8-13-2019; The Six Ways to Close an Illinois (and many States) Workers’ Compensation Claim; Adieu, Former Arb. Brian Cronin and more

Synopsis: The Six Ways to Close an Illinois (and many State and Federal) Workers’ Compensation Claims.

 

Editor’s comment: We keep having clients ask so we wanted to provide our expert legal guidance on this important topic for all sides of the matrix. When the defense team at KCB&A speak at local, regional and national conferences, we are routinely advised the cool thing about IL WC is a claims handler or risk manager can actually “close” files if you do things correctly. In our neighboring states, many systems don’t allow for “complete” closure and little annoying things can happen to cause claims to re-open. As much as our readers and other observers have issues with the IL WC system, they do like the sense of closure provided in our difficult WC claims.

 

To our understanding, there are six paths by which an IL WC claim closes:

 

1.    Lack of statutory 45-day Notice;

 

2.    Running of the statute of limitations in Section 6(c) of the IL WC Act;

 

3.    Voluntary dismissal of the claim by Claimant and counsel, if applicable;

 

4.    Dismissal of a claim for want of prosecution;

 

5.    Settlement;

 

6.    Final decision of the Arbitrator, Commissioner or reviewing court.

 

If any of our readers know of another path to close an IL WC claim, send your best thoughts and we will forward a free KCB&A rate sheet.

 

Let’s take a closer look at the six paths for closing IL WC claims—Number one is lack of statutory notice of injury/exposure. If someone is injured and they know they are injured at work, they have 45 days for their employer to learn of the accident/exposure. Please note the employee doesn’t have to actively provide notice of accident/exposure, all they have to demonstrate is the employer learned of the accident by any means. If statutory notice becomes an issue, the employer is supposed to be able to demonstrate they are “unduly prejudiced” in such proceedings by such defect or inaccuracy in the notice of accident/exposure. To us, the easiest way to demonstrate undue prejudice is to claim your accident investigation protocols were blocked due to the failure of the employee to notify you and/or for you to learn of the accident/exposure in any other way.

 

In a more realistic sense, to the defense team at KCB&A, your better shot at defeating/blocking a claim due to lack of statutory notice is to treat it from a common sense perspective—if the employee was seriously/moderately injured at your workplace, how is it that you and your supervisors never learned of it? We feel most Arbitrators will ask the same question—if you broke your arm working for your employer but were regularly at or around work and in the continuing company of your supervisors and other co-workers, how come no one ever knew anything about your medical issues for more than six weeks?

 

In short, lack of statutory notice should close a claim but that doesn’t mean you aren’t going to have to fight to prove a lack of statutory compliance so it might be a challenge to truly call that “closing” a claim, as much as it is a valid defense.

 

Number two, the IL WC statute of limitations is also a gauntlet a defense lawyer might choose to run. The IL WC Act requires the Application be filed three years from the date of the accident/exposure. The statute of limitations can be extended or “resurrected” for two additional years, if there is the payment of any WC medical, lost time, permanency or death benefits. This extension or new period for the statute to run can include a medical bill for a work-related injury being paid by the employer’s group health carrier. As the last “twist” on the IL WC statute of limitations, you have to be aware of the IL Supreme Court’s “activist” ruling in Durand v. IWCC where the Court wouldn’t dismiss a claim based upon repetitive trauma where the worker alleged she “worked in pain” for four years prior to filing the Application. In our view, this controversial decision eviscerates the SOL because any and every worker who misses the deadline can simply claim to be “working in pain” to keep the statute open for a new claim. In our view, this legal concept might be more challenging if the delay in filing the Application was five to ten years or more.

 

Number three, voluntary dismissal of a claim by claimant is easy. This form needs to be completed by Claimant and their attorney, if applicable. If you want the link to the form, sent a reply.

 

Once they have signed the form and filed it with the IWCC, the Arbitrator assigned should receive, review and sign the form. When that happens, you need to make the call on just closing your file or waiting for the running of the statute of limitations. Please remember a claim that has been voluntarily dismissed is done without prejudice—they can re-file any time during the SOL.

 

Number four, the dismissal of a claim for want of prosecution or DWP is a common and generally easy concept to understand. Illinois claims are set on a calendar for each assigned Arbitrator. The calendars can be reviewed on the great website for the IWCC. Each claim will trundle along and trundle along until they reach about two-and-one-half years. After that point, someone has to show up before the Arbitrator to ask for claims to be continued and the defense has to agree or at least, not fight continuances. If they don’t, the decision to DWP the claim is up to the Arbitrator. Sometimes they are tough, sometimes they wait and are tough later.

 

You can’t always blame your defense lawyer for cases getting endlessly continued but we do recommend you advise your defense lawyer in writing when/if they no longer have your authority to agree to continue claims. We have seen claims continued to the fourth, fifth and more years because defense counsel never puts their foot down to demand a hearing or otherwise demand trial or dismissal of old, moldy claims.

 

When a case gets dismissed, the IWCC is supposed to snail-mail notices of DWP to the parties or counsel for the parties. The notice indicates there is 60-days to file a Petition to Reinstate the claim. If the Petition to Reinstate is timely filed, it is possible it can sit for weeks, months and years—it is incumbent on defense counsel to demand the Petition be timely adjudicated so the matter is reinstated and then settled/tried. Please also note some defense attorneys “roll over” to allow claims to be reinstated—the team at KCB&A always asks our clients what they want first. Many Arbitrators will allow reinstatement and set the matter on a date certain—if the hearing is held, the matter remains reinstated. If the hearing doesn’t occur, the claim may be again dismissed.

 

Number five, an approved settlement ends IL WC claims. Please note the IWCC settlement process requires Arbitrator involvement—there clearly were concerns in the olden days that injured workers were being taken advantage of so a state official has to approve the deal to insure there is no funny business. We tell our readers, you can like the IL WC contract settlement approval process or hate it but we are sure it isn’t going to change soon.

 

For some of our clients, this is a new challenge because they want to close everything a year ago. Some clients now want to provide settlement authority to see their toughest claims close in a day or so—that isn’t slightly possible. We want all Illinois risk and claims managers to understand the IL WC settlement process usually takes about a month. To settle a claim and close a defense file, we have to:

 

Reach a complete settlement of all issues

 

  • Draft settlement contracts that cover all issues and completely protect you—the defense team at KCB&A can do this part of the process on a same-day, real-time basis;

 

  • Send the contracts to the adjuster and/or employer for their review, saving-to-file and approval—again, it is sent asap;

 

  • Then with client approval from you, we sign and send to opposing counsel via email;

 

  • Opposing counsel will print, sign and then contact Claimant for their discussion and signature—this is of unknown duration but many times, Claimants will come to OC’s office to sign to speed things up;

 

  • Then opposing counsel will typically snail mail or bring the contracts to the Arbitrator assigned with an SASE;

 

  • Then the Arbitrator gets to the contracts in the normal course of business.

 

  • We assure our clients all IL WC Arbitrators are diligent and professional—it is not a good idea to tell or demand an Arbitrator to put your contracts at the front of the line because they call them as they receive them;

 

Thereafter the Arbitrators

 

  • Reject them for technical problems of whatever sort or

 

  • Snail mail them back to Claimant’s counsel who then email them to us to forward to you.

 

When we get the contracts back and Arbitrator approved, we immediately route them to our clients for payment. We can’t close our files the minute we send the approved contracts to you because we need to know you or your adjuster has paid them to insure you aren’t going to be the subject of either a penalty petition or an 19G Petition for a judgment against your account, the Respondent.

 

If you have any idea how to make IL WC settlements faster, please let us know. Yes, we wish the draft signed contracts could be emailed to and from the Arbitrators—that can’t happen yet.

 

Finally, Number six, the last of the six ways to close an IL WC claim is via a final decision by an Arbitrator, Commission panel or reviewing court. This means the Arbitrator heard the claim and filed the decision, the parties receive it and no one files an administrative appeal, called a Petition for Review within thirty days. If the Commission reaches a decision, the parties only have twenty days to perfect an appeal to the Circuit Court with lots of little details to be completed very, very rapidly—if you need the many nuances, send a reply. After a Circuit Court judge files an appeal, the parties then have thirty days to appeal to the Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division. If that body decides a claim and you want to appeal to the IL Supreme Court, send a reply and we can explain the many rules that come with that test.

 

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Otherwise, feel free to post your thoughts and ideas on our award-winning website.

 

 

Synopsis: Retirement of former Arbitrator Brian Cronin.

 

Editor’s comment: I was advised Arbitrator Cronin retired and moved on to the wonderful world of Illinois hilarious fake gov’t pension programs. He will shortly make more, lots more, as a retiree than he made while working—don’t blame him, that is what this nutty State does for retirees at an hilarious cost to taxpayers—he will double and triple and quadruple his “pay.”

 

I didn’t always agree with Arbitrator Cronin but I always felt he was generally a reasonable and fair administrator. I wish him the best in all future endeavors.

 

 

Synopsis: AUGUST IN IL—BENEFIT RATES RISE WITH THE HUMIDITY??—UPDATED RATE SHEETS AVAILABLE SOON FOR ILLINOIS WC RATE INCREASE!!! 

 

Editor’s comment: Illinois WC Rates Have Updated Again So Please Be Aware Of The New Rates or Your Claims Handling Will Suffer and Penalties May Ensue.

 

Email Marissa at mpatel@keefe-law.com to Get a Free and Complimentary Email or Hard Copy of Shawn R. Biery’s Updated IL WC Rate-Sheet! You can also send any questions to Shawn at sbiery@keefe-law.com

 

We note that the recent legislation to increase the statewide minimum wage eventually to $15/hr will lead to the continued rate increase in every cycle, so continue to watch the growth of IL WC rates. As we have mentioned in the past, since in the 1980’s, the IL WC Act provides a formula which effectively insures no matter how poor the IL economy is doing, WC rates continue to climb.

 

We caution our readers to pay attention to the fact the IL WC statutory maximum PPD rate is $813.87. However, this rate is only going to be valid through June 30, 2019 and the new max PPD will be published in January 2020. When it will be published in January 2020, this rate will change retroactively from July 1, 2019 forward. At that time, if you don’t make the change, your reserves will be incorrect--if this isn’t clear, send a reply.

 

The current TTD weekly maximum has risen to $1,529.84. A worker has to make over $2,294.76 per week or $119,327.52 per year to hit the new IL WC maximum TTD rate.

 

For WC Death Benefits: The new IL WC minimum is creeping closer to the $750k floor. That amount is now 25 years of compensation or $573.69 per week x 52 weeks in a year x 25 years or $745,797.00! The new maximum IL WC death benefit is $1,529.84 times 52 weeks times 25 years or a lofty $1,988,792.00 plus burial benefits of $8K. IL WC death benefits also come with annual COLA increases which we feel can potentially makes Illinois the highest in the U.S. for WC death claims.

 

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

8-5-2019; Shawn Biery's Famous and Free IL WC Rate Sheet Update; Odd and Endless Retaliatory Discharge Denial Follows Psych Claim Denial at WC Div of Appellate Court and more

Synopsis: AUGUST IN IL—BENEFIT RATES RISE WITH THE HUMIDITY??—UPDATED RATE SHEETS AVAILABLE SOON FOR ILLINOIS WC RATE INCREASE!!! 

 

Editor’s comment: Illinois WC Rates Have Updated Again So Please Be Aware Of The New Rates or Your Claims Handling Will Suffer and Penalties May Ensue.

 

Email Marissa at mpatel@keefe-law.com to Get a Free and Complimentary Email or Hard Copy of Shawn R. Biery’s Updated IL WC Rate-Sheet! You can also send any questions to Shawn at sbiery@keefe-law.com

 

We note that the recent legislation to increase the statewide minimum wage eventually to $15/hr will lead to the continued rate increase in every cycle, so continue to watch the growth of IL WC rates. As we have mentioned in the past, since in the 1980’s, the IL WC Act provides a formula which effectively insures no matter how poor the IL economy is doing, WC rates continue to climb.

 

We caution our readers to pay attention to the fact the IL WC statutory maximum PPD rate is $813.87. However, this rate is only going to be valid through June 30, 2019 and the new max PPD will be published in January 2020. When it will be published in January 2020, this rate will change retroactively from July 1, 2019 forward. At that time, if you don’t make the change, your reserves will be incorrect--if this isn’t clear, send a reply.

 

The current TTD weekly maximum has risen to $1,529.84. A worker has to make over $2,294.76 per week or $119,327.52 per year to hit the new IL WC maximum TTD rate.

 

For WC Death Benefits: The new IL WC minimum is creeping closer to the $750k floor. That amount is now 25 years of compensation or $573.69 per week x 52 weeks in a year x 25 years or $745,797.00! The new maximum IL WC death benefit is $1,529.84 times 52 weeks times 25 years or a lofty $1,988,792.00 plus burial benefits of $8K. IL WC death benefits also come with annual COLA increases which we feel can potentially makes Illinois the highest in the U.S. for WC death claims.

 

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

 

Synopsis: Odd Retaliatory Discharge Denial Follows Psych Claim Denial at Illinois Appellate Court.

 

Editor’s comment: In Matros v. ComEd, the Appellate Court, First District issued a 55-page decision that I am not going to review in detail here, as I am sure you would fall completely asleep to read it.

 

If you want the link to the decision and can’t sleep some night, send me a reply and I will forward. Claimant is clearly an aggressive litigator along with his chosen Petitioner/Plaintiff firm. From what I can see in my research, he brought around nine different WC claims and most of them settled years ago.

 

One of his WC claims was for psych injuries and was denied and denied again at every level. At long last, the Appellate Court, WC Division denied it in one of their unusual “unpublished” but actually “published” rulings.

 

The best message you can take away from that denial is Illinois remains a state in which you need a sudden, unexpected and shocking event to deserve IL WC benefits. I salute all of our hearing officers for avoiding “California-style” psych claims.

 

After losing that one, Claimant also brought this retaliatory discharge claim after being terminated by ComEd and it basically went nowhere after years of fighting.

 

As I indicate, the ruling is virtually endless and, to distill it down, Claimant failed to make a clear picture of being terminated due to bringing a WC claim.

 

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

7-31-2019; Take A Leap: Is Jumping Off a Truck Dock Compensable in Illinois WC or Your State?; The Belt Dodges An FELA Death Claim and more

Synopsis: Take A Leap: Is Jumping Off a Truck Dock Compensable in Illinois WC or Your State? An in-depth look at the Benson case by Nathan Bernard, J.D.

 

Editor’s comment: First, KCBA and defense attorney Nathan S. Bernard, handled this claim at all levels of litigation from the arbitration hearing to a panel of three commissioners at the IWCC then before a circuit court judge and finally briefs and oral arguments before the five esteemed justices at the Illinois Appellate Court. At all levels, it was unanimously held the claim was denied with zero workers’ compensation benefits awarded.

 

Second, credit should be given where credit is due, and we applaud the insurance carrier and Respondent for their strong diligence in providing defense evidence necessary to support denial of this claim. As noted in further detail below, the incident was captured on high quality security videotape that was properly maintained and then expeditiously retrieved in the aggressive investigation by the adjuster and employer representatives. This security video and solid employer representative testimony later at hearing, allowed the defense to present arguments for denial and rebut inconsistencies and allegations which arose during the course of litigation and the appellate process.

 

In certain circumstances, there is a duty to preserve evidence but regardless, lost evidence at the outset of the claim for unexplained reasons or from inattentiveness can certainly weaken defenses and prevent the successful opportunity to properly deny a claim. Our attorneys at KCBA would be happy to provide advice on steps necessary for an initial aggressive investigation of a claim – please feel free to send a reply and contact us at any time. Nathan Bernard can be reached at nbernard@keefe-law.com and (312) 756-3726.

 

Now, to the crux of the claim; in Benson v. Kirby Medical Center (14 WC 36242), security cameras on the loading dock of a hospital bay showed Petitioner jumping off a loading dock off of a hydraulic lift and falling to the ground sustaining a fracture to the lower extremity. The video shows, and Petitioner testified, he purposefully jumped off of the loading dock in order to get down to the ground quicker so he could enter a company vehicle parked in the loading dock bay area. The video shows, and Petitioner testified there were stairs to the immediate right he could have taken which he estimated would have been an extra 30 seconds to get off the loading dock plus a ramp on the other end of the loading dock he could have taken. He estimated there would have been an extra 60 second to get off the loading dock using the alternate path. Petitioner agreed he was never directed, either verbally or in writing, to ever jump from the loading dock or to use the hydraulic lift to get down off the loading dock, but that he had been told to hurry and get the task done quickly. As noted above, the videotape, while showing an incident occurred, prevented the potential for inaccurate testimony, inconsistencies, or exaggeration and focused the issues narrowly to allow the law to be applied to a very specific fact pattern.

 

A job description and safety documentation entered into evidence at hearing did not specifically mention any limitation on jumping off the loading dock. Petitioner was required to observe “all safety protocols”. At arbitration, it was found Petitioner’s actions took him entirely out of the scope of his employment and he was injured while violating “common sense” safety rules. The Arbitrator denied all benefits and noted Petitioner chose to voluntarily, without the knowledge of Respondent, engage in a hazardous method of taking himself off the loading dock when his duties and good sense required him to make the trip in a safer manner.

 

The fall-down injury “was not the result of fulfilling any duties required of his employment and thus there was no employer/employee relationship at the time of the accident.” Further, longstanding appellate case law regarding ingress and egress to and from an employer’s premises noted employers should not be required to “police” all routes when an obvious safe route is provided. Here, the Arbitrator found when Petitioner ventured off a safe route provided by the employer for ingress/egress and instead, purposefully jumped off a loading dock onto a hydraulic lift thus falling off to the ground. The Arbitrator felt Claimant exposed himself to an unnecessary personal risk, for his own personal convenience. Any injury sustained while performing this activity was not within the employment relationship and did not arise out of or in the course of the employment.

 

On appeal, the IWCC, Circuit Court, and Appellate Court disagreed somewhat with the Arbitrator and found Petitioner did establish an employee/employer relationship at the time of the injury and Petitioner was in the course of employment, but did not disturb the Arbitrator's ultimate determination the injury was not compensable insofar as it did not arise out of his employment.

 

In a Rule 23 order (which is oddly “unpublished”), what the IL Appellate Court did, and we strongly agree with, is to perform a risk analysis which all parties/both sides of the bar should do. The initial step in considering the “arising out of” component of a worker’s compensation claim is to determine the type of risk to which the claimant was exposed at the time of injury:

 

  • PERSONAL: Is there any evidence the injury was the result of a personal risk, such as an idiopathic fall?;

  • EMPLOYMENT: Is there any evidence the risk of injury was peculiar to the claimant’s work or that the risk was the result of a defect in the premises?;

  • NEUTRAL: Do members of the general public encounter the risk of injury in their everyday living?

 

The Appellate Court, Worker’s Comp Division, applying the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard, agreed with the denial of benefits as the risk that resulted in the injury was jumping off of the loading dock, an act which was not reasonably expected to be performed in connection with the assigned duties and did not stem from any employment requirement such as would have exposed him to risk greater (qualitatively or quantitatively) than that faced by the general public. Therefore, it was a neutral risk that was not compensable as members of the general public encounter the risk of injury descending from elevated platforms or structures to ground level in their everyday living.

 

Again, Nathan S. Bernard of KCBA was the defense attorney that handled all aspects of litigation and the appellate process regarding this denied claim. Nathan Bernard can be reached at nbernard@keefe-law.com and (312) 756-3726.

 

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

 

 

Synopsis: The “Belt” or BSNF Dodges an FELA or Railroad Death Claim.

Editor’s comment: It is hard not to agree with this ruling by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In Guerrero v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, the legal question the court had to resolve is a sad story: as Celso Guerrero was trying to drive to his job at BNSF Railway through a snowstorm early one morning, his car skidded, it collided with a snowplow, and he was killed. His widow, Rita Guerrero, who appears on her own behalf and as administrator of her late husband’s estate, was seeking compensatory money damages from BNSF.

 

The Federal District Court concluded Decedent Guerrero was not acting within the scope of his employment when the fatal accident occurred, and thus the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA) does not apply to the case. In our view, the question of work status is a

close one, but it is one the Federal Appellate Court did not need to resolve. They ruled no jury could find BNSF was negligent in any action it took or failed to take with respect to Guerrero, and so on that ground they affirmed the District Court’s judgment.

 

Celso Guerrero was a machine operator for BNSF. His normal schedule required him to work from Monday through Friday, but he was subject to possible overtime work at other times. His primary duty was track repair, but he was also expected to perform other tasks as needed, including snow removal. On Saturday, January 31, 2015, Guerrero received a telephone call around 6:00 p.m. from Nick Burwell, the BNSF Roadmaster in charge of track maintenance for the Galesburg, Illinois, railyard and surrounding area. Burwell told Guerrero a significant snowstorm was expected, and so he was looking for employees to clear snow from the tracks starting the next morning at 7:00 a.m. at the Galesburg facility. In making these calls, Burwell followed a union seniority list. Guerrero was not required to accept this work opportunity, but he

did.

 

Driving his personal vehicle, Guerrero left his home in Kewanee, Illinois (about 40 miles northeast of Galesburg) at 5:00 a.m. on February 1. The predicted snowstorm was underway, and it was snowing hard as Guerrero drove along Illinois Route 34. The National Weather Service documented at least four, but likely closer to eight, inches of snow cover along his route. While heading southbound, near Oneida, his car slid on the roadway, spun across the median, and collided with a snowplow being operated by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT); the plow was in the northbound lane. Guerrero was severely injured and died the next day in the hospital.

 

Asserting that her husband was killed while he was on duty and acting within the scope of his employment, she sought compensatory damages. BNSF took issue with her assertion that Guerrero was on duty at the time of his injury; it contended that he was merely commuting to work, as he did for his normal shift every day, and that commuting falls outside the scope of employment in this situation. BNSF argued in the alternative that no trier of fact could find that BNSF was negligent either by act or omission, and that this was an independent reason for judgment in its favor. On BNSF’s motion for summary judgment, the federal district court ruled that Guerrero’s fatal injury occurred at a time when he was not acting within the scope of his employment. The FELA thus did not apply—a conclusion to which the judge attached jurisdictional significance. Without addressing BNSF’s negligence argument, the judge granted summary judgment in BNSF’s favor, presumably with prejudice, since the judgment document does not specify otherwise and makes no mention of a jurisdictional ground for dismissal.

 

The Federal Appellate Court focused primarily on BNSF’s alternate, negligence‐based argument. The reason is simple: it appeared to them there are disputed issues of material fact on the former point that would preclude summary judgment, but there are no such issues on the latter point.

 

The Appellate Court noted the federal reporters are littered with cases examining whether the FELA applies to an employee injured while he or she is commuting to or from work. Often the answer is no: courts generally hold the employee is on their own during the commute and does not report to work until they have reached the place of employment. Some cases, however, slip into a gray area. For example, employment status is often contested where a commuter is injured while traveling to or from work on the same railway that employs them, using a pass issued by the employer. Nonetheless, those cases usually find  the travel is outside the scope of employment. The ruling noted those commuters “are excluded from [FELA] coverage for two reasons—they are not required to commute on their employer’s trains, and while commuting, they are in no greater danger than any other member of the commuting public.”

 

A second group of borderline cases includes those in which an employee has just clocked out, or not yet clocked in, but is traversing the work site on the way to or from the assigned post when injured. Those cases typically uphold FELA coverage, because “traversing the work site … is a necessary incident of the day’s work.” Relying on a former line of cases, the district court found Guerrero’s accident occurred while he was on his way to work, far from his worksite, as he drove his personal vehicle on a public highway and faced dangers identical to the rest of the commuting public.

 

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