6-4-2019; Whole Lot ‘O Shaking Going On In Springfield, IL—Gene Keefe’s Spin from a WC and “Better Government” Perspective; What Illinois Business Can/Will Expect from SB 1596 and more

Synopsis: Whole Lot ‘O Shaking Going On In Springfield, IL—Gene Keefe’s Spin from a WC and “Better Government” Perspective.

Editor’s comment: Some of this analysis is from our IL State Chamber and I am giving the full attribution for their hard work watching out for YOU!!!. If you are in business or a small gov’t in this State or want to know what is happening in business and small gov’t in this State, please join the State Chamber—for more information, go to www.ilchamber.org.

I salute Chamber President Todd Maisch and legislative guru Jay Shattuck of the IL Chamber for securing last minute legislative victories for their members and all IL businesses and small gov’ts. Sadly, two of the first six bills signed into law this year by Governor Pritzker were major blows to the business/gov’t community. The first law signed by the Governor raised the statewide minimum wage to $15 an hour, while the other SB 1596 added to all IL employers’ costs to the by creating an unnecessary “exception” to our State’s workers’ compensation system that will allow IL employers to be sued civilly for asbestos exposures from decades ago.

Other awful pieces of legislation such as costly data privacy regulations and a proposal to threaten IL petroleum refineries were laid to rest. In the final days of session, a deal was cut between the four legislative leaders and the Governor to pass major pieces of legislation in combination for several business reforms. In addition, the Chamber secured what they feel is a major policy victory for the year, a $45B capital infrastructure program with lots of added taxes and fees to support it. I don’t agree this is a solid a “victory” as both sides claim—it is clearly a boon to the Illinois Road Builders Ass’n who always seem to find ways to make zillions off taxpayers whether the tax money is there or not. I wasn’t aware thousands of bridges and roads were falling apart and these new levies were crucial to avoid our cars and trucks tumbling into rivers across the State.

Sports Gaming and Gambling Lands in IL in a BIG Way

To my understanding church leaders across our State blocked this gambling/gaming concept for years as it would adversely impact poor people and churches/synagogues. A wise friend pointed out “gambling doesn’t hurt poor people, it hurts stupid people.” Let’s hope the religious leaders can get the message to their flocks to avoid wasting their hard-earned money gambling/gaming. Either way it appears to me that our religious leaders just lost their fight over gambling/gaming to our State’s voracious spending appetite.

In short, the IL legislature sent Gov. Pritzker a bill he’s expected to sign that will dramatically expand legal gambling and gaming in Illinois. Existing gambling venues get more gaming positions that can be dedicated to either slots or table games. The bill allows slot machines at O’Hare and Midway airports, as well as at all horse racing venues. The new law adds casinos in communities around the state, such as Waukegan and Rockford. It clears the way for a mega-casino in Chicago with 4,000, count ‘em, 4000 gaming positions. And it legalizes sports betting. To my understanding, you may be able to lay down a best at a professional sports arena on a pending game!!!

This legislation is going to help bring in lots of new jobs and possibly more WC claims for our system.

Recreational Marijuana Coming on January 1, 2020—Keep It Out of Your Workplace!!

Once the bill is signed, Illinois is set to join 10 other States to allow recreational marijuana starting on January 1, 2020. Not sure why the wait when they want to start taxing the heck out of it now.

The law also appears to pardon or eliminate any criminal charges for over 700,000 Illinoisans who were convicted of marijuana possession/use.

To my understanding, the IL State Chamber did maintain an employer’s right to block marijuana use/intoxication in the IL workplace. I agree with the Chamber and it is my strong recommendation you maintain a marijuana-illegal drug-alcohol free workplace. If you want a alcohol and drug-testing protocol, send a reply.

Transportation Modernization Bill

In short, your IL gas tax is going up 19 cents a gallon with other hikes in fees. As I indicate above, it is disappointing to me to be told our roads and bridges are suddenly a shambles when I see no evidence of it.

Illinois Becomes the 31st State to Offer Data Center Tax Incentives

In January of this year, the IL State Chamber Foundation released a study on the potential impact of a data center tax incentive and by June it became a reality. As part of the new budget, SB 690 included language to create a sales tax incentive for new and existing data centers. There is also an income tax credit for data centers that locate in underserved areas. This language was a State Chamber initiative. I join with the Chamber in heralding their hard work in this effort.

Pro-business/Small Gov’t Reforms

Other measures were included in the final budget deal including several other pro-business reforms. Those reforms included the reinstatement of the manufacturers purchasing credit, phase-out elimination of the franchise tax, creation of the Blue-Collar Jobs Act, and data center tax incentives, as outlined above. The IL State Chamber supported these reforms and I strongly agree with them.

“Streaming Tax” Defeated

A proposal floated in early May by the Governor’s office to tax streaming and satellite services to pay for vertical capital projects was defeated. The proposal sought to tax satellite TV and streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, Xbox Live, and Spotify. While the Governor’s proposal never made its way into legislative format, the concept was soundly defeated. I strongly support the State Chamber’s efforts to block this new tax.

Burdensome Real Estate Property Tax Legislation Stalls

SB 1379 was an initiative of the new Cook County Assessor's office to seek unneeded and duplicative information from property owners with "income producing properties" did not move forward. I own/invest in real estate and despised the concept of this bill. The Chamber provided substantive suggestions to make the bill better. They look forward to continuing to work on this issue with the Assessor and legislative sponsors before this is considered further.

Costly Data Regulations Defeated

For the second time in the last three years, the Chamber and other technology trade associations were successful in defeating legislation pushed by trial lawyers to enact costly and burdensome data privacy legislation. Drafted to hurt our state’s tech community, this legislation also would have negatively applied to small and medium sized businesses. I salute the hard work of the IL State Chamber to block this silliness.

Workplace Sexual Harassment Reform Bill

SB 75 is legislation creating extensive changes to limiting your employment agreements for harassment and employment discrimination related to non-disclosure agreements and mandatory arbitration. The legislation requires disclosure by any employer of a final adverse administrative or final judicial ruling to the Illinois Department of Human Rights. All Illinois employers will be required annually to have all its employees trained regarding sexual harassment. Yikes. This bill passed both Houses and may become law. If you have concerns, send a reply.

Business Regulation

HB 2127 would have required any private business that contracts with the State for information-technology services over $500,000 to install tracking software on every computer that works on a state project. Contractors with the state would pay a per employee fee to the software tracking company for spyware to record every user's keystroke, mouse click, browsing history, program usage and time spent on a computer. Usernames, passwords, confidential and proprietary personal and company information would be captured by the third party. The IL State Chamber was opposed to this legislation as government contracting process already has thorough accountability and oversight. I join with them in their opposition to what a I consider a wildly stupid bill.

Employment Law

SB 471 would have created the “Healthy Workplace Act.” This legislation would have mandated 40 hours of paid sick leave to all full and part time employees. The legislation is still in committed. I again oppose legislation where State gov’t is dictating to private business and local gov’ts.

HB 834 amends the Equal Pay Act of 2003 and provides an IL employer may prohibit a human resources employee, supervisor, or other employee whose job responsibilities require or allow access to other employees' wage or salary information from disclosing that information without prior written consent. This legislation is pending signature by the Gov.

HB 252 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act and provides that "employer" includes any person employing one (instead of 15) or more employees within Illinois during 20 or more calendar weeks within the calendar year of or preceding the alleged violation. This silly, anti-small business bill is pending signature by the Gov.

HB 2233 amends the IL Code of Civil Procedure providing within the discretion of the court, a jury may be asked (rather than required by the court and must be required on the request of any party) to find specially upon any material question or questions of fact submitted to the jury in writing. Any party may request special interrogatories. This is pending signature and coming to a courtroom near us.

Healthcare

While the IL State Chamber supported the overall SB 689 for its pro-business reforms, SB 689 contained language to enact a managed care provider tax. The IL State Chamber was able to get the language less burdensome on employers. It is pending signature by Governor Pritzker.

Taxes

SB 687 imposes punitive graduated income tax rates effective January 2021, if the constitutional amendment authorizing graduated rates is approved by the voters. The bill would raise the top rate on individuals and corporations to 7.99% (10.49% for corporations with the 2.5% replacement tax), making Illinois’ income tax burden one of the highest in the nation. I strongly oppose this mess that I feel will drive doctors, lawyers, successful corporations and other contributors out of this State.

There is lots of other stuff that I don’t feel my readers would care about—if you want the link to all of it, send a reply.

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

Synopsis: What Illinois Business Can/Will Expect from SB 1596—Multi-million dollar mesothelioma claims from possible exposure(s) decades ago are now on your plate!

Editor’s comment: Please note this is not an IL claim/ruling—I feel it may be illustrative of what is coming at you in Illinois. This is from the June 2019 Longshore/Maritime Update which is now edited/written by Ken Engerrand—full attribution is provided to him. If you want to get on that free Update list for Longshore/Maritime Legal News, send him a request at

kengerrand@brownsims.com

His Article: Longshoreman recovers from stevedoring companies for mesothelioma. Craft v. Ports America Gulfport, Inc., No. 2018-CA-0814, 2019 La. App. Lexis 807 (La. App. 4 Cir. May 8, 2019) (Bartholomew-Woods)

Opinion (I have tested this link and consider it safe for your review)

Jerry Craft, who loaded and unloaded cargo from ships at the Port of New Orleans was diagnosed with mesothelioma at the age of 82. He brought suit against his stevedore employers in Louisiana state court for exposure to asbestos during his employment on the waterfront from 1953 to 1989. The case proceeded to trial against the stevedores that declined to settle, and the jury found the defendants negligent and awarded Craft $2,960,000. After the trial judge reduced the award to $986,666.68 based on credit for the settlements, the defendants filed post-judgment motions attacking the negligence finding and the award of $1 million for future medical expenses. The judge denied the first and granted the second. Craft and the defendants both appealed. Craft’s appeal asserted that the jury abused its discretion in awarding him only $1.6 million in general damages (past and future pain and suffering, disability, and loss of enjoyment of life. Acknowledging that Craft had suffered while undergoing several procedures and continually receiving chemotherapy since his diagnosis, the court declined to disturb the jury’s award of general damages. The court of appeal did, however, reverse the denial of future medical expenses of $1 million. Craft did not produce evidence of the amount of future medical costs, or the frequency or type of future medical treatment that was required. But he did present evidence from his physicians that he would need ongoing chemotherapy and palliative care for the rest of his life, and he presented evidence of the $360,000 in past medical expenses. The appellate court held that this was sufficient to support the jury’s award of $1 million for future treatment. The stevedoring companies also argued that Craft failed to establish a duty for stevedoring companies in the 1960s and 1970s regarding handling asbestos as there was no evidence that they knew or should have known of the effects of asbestos or that they violated any governmental regulations or industry standards. However, Craft presented the testimony of Professor Markowitz, an expert in the field of history with a subspecialty in occupational health, public health, and environmental health. He testified that there were articles published in the early 20th century on the dangers of asbestos and that by 1930 it was established that asbestos could cause disease or death for those who inhaled asbestos fibers. Concluding the trial court did not commit manifest error in allowing the testimony of Professor Markowitz over the objection that he was a historian and not a qualified industry expert, the court of appeal upheld the negligence finding.

You can and will note there is multi-million dollar exposure. Please contact your broker asap to insure you have coverage and aren’t “bare.” Prior to May 17, 2019, you didn’t have this risk to manage, I promise you.

KCB&A has a solid defense specialist in Bradley Smith who can help and guide you when these new lawsuits hit your risk models.

5-27-2019; Now What Do We Do With SB 1596--Are Latent Injuries Truly in the Mix?; Brad Smith, J.D. on Your Legal Liability for Open and Obvious Conditions; Happy Memorial Day to All and More

Synopsis: OK, IL WC Bar—Now What Do We Do With SB 1596?? Are “Latent Injuries” Truly In The Mix?

Editor’s comment: As I reported a week ago, ITLA got its wish and obtained the enactment of SB 1596 that is nutty, confusing and perplexing legislation which, for the first time, allows IL workers to sue their employers in Circuit Court for negligently causing whatever the heck “latent injuries” might be. As you will read, I don’t agree the term “latent injuries” should actually be used but seek my readers and industry comment about that irritating and somewhat “crazy-making” term.

The pertinent part is in the IL WC Act now. This new law states:

Subsection (a) of Section 5 and Section 11 do not apply to any injury or death sustained by an employee as to which the recovery of compensation benefits under this Act would be precluded due to the operation of any period of repose or repose provision. As to any such injury or death, the employee, the employee’s heirs, and any person having standing under the law to bring a civil action at law, including an action for wrongful death and an action pursuant to Section 27-6 of the Probate Act of 1975, has the nonwaivable right to bring such an action against any employer or employers.

If you read the law, there are two issues of enormous importance. First we are left to figure out what a “Statute of Repose” might be in the IL WC Act because those injuries/deaths are now the subject of civil litigation because Sections 5 and 11 may no longer apply to them. I do know Section 5 is the “exclusive remedy” limit on any injury/death occurring at work. So, if you have a “statute of repose” that covers an injury/death, the worker can either bring either a WC claim, a civil claim or both!

What is a Statute of Repose?

A statute of repose is basically a cut-off date whether a law suit is filed or not. Such legislation is hated by Claimant attorneys because it can cut off a Plaintiff’s right to recovery if they had something building inside them that doesn’t come out for months, years or decades.

Section 6 of the IL WC Act has a single statute of repose that says (in pertinent part):

In any case of injury caused by exposure to radiological materials or equipment or asbestos, unless application for compensation is filed with the Commission within 25 years after the last day that the employee was employed in an environment of hazardous radiological activity or asbestos, the right to file such application shall be barred.

If an accidental injury caused by exposure to radiological material or equipment or asbestos results in death within 25 years after the last day that the employee was so exposed application for compensation for death may be filed with the Commission within 3 years after the date of death, where no compensation has been paid, or within 2 years after the date of the last payment of compensation where any has been paid, whichever shall be later, but not thereafter.

After lots and lots of research, this seems fairly clear to me—these is a limitation of 25 years on claims of exposure to radiological activity or asbestos. Ergo, claims involving radiological and asbestos exposures are now the subject of SB 1596 and can potentially cause the right to civil litigation. I have seen mention of “beryllium” as being part of this new legislative concept. You may note beryllium doesn’t appear at all in the IL WC Act. It is a rare mineral that may or may not be radioactive. I assume you and all my readers don’t need to concern yourselves with non-radioactive beryllium but, I feel if you have people working with radioactive beryllium (or any other radioactive substance), the new law may apply to them.

Where/How Did “Latent Injuries” Come Into the Mix?

Again, I have done exhaustive research. I don’t know and would ask you and/or anyone you know why legal, insurance and other risk managers are now mentioning and voicing concerns about “latent injuries.” There is no statute of repose in the IL WC Act for “latent injuries,” just exposure to radiological materials and asbestos—the IL WC Act is very clear about it. If I am wrong about this—please, please tell me why! I will admit any mistake on my part to my many readers but I clearly think I am right—latent injuries is a very broad term that shouldn’t be used in the context of SB 1596.

In at least one source, the PR folks at ITLA are telling everyone who will listen that “latent injuries” are defined as medical conditions resulting from workplace exposures to things like asbestos and beryllium. At least one industry publication from a national insurance brokerage indicated “latent injuries” include, and I quote (by cutting and pasting):

lead poisoning, black lung (pneumoconiosis), mesothelioma and asbestosis, silicosis, skin cancer, lung cancer, occupational asthma, byssinosis, carpal tunnel syndrome, repetitive strain injuries, hearing loss, and traumatic brain injury.

First, I have no idea how all those claims might fall under SB 1596 that appears limited to radiological materials and asbestos, per the terms (new and old) of the IL WC Act. Second, if that quote is accurate, thousands of pending and potential IL workers’ comp claims could possibly be brought by wealthy Plaintiff lawyers in Circuit Court under the aegis of this new law and the IL WC Commission may be suddenly otiose and might be unworthy of continued funding at some point.

At least one other industry publication said this new legislation “expands the coverage of the Workers’ Compensation Act.” I want to make clear my view that statement is simply and unequivocally wrong—SB 1596 does nothing, no change at all, to the implementation of the IL WC Act. SB 1596 creates a new civil action unfettered by the “exclusive remedy” concept but has little to do with the other terms and benefits of the IL WC Act.

What Does a Humble WC Lawyer Do When Faced With An IL WC Claim That Might Involve Exposure to Asbestos or Radiological Materials?

From the perspective of the Plaintiff/Petitioner lawyer handling an IL WC claim that might involve the exposures above—I am fairly sure they would need to at least let your clients consider the possibility of either a simple WC claim or a much more complex and expensive civil claim—if you don’t have that capability, refer them to someone who does and keep a record of your referral. You may want to insure your client knows of the risks/rewards.

From the perspective of Defense lawyers across the State, you have to tell your clients precisely what happened in this nutty State. If you are contacted by and/or receive defense of a claim for either radiological or asbestos exposure (or both), you need to let them know there is a non-waivable right for the worker to bring both a WC claim and/or a civil claim. The WC claim would/should be covered by the WC coverage. An employer should not be able to block the civil claim by having WC benefits offered and accepted by the injured worker or his family—that is what I feel “non-waivable” means. I don’t feel “non-waivable” means you can’t settle the claim with a release in exchange for payment.

To settle, the employer should have to get both approved WC settlement contracts and a general release of the civil claim. I hope.

I would appreciate anyone’s thoughts and comments on this article. Please feel free to post them on our award winning blog.

Synopsis: The Federal Seventh Circuit Appellate Court Rejects Premises Liability Claim for Open and Obvious Condition Against Menards.  Analysis by KCB&A’s top GL ace, Bradley J. Smith, J.D.

Editor's Comment: In McCarty v. Menards, Inc., a business invitee sued Menards for tripping over a product display sign. During the proceedings in the federal District Court, the federal judge entered summary judgment for Menards and threw out the lawsuit. Then the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion written by Justice St. Eve affirmed that dismissal. She held that the sign was open and obvious and that the business invitee should have seen and appreciated it.

On February 13, 2017, the business invitee (accompanied by a colleague) went to the Menard’s store in Antioch, Illinois, to purchase materials for his company. He was purchasing sheets of plywood. The display sign at issue was knee high with protruding wooden legs.

The business invitee was looking around the Menards store for boards for a period of time. Then he moved a few boards from a middle stack. When he did that, he tripped over a piece of wood that was part of the display sign in front of the right-hand pile. The photograph submitted to the Appellate Court demonstrated a display sign protruding out a significant distance from the stacks of wood. It was a relatively large and certainly a noticeable sign.

In Illinois, landowners owe business invitees a duty of care to keep their premises reasonably safe. Illinois courts generally consider four factors when deciding if duty of care exits:

(1) the reasonable foreseeability of the harm;

(2) the likelihood of the injury;

(3) the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury; and

(4) the consequences of placing that burden on the premise’s owner.

The “open and obvious doctrine” implicates the first two factors of the duty of care analysis on this retailer.

When the open and obvious doctrine applies because the condition is open and obvious, the risk of harm is considered slight. Essentially, people are expected to appreciate and avoid open and obvious conditions.

Federal Judge St. Eve concluded in her opinion that:

“A reasonable person in [the business invitee’s] position, who saw that there were signs, chose the stack he wanted by looking at the signs, walked right up to the signs, was working within a few feet of the protruding sign, and either repeatedly stepped over it or turned toward it, would have notices the large sign and legs as a tripping hazard.”

Since there were no material disputes concerning the condition’s physical nature, then the trial court and subsequently the appellate court were able to find the condition an open and obvious one as a matter of law.

This opinion is a valuable interpretation of premises law for retail and restaurant business owners. It applies the duty analysis in a reasonable and fair manner. This allows businesses to have some predictability as to what they are responsible for. Sometimes people do need to observe their surroundings and use common sense to avoid open and obvious conditions. It is not always someone else’s fault.

The research and writing of this article was performed by Bradley J. Smith, J.D. Bradley can be reached with any questions regarding the FLSA, employment law, and general liability defense at bsmith@keefe-law.com.

5-20-2019; Illinois’ Legal System Continues to Get More Judicial “Hell-Hole-y"; The Defense Team at KCB&A Welcome Chicago’s Amazing New Mayor Lori Lightfoot and more

Synopsis: Illinois’ Legal System Continues to Get More Judicial “Hell-Hole-y.”

Editor’s comment: The American Tort Reform Association puts out a Rotten Tomatoes-type ranking of U.S. litigation systems they call Judicial “Hell-Holes.” Their goal is to let you, me and your friends know what things in our courts start to smell of limburger cheese. In my view, what just happened to our State stinks to high heaven. Now we have to wait and see what our wacky Illinois courts do with this new and shocking concept. Please also remember the terms in this legislation like “latent injury” and “statutes of repose” aren’t truly defined other than in the minds of the Plaintiff bar—in my view, if the judiciary blindly accepts this legislation, without requiring clarity, they are going a very long way toward appearing to me to be the minions of their campaign benefactors.

As a caveat to my readers, I strongly recommend you contact your insurance brokers and ask what to do about insurance coverage for this new and unprecedented risk. All U.S. General Liability Insurance policies have a standard exclusion for claims by an employee, and all Work Comp insurance policies have a standard exclusion for civil claims against the employer—because civil claims were very limited in our State until this new law was enacted. In my view, and in the view of many commentators, current IL business insurance coverage leaves these sorts of claims in a Never-Land. The reason for my Never-Land comment is this shocking new exposure didn’t exist in this goofy State until last Friday! Don’t be caught in the lurch whatever you do.

I also have an article by an excellent legal scholar who feels this mess is going to either be declared unconstitutional or be allowed to exist but the concept won’t start for 25 more years—if you want that article, send me a reply. Either way, please assume the fun people at ITLA or the IL Trial Lawyers Ass’n who are behind this concept are going to find some Sad Sack claimant to trot in front of favorable judges and then our Appellate/Supreme Court justices to see if they can get the courts to make this new idea work the way they want it to work so they can cash in giant legal fees in doing so.

Either way, on May 17, 2019, IL Governor JB Pritzker signed SB 1596 into law. ITLA or the IL Plaintiffs’ Bar introduced legislation in both the Illinois House and Senate (SB1596) to override the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Folta v. Ferro Engineering,2015 IL 118070 (2015), where the Supreme Court held the IL Worker’s Compensation Act and Occupational Diseases Act was the exclusive remedy for Illinois workers who suffered exposures, also confusingly called “latent injuries” for conditions such as asbestosis and mesothelioma. Ed Matushek wrote the position paper of the IARDTC or Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel opposing this unnecessary legislation, and testified in opposition before both the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary – Civil Committee. The Illinois Senate and House both voted to approve along party lines, without even considering any alternative to keep such claims in the IL worker’s compensation system.

SB 1596 is supposed to be legislation that helps workers who develop what are called “latent illnesses or injuries” after coming in contact with asbestos or other toxic but supposedly hidden substances in the workplace. Legal scholars feel this is impermissible special legislation that will eliminate strict liability of employers for only these injuries under the long-established work comp program and increase the threshold of proof required by a special class of injured workers in order to obtain recovery. SB 1596 basically doubles the amount of attorneys’ fees to be paid by the injured worker from the statutory 20% under the worker’s compensation system by moving the worker’s claim against the employer to the civil tort system, where the trial lawyers can assess their attorneys’ fees at 40% or more of the recovery.

One source indicates campaign contributions by our wealthy trial lawyers seeking this new law gave Illinois politicians and judges nearly $40 million during the past 17 years. We always feel judges/justices who accept campaign donations from Plaintiff lawyers trying to make new law should recuse themselves when the laws are brought to them to analyze their constitutionality.

KCB&A’s top liability lawyer, Bradley Smith was quoted in several national news sources to say:

This new law, if used as its advocates intend it to be used, will revive claims in the civil suit arena that were already barred by the Worker’s Compensation Act and the corresponding Illinois Occupational Disease Act’s statute of repose, he said. Employers should be ready to attack those potential claims aggressively from the onset. This is because the constitutional viability of applying this law retroactively is questionable at best. Bradley Smith said he was confident the law would face numerous legal challenges.

Please note this law is being jammed down the throats of the IL State Chamber and other great advocates on the management side of IL business with no negotiations or counter-balance in costs being offered by IL labor. This is not an “agreed bill,” which is the genteel way such things used to get done with give and take from both sides of the aisle. In the People’s Republic of Illinois, I can sadly forecast more gloomy news for our employers and business leaders, as the Plaintiff bar seeks to cash in.

An alternative to achieve a legislative goal of insuring some recovery for the injured employee would have been to lengthen or even abolish what is being called the WC “statute of repose” period for “latent injury” claims but always keep recovery in the longstanding system of Illinois work comp. That is not what SB 1596 does. Removing the exclusive jurisdiction of such claims from the Illinois WC Commission has consequences that may hurt the constituents our Legislature seeks to assist by creating unlimited and possibly business-busting tort liability for Illinois employers in our court system for such claims, and may have the effect of eliminating any existing insurance coverage for such claims, as I outline above. This can and will drive even more Illinois businesses and employers out of our State or into bankruptcy protection.

SB 1596 ignores the rationale for the exclusive remedy provisions of the Illinois Work Comp Act and the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act. These Acts impose liability without fault upon the employer and, in return, prohibit expensive and unpredictable common law suits by employees against the employer. The exclusive remedy provision found in Section 5 of the Acts is part of the grand exchange in which sacrifices and gains of employees and employers are to some extent put in balance, for, while the employer assumes a new liability without fault, the company is also relieved of the the cost of defense and business-busting jury verdicts.

Reasonable legislation would have extended the length of the twenty-five repose period under the Acts and keep the employee’s remedy in the worker’s compensation system. Instead, this new bill places recovery for such injury in the civil tort system, where the worker relinquishes the advantage of strict liability of the employer, and as a practical matter, doubles the amount of attorneys’ fees that will be paid by the injured worker. Most important, all Illinois employers will be surprised to find that they may be suddenly uninsured for claims under this law. The practical effect of this law is to subject Illinois employers to unlimited liability for employees’ “latent injury” claims, and at the same time strip Illinois employers of their insurance for such claims. SB 1596 will adversely affect the Illinois economy, and likely reduce or eliminate the likelihood of a viable recovery by the injured worker, defeating the supposed purpose for this legislation.

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

Synopsis: The Defense Team at KCB&A Welcome Chicago’s Amazing New Mayor Lori Lightfoot.

Editor’s comment: Ms. Lori Lightfoot was inaugurated as our City’s Mayor today. She called for unity, not divisions, returning to a mantra of, “We are each other’s business.” She even mentioned our late Mayor Harold Washington, saying she felt his spirit in the room.

Mayor Lightfoot’s biggest applause came when she called for an end to the city’s legendary political corruption, most—not all—at the aldermanic rather than mayoral level.

She said: “Stopping [corruption] isn’t just in the city’s interest. It’s in the City Council’s own interest. No official in the City of Chicago, elected or appointed, should ever profit from his or her office. For years, they've said Chicago ain't ready for reform. Well, get ready, because reform is here."

Assuming she wins an initial City Council organizing vote next week and has a working majority, Lightfoot’s biggest task will be to find billions to fill a gaping hole of at least $740 million in the pending 2020 City budget. Lightfoot had better hope all of those new committee chairs she named feel they owe her, because she’ll need their votes on some very, very difficult fiscal matters that will come up quite soon.

Where will the money come from? There are no answers yet, but lots of expectations from many who voted for Lightfoot for more spending on things such as anti-gang-violence efforts, affordable housing, expanded mental health services and the like. And looming are negotiations with the Chicago Teachers Union over another new contract, and the union seems to be gearing up for another never-ending, never-satisfied war. They later indicated they want at least $2 billion that isn’t in the budget and those evil wealthy people better be ready to pony up.

From my perspective, Mayor Lightfoot is a crystal clean lawyer and solid business woman. I don’t know what her true genius is but she also has lots of geniuses around her, which is twice as good. She is, for the first time in recorded memory trying to bring in an actual City risk manager who will watch and manage GL, WC and other claims, like cities and small governments across our country have been doing for decades. We hope to see the end of the incredibly odd way such things have been managed for decades.

I have offered her team my best thoughts and ideas for the City to transition to

• Preventing/stopping and then investigating all incidents,

• Managing claims when the unforeseen happens,

• Getting injured workers back to sedentary and light work asap,

• Trying to slow or stop litigation where possible, and

• Bringing the City of Chicago into a new age of great GL and WC claims management.

I will try to keep my readers posted as this process continues.

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