10-17-2019; Trying to Make Sense of Where To Draw the Line—Understanding The “Traveling Employee” Concept in Workers’ Comp; Governor Pritzker Appoints Four to IL WC Advisory Board and more

Synopsis: Trying to Make Sense of Where To Draw the Line—Understanding The “Traveling Employee” Concept in Workers’ Comp.

Editor’s comment: To some extent, I feel the Petitioner’s Bar in Illinois and other states is always looking for a “gotcha” concept that renders any injury that can be in any way related to something to do with work as fully compensable. The closest concept to being a “gotcha” in work comp is the nebulous and ever-changing concept of the “traveling employee.” The concept is grounded in a sort of common sense—if your employer sends you to a strange and foreign place, let’s say Borneo, and you get injured from a risk in Borneo that is due to the strangeness and foreign-ness of that distant shore, you should be covered for it, even though that risk is from a common source, like eating breakfast. So if the food in Borneo makes you deathly ill, eating breakfast could be a work-related risk. Almost all risks to a “traveling employee” are work-related unless their actions are so far afield and unreasonable, they somehow lose that coverage to the Commission and Courts. Please always remember there is no definition or limitation of “traveling employee” in the IL WC Act. Whatever you do with the concept, you are making it up.

That said, when a worker “travels” or goes to places they are used to and visit regularly, that shouldn’t provide global “gotcha” coverage of all risks. In short, the “traveling employee” doctrine has been a political football in workers’ compensation law since WC legislation was first enacted in the U.S. in the early 1900s. Whether created by statute in some states or developed by common law decisions in IL, this odd doctrine sporadically increases the scope of an employer’s WC lia­bility and is an exception to the long-standing rule that injuries sustained while going to and coming from work are not compensable. The ratio­nale for the “coming and going” rule is an employee’s trip to and from work is the result of the employee’s personal decision about where to live, which is not a matter of strong con­cern for the employer.

While it appears the intent of the “traveling employee” doctrine is to cover employees who due to the nature of their employment traveled and stayed away from home overnight, the doctrine has expanded in some states to cover circumstances when the work takes an employee away from the primary work premises for varied reasons and for shorter durations. The doctrine is of par­ticular importance today because many jobs involve employee travel, not only as a part of the job, as with a traveling sales­man or over-the-road truck driver, but also between various company facilities and between job sites. The latter may involve employees hired out of a union hall for a specific job at a far-away location or home health-care workers who leave home, travel from patient to patient, and never truly have a “base of employment.” As I outline below, magically making all such workers into “traveling employees” can be very, very expensive.

Insurance carriers, TPA’s and employers have difficulty with the “trav­eling employee” doctrine because it not only expands the situations that will be con­sidered “in the course of” employment, but also may be ruled to dramatically lower accident compensability. While terminology varies from state to state, the “nontravel­ing employee” generally has to prove an injury “arose out of” the employment. This usually means an employee must prove that he or she faced a risk at the time of an accident greater than the risks faced by the general public and are “unique” to the workplace. This com­pensability standard, however, is almost missing for a worker who is termed a “traveling employee.” Most states require a traveling employee only to prove the risk leading to an accident was “reasonably foreseeable.” Other states adopt a continuous employ­ment doctrine for a traveling employee, which finds virtually any activity an employee undertakes while traveling to be compensable unless there is a clear deviation from expected work activity. In fact, this altered compensability standard in most states can equate to “gotcha” strict lia­bility unless a claimant is deemed to be on a purely personal deviation and away from any vestige of work. For the trav­eling employee, traditional compensabil­ity analysis is ended, and most every injury or disease that occurs while the travel contin­ues is deemed compensable.

While this reduced burden of compen­sability worked well for employees facing unusual risks while traveling to strange and foreign places, particularly those traveling away from their homes and offices on overnight trips, liberal expansion of the traveling employee doctrine to workers who have only incidental travel as part of their duties is challenging for employers, insurance carriers and TPA’s. As work has become more mobile, many jobs include at least some inci­dental travel throughout the course of a workday. As the traveling employee doc­trine is expanded to include more of these work settings, workers’ compensation might end up covering broad portions of the work­ing population even when there is little, if any, connection between an injury and the employment.

One example I always draw that I don’t feel creates a “traveling employee” is our great Illinois WC Arbitrators. Many of them are assigned to three different hearing sites, by rule. They go to the three hearing sites with great regularity and eat at the same restaurants and park in the same parking spaces. They do not face risks that anyone would feel unusual. If an Arbitrator were traveling from their home to one of their hearing sites and got into a one-car accident that would typically not be compensable other than for a “traveling employee,” I would be hard-pressed to feel an Arbitrator would be covered, as they aren’t traveling overnight or to a truly “foreign” place.

Three Illinois decisions provide insight into what constitutes unreasonable actions and resulted in denial for workers who argued they were “traveling employees.” In Howell Tractor & Equip. Co. v. Illinois Industrial Comm’n, issued in 1980, the Appellate Court held an employee’s conduct in walking or staggering back to a motel alone in an unfa­miliar town after drinking at a tavern con­stituted unreasonable personal action. In Humphrey v. Illinois Industrial Comm’n, issued in 1979, the Appellate Court upheld denial of compensation when an employee was injured while returning to his motel after partying on a work day. Finally, in U. S. Industries v. Illinois Industrial Comm’n., issued in 1968, an employee injured on a midnight pleasure drive in unfamiliar, mountainous terrain was held to be engaged in unreason­able activity and benefits were denied.

Dramatic Expansion of the “Traveling Employee” Doctrine is a Business Buster

Please understand the concept of global coverage of anything a human does isn’t what workers’ comp is for—WC insurance costs are virtually limitless, as there are no “caps” on some WC benefits, like lifetime medical care. If a lawyer or Arbitrator or truck driver is provided global coverage of any risk of injury or disease they encounter due to routine and ordinary travel that we all make as part of work or religion or education or any activity, you are wildly increasing workers’ comp coverage and costs. In some way, you have to keep the nexus between work and injury/illness to make sense of the WC coverage concept. In the IL Supreme Court’s famous ruling in a case called Venture-Newberg-Perini, et. als., we think they drew a line in the sand to confirm not all workers who are in movement reach the standard needed to become “traveling employees.”

We feel the defense team at KCB&A can help you understand how the IWCC and courts will draw that important line. If you have questions about a specific “traveling employee” claim, send a reply.

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

Synopsis: Governor Pritzker Appoints Four to IL WC Advisory Board.

Editor’s comment: We hope they actually “advise” someone unlike prior boards that wear the blue ribbons and do little to nothing.

Mark Denzler will serve on the Workers' Compensation Advisory Board. Mr. Denzler currently serves as the President and CEO of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association representing nearly 4,000 facilities across the state. Prior to joining the IMA, he worked as a Public Affairs Specialist for State Farm Insurance and worked in the Illinois General Assembly. Denzler is a current member of the IL Workers' Compensation Advisory Board, having been appointed by the two previous administrations. He earned his undergraduate degree from Illinois Wesleyan University and graduate degree from the University of Illinois-Springfield.

Karen Harris will serve on the Workers' Compensation Advisory Board. Ms. Harris currently serves as Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Illinois Health and Hospital Association, a trade association representing over 200 hospitals and 50 health systems. In addition, she is the current Executive Director of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys. Prior to joining IHA, Harris was a Partner in the Health Care Practice Group of Saul, Ewing, Arnstein & Lehr LLP. Additionally, she served as Regional General Counsel at Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. Harris earned honors in 2018 as a Chicago Business Journal Women of Influence honoree and in 2017 as one of the most influential minority lawyers in Chicago by Crain's Business Journal. Harris earned her Bachelor of Arts from Princeton University and Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School.

Mark Prince will serve on the Workers' Compensation Advisory Board. Mr. Prince has been a self-employed attorney in Illinois for 31 years. He has spent his career representing southern Illinoisans who have been injured on the job or by the negligence of others. Previously, Prince served as President of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association and is a current member of the Executive Committee. Prince has been awarded two Trial Lawyer Excellence Awards from the Chicago Verdict Reporter and has served on the Workers' Compensation Advisory Board in the past. He earned his Bachelor of Science from Sangamon State University and a Juris Doctor from Southern Illinois University School of Law. 

Dave Weaver will serve on the Workers' Compensation Advisory Board. Mr. Weaver currently serves as the Directing Business Representative of the District 9, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union, and President of the Illinois State Council of Machinists. Previously, Weaver has worked as a Business Representative with District 9, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union, until being appointed Assistant Business Director. In addition, Weaver served the AFL-CIO as Labor Liaison with United Way of Greater St. Louis, Illinois Division and as Illinois Vice-President. Weaver began his career as a Machinist as an Apprentice Mechanic and a Journeyman Mechanic in Belleville, Illinois.

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

10-10-2019; Pancake House Fall-Down Denied; The Other Half of Our Marijuana in the Workplace Presentation and more

Synopsis: Pancake House Fall Down Denied by IL Appellate Court.

Editor’s comment: In a mildly surprising but legally well-founded ruling, a unanimous ruling from the IL Appellate Court, WC Division considered facts about a worker who suffered somewhat severe injuries prior to getting to work.

In Walker Brothers, Inc. v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, (issued September 13, 2019), the IL WC Commission awarded Claimant medical, temporary total disability (TTD), and permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. Claimant was seriously injured when he had parked his car and was walking, heading to work, and fell on ice in a retail store parking lot not owned nor maintained by his employer.

The worker and other restaurant employees were allowed to park in the other lot because the restaurant parking lot was felt to be too small for customers, vendors and employees. The Appellate Court ruling by Justice Holdridge noted there was no evidence that the employer controlled or maintained the other retail store’s parking lot. The parking lot where the worker fell was not part of a route “going to or coming from” that was required by the employer.

Basically, Claimant was on his way to work but hadn’t gotten close enough to be able to make a valid IL WC claim for his unfortunate injuries. 

Evidence of record indicated the employer had no designated employee parking lot. Further, pursuant to an “informal agreement with” the adjoining store, some employees parked in the parking lot where the fall took place “across the street and down half a block.” However, the employer did not pay the nearby business for use or maintenance of the lot. There was also evidence the employer’s employees were allowed to use only the section of parking spots furthest away from the retailer’s entryway and the Walker Bros. employees do not receive any priority over the retailer’s customers. A rep from the employer explained the employer’s employees have other options for parking, such as side street parking that required no payment or permit, and not all of the employer’s employees parked in the retailer’s parking lot.

For all those reasons, the unanimous Appellate Court reversed the IL WC Commission panel and held the injuries suffered did not arise out of or in course of his employment with the employer. Please note the worker might have been able to bring a common law claim for inadequate maintenance of the lot by its owner.

Synopsis: More on Marijuana in Your Workplace from Gene Keefe and Matt Ignoffo.

Editor’s comment: This is the other half of our presentation highlights. If you want a presentation/webinar on the topic, send a reply.

How to Best Deal With Marijuana in the Workplace—DON’T.

• We have clients across the U.S. asking about the optimal approach to marijuana in their work sites

• We recommend an easy approach to this issue—start now and forever ban marijuana in your workplace

• Make all workers aware you won’t tolerate impaired work activities, as it is dangerous to be impaired at any job, any place.

• All states we are aware of allow you to legally stop the use or impairment from marijuana in your work sites

• If you don’t act before you get a medical marijuana user asking about it and you block that user and then start to ban its use, you are almost certainly looking at a discrimination action

Illinois is the Eleventh State to Legalize Marijuana and Our New Law is Clearly Contradictory

• On June 25, 2019, Governor Pritzker signed into effect House Bill 1438—the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (“CRTA”).

• The CRTA, which is set to take effect on January 1, 2020, leaves open questions for employers, but there are a few important features with which Illinois employers should quickly become familiar.

Prohibitions on Disciplining or Discharging Employees for Off-Duty Consumption—But You Should Be Able to Discipline Impaired Workers

• The CRTA differs from many state laws legalizing recreational marijuana in that it explicitly protects an employee’s right to consume marijuana during off-duty hours. To me, that is just odd.

• By contrast, in some states that have legalized recreational consumption, employers remain free to adopt and enforce policies prohibiting employees from using marijuana both on and off-the-job.

Illinois Still Protects Employers and Allows Them to Punish Users Who are Impaired

• The CRTA will amend Illinois’s Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, which prevents employers from disciplining or discharging employees for using “lawful products off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.”

• The CRTA will define the previously undefined phrase “lawful products” to mean “products…legal under state law.”

• This is a noteworthy change because marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.

• By defining “lawful products” to mean those products that are legal at a state level, the CRTA appears to prevent employers from disciplining or discharging employees for recreationally using marijuana during off-duty hours. Notably however, federally regulated employers, such as those subject to federal DOT regulation, are carved out from this exemption.

Employers May Continue Drug Testing and Prohibit Working Under the Influence

• Under the CRTA, employers retain the ability to adopt and enforce “reasonable zero tolerance or drug free workplace policies, or employment policies concerning drug testing, smoking, consumption, storage, or use of cannabis in the workplace or while on call.”

• The only explicit restrictions on these policies are that employees will not be considered to be “on-call” unless they have had at least 24-hours’ notice, and drug policies must be “applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.”

Consider Melding Marijuana Impairment, Testing and Discipline to Opioid Bans

• You and everyone who might ever sit on a jury knows someone using either marijuana or opioids at work is impaired at a relatively significant level

• Under the theory of respondeat superior, employers are typically legally responsible for actions of their workers which they can “reasonably expect” the workers to do

• If your worker smashes into a school bus and injures lots of people and it is found you knew that worker was using marijuana or opioids with your knowledge and permission, the outcome could bankrupt your company

Our advice is ban marijuana and opioid use/impairment in your workplace—if you need our policy, let us know.

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

10-3-2019; Gene Keefe and Matt Ignoffo on Dealing With Marijuana/THC in Your Workplace--Part 1; IL Appellate Ct Rules IL Employers Don't Have to Pay Unaccrued PPD and more

Synopsis: Gene Keefe and Matt Ignoffo on Dealing With Marijuana/THC in the Workplace for Illinois and Other States. Part 1; Part 2 Next week.

Editor’s comment: Gene and Matt have developed a great presentation for your managers or the OccHealth Department of any hospital. If you are interested in a presentation and/or webinar, send a reply.

Here are the salient points on Marijuana in the Workplace.

First

1. Understand the laws on Marijuana/THC and prescription medications that are specific to your State;​

1. Adopt a pre-duty prescription medication and impairing substances safety policy;​

1. Update job descriptions;​

1. Let employees know your stance on Marijuana/THC and prescription meds and their use at work​

Remember, Current Testing for Marijuana Is NOT Precise

1. Current testing for marijuana use will only confirm the presence of Marijuana/THC in the user’s system for as long as 30 days.

1. Unlike alcohol or COH, you can’t confirm blood THC levels, like you can confirm blood alcohol levels.

1. This makes it more challenging to measure, demonstrate and rein in “impairment” or what a factor varying Marijuana/THC levels might cause.

1. For that reason and others, we feel it better just to draw the line—no marijuana/THC use at your work sites.

1. Enforcement and safety are the challenges.

Testing for Impairment is Possible but Certain to be Legally Challenging

• Police in California and other states have developed DRE’s or Drug Recognition Expert evaluations to try to keep stoned drivers off their roads.

• The same “math” may soon apply in your workforce.

• You might want to consider having one or several managers undertake the DRE process.

• For more information, take a look at this link: https://reason.org/commentary/how-do-police-officers-determine-marijuana-impairment-in-drivers/

Matt and I suggest you Adopt A Pre-duty Prescription Medication & Impairing Substance Safety Policy

• Requires employees working in safety-sensitive classification to disclose that they have taken an impairing effect prescription or other substance;

• Define safety-sensitive and list job classifications as possible;

• Make it part of the your overall safety policy;

• Once disclosed, you, as the employer reserve the right to send employee for fitness-for-duty evaluation with copy of your new safety-focused job description;

• Encourages employees to first provide their own physician a copy of their job description and make a fitness-for-duty determination; and

• You as the employer reserve your right to make final fitness-for-duty determination, maybe using a Medical Review Office (MRO).

We also recommend you update your job descriptions

• Every job description has to be in compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and should list “Essential Job Functions.”

• If the employee works in a safety-sensitive job category, one of the essential functions listed should be “the ability to work in a constant state of alertness and in a safe manner.”

• Educate yourself on the workplace related impairing effects of Marijuana/THC

• Marijuana/THC causes an inability to concentrate or remain focused on a single thought or idea.

• It also causes increased drowsiness, fatigue and lethargy.

• Your workers will have an inability to accurately gauge lengths of time and distance as well as impairment of hearing and vision and short term memory.

• Your impaired workers may have an inability to cope with sudden changes in surrounding and/or emergency situations.

• It is possible for them to have visual and/or auditory hallucinations.

• Finally, you might expect a non-caring, uncommitted, unconcerned attitude.

How To Best Deal with Marijuana/THC in your Workplace—Don’t!!!!

• We have clients across the U.S. asking about the optimal approach to marijuana/THC in their work sites

• We recommend an easy approach to this issue—start now and forever ban marijuana/THC in your workplace whenever possible

• All states we are aware of allow you to legally stop its use in your work sites

• If you don’t act before you get a marijuana user asking about it and you block that user and then start to ban its use, you are almost certainly looking at a discrimination action

More to follow next week.

Synopsis: Iannoni Reversed by IL Appellate Court—Employers Do Not Have to Pay Unaccrued PPD in Lump Sums.

Editor’s comment: I read a mildly shocking IL WC ruling on a national website about a Cook County Circuit Court judge who ordered the City of Chicago to pay unaccrued permanency in a lump sum, even though the money wasn’t yet “due.”

Acting as if no one could ever disagree with this new and unprecedented ruling, the Circuit Court judge also awarded something like $34K in penalties against the City for not paying in a lump sum along with just under $3,500 in interest. Holy cats!!!

The Court’s order said:

A permanent disability is immutable. It will not go away. The worker who suffers from a permanent disability is therefore entitled to a lump sum benefit in exchange for the loss of the complete use of their person. This is in sharp contrast to a temporary disability. It makes sense that temporary disability benefits would accrue on an installment basis during the pendency of the disability—the purpose of temporary disability benefits is to compensate the worker during their period of incapacity.

In my respectful view, the Circuit Court judge was simply wrong and the ruling cannot comply with the legislation he was analyzing. You will note there is a specific section of the IL WC Act that allows parties on either side to go in to our Commission within a certain time and seek more or less permanency—in short, the legislature understood “permanent disability is not immutable.”

I am happy to report the Circuit Court’s ruling was just unanimously overturned by our Appellate Court. If you want the link to the ruling, send a reply.

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

Illinois Chamber of Commerce Conference 10/8/19 

Register Today!

 Agenda will include:

7:30 a.m.–8:30 a.m. Registration and Breakfast Networking – Expo is open    

8:30 a.m.–8:55 a.m. Opening Remarks

Jay Shattuck, Executive Director Employment Law Council, Illinois Chamber of Commerce

Michael Brennan, Chairman, Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission 

8:55 a.m.–9:45 a.m. General Session – Medical and Recreational Marijuana in Illinois and the effect on WC Claims Handling   

Shuaib Ahmed, ASA Law Group  Shuaib Ahmed will dissect the Medical Cannabis Act, discuss both medical and recreational marijuana in Illinois and the challenges facing Employers navigating Workers’ Compensation claims.   

9:45 a.m.–10:10 a.m. Morning Break & Visit Exhibitors  

10:10 a.m. – 11:05 a.m. First Series of Workshops  

Workshop #1: Shawn Biery, John Campbell and Bradley Smith, Keefe Campbell Biery & Associates

Impact and Implications of SB 1596 (Civil Action may be brought against Employer)   Join John Campbell and Shawn R. Biery from Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Associates for a break out session discussing the impact and implications of SB 1596, as well as brainstorming strategies on how employers can best prepare to protect themselves. These veteran workers compensation defense attorneys will also cover relevant recent case law updates to provide guidance which will be helpful for anyone who deals directly or peripherally with workers’ compensation claims. Questions will be entertained throughout to drive the discussion toward specific avenues of interest from the audience.  

Workshop #2: Michael Teti, Digistream Investigations in the Age of Geosocial Data 

The current growth of geosocial data is changing the face of risk management and investigations. Learn what geosocial data is, and exactly how this type of information is used to uncover fraud and investigate insurance claims of all kinds. Understand how to gain eye-opening insight into accidents, site-security, workplace harassment, and high exposure incidents by locating social media photographs, videos and posts at specific locations and times anywhere in the world. The session examines successful real life cases, fascinating trends in social media, privacy and legal issues, as well as preserving, authenticating and presenting cyber evidence in court. Attendees will work with an understanding of best practices and ethical requirements for a successful geosocial investigation and how to add this new information into their already wide range of skills. 

 Workshop #3: Surbhi Saraswat Goyal and Charles Maring, Brady Connolly Masuda, P.C. Defending Work Injuries . . . Before They Happen!  

 In this workshop learn practical, low-cost strategies that employers can implement in-house to prepare for a work injury before it happens! Attorneys Surbhi Saraswat Goyal and Charles M. Maring, II reveal battle-tested strategies and helpful trial evidence that is beneficial in the defense of workers’ compensation claims. These strategies can help Employers, Human Resource and Safety Personnel meditate costs and protect the company’s interests. Know your rights as an employer and turn standard practices into assets!

11:10 a.m. – 12:05 p.m. Second Series of Workshops  

Workshop #1: Brian Clay, MD, Illinois Bone & Joint Institute Standardizing a Return to Work Protocol for Back Injuries in the Workplace   

Attendees will understand the markers of when a patient can return to work duty with low back pain, what to avoid, standard practices, and improvements in the process. By following a researched set protocol, return to work for low back injuries will be more efficient and economical. Attendees will also understand the insurance implications, cost saving, and improved return to work times for these patients by following a researched protocol.

 Workshop #2: Steve Murdock and Jynnifer Cotharn, Inman & Fitzgibbons, Ltd. Best Tools for Defense; Strategic Use of IMEs, Record Reviews, Utilization Reviews, Impairment Ratings 

Effective claims management often requires different strategies at different points in the litigation process. Understanding the tools that are available to help protect the insured’s interests is a critical part of claim handling. Should I get an IME? What are the benefits of obtaining a Utilization Review? How much weight is given to an impairment rating? In this seminar, we will address these questions along with four defense tools, their benefits and risks, and how each tool impacts cost and advancement of claims to closure. 

Workshop #3: Jeffrey Risch, Smith Amundsen, LLC  OSHA Obligations and Workers Compensation in Illinois 

In this presentation, led by Labor & Employment Attorney Jeffrey Risch, attendees will receive the latest in employer OSHA obligations related to work related injuries and claims. From reporting and recording requirements, to drug testing rights and disciplinary options when an employee is involved with a work related injury due to an unsafe act or rule violation, attendees will hear the very latest on what employers must do, can do, shouldn’t do and can’t do when it comes to OSHA and work related injuries.

12:05 p.m. – 12:30 p.m. Visit Exhibitors & Networking Break

12:30 p.m.–1:30 p.m. Luncheon with Keynote Speaker 

The Intersection of Rx Opioids & Medical Marijuana Mark Pew, Senior Vice President, Product Development & Marketing, Preferred Medical  Medical cannabis as a substitute for prescription opioids continues to grow in the public (and private) discourse on pain management. Is that a surprise? For citizens of Illinois it should not be since last year’s introduction of the “Opioid Alternative Pilot Program”. But Illinois is not alone in the connection as per the January 24, 2019 blog post “Marijuana & Opioids” that listed three other states with an explicit connection (Colorado will officially make it five total in August 2019) and another six states with an implicit connection. While this connection is mostly political and anecdotal (based on personal stories and experiences) there is a growing amount of science (clinical studies) to substantiate the premise. This session will discuss the evolution in thought, present the anecdote and evidence behind the connection, highlight the implications for workplaces, and talk about how a drug-for-drug substitution might not be the full answer.

1:30 p.m.–2:30 p.m. Roundtable Discussion with Q&A 

Moderator: Jay Shattuck, Exec Dir Employment Law Council, Illinois Chamber of Commerce • Panelist: Amy Bilton, Nyhan Bambrick Kinzie & Lowry

Panelist: Dr. David Fletcher, Safeworks Illinois 

Panelist: Mike Brennan – Chairman, Illinois Workers Comp Commission 

Implementation of SB904 and discussion of billing and payment problems in the WC system

 2:30 p.m.– 3:00 p.m. Drawings for Prizes & Closing Remarks 



 3:00 pm  Adjourn

Contact Information

Questions on this event or other IL Chamber Business Services events?



Contact the Business Services Coordinator,

Kirsten Constant

P: 217-522-5512 Ext. 227

E: kconstant@ilchamber.org

‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌