman Ed Burke’s Mishandling of Chicago’s WC “Defense” Program.

Editor’s comment: Understanding Billionaire Chicago Alderman Ed Burke is one of the most powerful political figures in this entire state and is married to IL Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke, I still feel it is important to read the Chicago Tribune’s Editorial Board’s criticism of his mishandling of the Chicago WC “Defense” program. Everything you read below is my opinion and to my understanding, I am entitled to my opinions. If you want to know how and why I feel Ed Burke is a billionaire, send a reply and I will lay out the math for you.

The Tribune Board noted the City misspends at least $100M a year every year on workers’ comp costs, based on a 2016 Inspector General report. I point out the actual number is basically impossible to discern. Some of the money is cloaked in Department budgets and some is in general funds. Billionaire Alderman Burke appears to hide it from prying eyes of other alderman, the Mayor and the City’s Inspector General. In short, only Ed Burke really knows what he is doing.

To Dream the Impossible Dream—trying to manage thousands of IL WC claims without any staff to do so.

To my understanding, there are over 3,000 pending IL WC claims filed by City of Chicago employees. The City has one person trying to ‘manage’ more than 3,000 expensive WC claims!! There is no one in City government who has the job title of WC claims handler/manager.

To my further understanding there is only one defense lawyer—just one—who is assigned to try to handle all of the thousands of claims that make up our City’s WC litigation. In my view, there is literally no chance, none, that one person could handle such an impossible workload.

Understaffed defense programs insure the City of Chicago keeps paying and paying, even the most frivolous and unfounded WC claims.

Why Does Ed Burke Dole Out Over $1B in WC Benefits to City Workers Each Decade?

In my view, Illinois State and local governments are a corrupt “benefit-ocracy.” There are many paths where our tax dollars are quietly doled out in big gobs to government workers to get their allegiance and loyalty in elections. Hilariously unethical and questionable workers’ comp claims management is just one of the many ways this happens. Police and fire disability pensions and benefits are another way—if you want examples of such abuses, send a reply. The biggest kahuna of your tax dollars flowing to government workers are the unfundable fake government pensions and basically free lifetime healthcare benefits our retired government workers receive. The State of Illinois is about a quarter TRILLION in debt from the borrowing to fund the truly unfundable fake gov’t pensions. I am not sure why so many folks were mad about welfare benefits back in the day when gov’t pensions clearly are giving out our money without any basis to do so.

If you were going to retire and receive double or quadruple income in retirement as compared to what you made while working, would you be loyal to the people who got you that largesse?

If there was money for all of it, fine. Trust me, folks, they are borrowing and borrowing to keep this version of the RMS Titanic on the ocean. At some point, our State and local governments are going to tip up, crack apart and sink rapidly, like the old cruise ship did in 1912.

If you want to read the Chicago Tribune editorial, take a look: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-chicago-burke-worker-comp-20180809-story.html

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

Workers' Compensation 101:

Tips and Tricks for Navigating the Illinois WC System By Shawn Biery of Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Associates

Next week--Aug. 28th, 2018

11:30am - 1:00pm

This presentation will assist in allowing you to gain a greater understanding of the IL Workers Compensation system and tips to understand what occurs during a workers compensation claim.

Join attorney Shawn Biery of Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Associates for a webinar regarding Work Comp 101. Shawn will discuss key terms & terminology, issues you may encounter during claims, what to look for to comply with the IL WC Act and a variety of topics which will increase your knowledge of workers compensation and assist in claim handling, investigations, setting up handling plans in advance, and overall steps you can take to manage your claims, even before they are filed with the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission.

Register Here