September 24, 2020

9-24-2020; Illinois has Another Awful Anti-Business Law and It Can't Be Blocked by the IL WC Act; Feds Propose New Rule to Allow Determination of "Independent Contractor" Status Easier and more

September 24, 2020/ Eugene Keefe

Eugene Keefe <EKeefe@keefe-law.com>

9:00 AM (2 hours ago)

to

Synopsis: Illinois Has Another Awful Anti-Business Law and This Law Can’t Be Blocked by the IL WC Act.

Editor’s comment: In McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park LLC, 2020 IL App (1st) 192398 (issued September 18, 2020), the Appellate Court ruled the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act do not bar a claim for statutory, liquidated damages, where such damages arise under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act where an employer is alleged to have violated an employee's statutory privacy rights under the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The court ruled a claim under the Privacy Act is not the type of “injury” that fits within the purview of the IL Workers' Compensation Act. In short, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled IL employers can’t use Section 5 of the Illinois’ Workers’ Compensation Act to escape a rapidly growing number of class actions under IL new biometrics privacy law. The unanimous Court’s ruling is because the lawsuits brought under the biometrics law accuse the employers of violating the workers’ rights, but not actually harming them in any real way.

On Sept. 18, 2020, a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court in Chicago ruled the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act does not bar class action lawsuits brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Quoting the ruling, “… We conclude that the exclusivity provisions of the (Workers’) Compensation Act do not bar a claim for statutory, liquidated damages, where an employer is alleged to have violated an employee’s statutory privacy rights under the (Biometric Information) Privacy Act [or BIPA], as such a claim is simply not compensable under the Compensation Act,” the justices wrote.

The ruling arose out of an appeal on a question of law from a class action lawsuit pending in Cook County Circuit Court since 2017. In that case, attorneys with a Chicago-based class action law firm filed suit against the corporate entity that operates the Symphony Bronzeville nursing home in Chicago. The lawsuit, which could represent virtually all of the workers at the nursing home in recent years, was filed on behalf of a named plaintiff.

The lawsuit accused the nursing home operators of violating the Illinois BIPA law by requiring its workers to verify their identity by scanning their fingerprints when punching in and out of work shifts, without first securing authorization from the workers to conduct the scans and without first notifying the workers about how their scanned prints would be collected, stored, used, shared and ultimately, destroyed, as allegedly required by the BIPA law.

In response to the lawsuit, attorneys representing Symphony argued the BIPA case should be dismissed, because the claims were preempted by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. Symphony centered its arguments on a key provision in the workers’ comp law, which declares the workers’ comp law “preempts any ‘statutory right to recover damages from the employer … for injuries incurred in the course of … employment.”

The argument advanced by Symphony in this claim, and by other employers targeted in other similar BIPA class actions, had not secured any victories, either in state or federal court. As veteran defense observers, we greatly dislike the BIPA law but we don’t feel this attack on the legislation makes sense other than as a delaying tactic to block enforcement of the law. All state and federal judges sided against the employers on the workers’ comp law question.

Across this State, hundreds of employers face similar class actions in reliance on this punitive and anti-business law, with more being added, almost daily, in Cook County Circuit Court and other venues. The lawsuits place IL employers at a business-busting financial risk. Under the BIPA law, employers could face potential liability of $1,000-$5,000 for every single violation of the BIPA law. Please understand this is wildly punitive and doesn’t in any way match the conduct it is designed to stop. In these kinds of class actions, the law has been laughingly interpreted to define a “violation” as each time any worker punched the clock every day by scanning a fingerprint. This could place even moderately sized employers at risk of losing millions of dollars in damages and certain bankruptcy. Again, this law highlights to me how awful our IL legislature is to vital businesses.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. If you need help defending your company in the biometric sphere, please send a reply.

Synopsis: New Proposed Rule from the Feds on “Independent Contractor” Versus “FLSA Employee.”

Editor’s comment: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a proposed rule Sept. 22 to clarify when a worker is an “employee” covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) versus an independent contractor. Independent contractors, including what are called “gig-economy workers,” are not eligible for minimum wage, overtime and other benefits/protections that regular employees must receive. The proposed rule adopts an "economic reality" test to determine a worker's status as an FLSA employee or independent contractor.

There will be a 30-day comment period after the proposed rule's official publication in the Federal Register. The rule, if finalized as proposed, may make classifying workers as contractors or employees easier. However, the US DOL proposed rule would not overturn labor-friendly state independent-contractor laws, such as the one in California.

Gene Keefe’s “Independent Contractor” Rule

In my view, someone is an “independent contractor” when they have their own work comp, liability, MVA and other insurance coverage. You can buy it for them or give them money to buy it but if they have their own coverages on their own dime, insurance coverages to a great extent, mitigate corporate exposure in the event of injury or serious loss.

If a supposed “independent contractor” is injured or disabled and they have no WC or other coverage, they are going to fight to be treated as an FLSA employee.

Economic Reality Test Proposed by the Feds

Under the proposed economic reality test, the U.S. DOL would consider whether a worker is in business for himself or herself and thus is an independent contractor, or if the worker is economically dependent on another business entity for work and is an FLSA employee.

In making this determination, the DOL would identify two core factors:

§ The nature and degree of the worker's control over the work.

§ The worker's opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative or investment.

It also would identify three other factors that may serve as additional guides in the analysis:

§ The amount of skill required for the work.

§ The degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer.

§ Whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production.

But the two core factors are entitled to greater weight than the other factors, the DOL noted.

Core Factors

The first factor—the nature and degree of the individual's control over the work would suggest that an individual is an independent contractor to the extent they exercise substantial control over key aspects of the performance of the work, the DOL explained.

Examples of an individual's substantial control include:

§ Setting his or her own work schedule.

§ Choosing assignments.

§ Working with little or no supervision.

§ Being able to work for others, including a potential employer's competitors.

In contrast, the control factor would weigh in favor of classification as an employee to the extent that a potential employer, rather than the individual, exercises substantial control over key aspects of the work, including through requirements that the individual work for the employer exclusively during the working relationship.

The proposed rule clarifies that requiring an individual to comply with specific legal obligations, satisfy health and safety standards, carry insurance, meet contractually agreed-upon deadlines or quality control standards, or satisfy other similar terms that are typical of contractual relationships between businesses would not constitute control that makes the individual more or less likely to be an employee under the FLSA.

The second factor—the worker's opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative or investment—would, under the proposed rule, suggest that an individual is an independent contractor if he or she has an opportunity for profit or loss on either:

§ The exercise of personal initiative, including managerial skill or business acumen.

§ The management of investments in or capital expenditure on, for example, helpers, equipment or materials.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. If you have concerns about “independent contractor” versus FLSA Employee status, please send a reply.

Synopsis: Annual IL State Chamber WC Conference Goes Virtual—Shawn Biery & John Campbell to present.

Editor’s comment: The 14th Annual Workers' Compensation & Safety Conference set for November 4th is being held virtual this year. The 8:30 am to noon program features John Ruser, President & CEO of the Workers' Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) and Michael Brennan, Chairman of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission.

The program also will include the following breakout sessions:

Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome - Presented by Dr. Andrew Zelby and Dave Rusch, Vice President of Business Service Development, Ovation Hand Institute;

Medical Marijuana in the Workplace - Presented by AJ Sheehan, MVP Law

The Covid-19 Rebuttable Presumption - What is it and What Does it Mean for You? - Presented by Peter Stavropoulos, Brady Connolly and Masuda

2020 Workers Compensation Case Law Update - Presented by Shawn Biery and John Campbell, Keefe Campbell Biery & Associates

Snakes, Leaches, and Tobacco Enemas - The Case for Evidence-Based Medical Treatment Guidelines - Presented by Patrick Robinson, Vice President, Government Affairs, ODG, an MCG Health Company

OSHA Updates for 2020 and Beyond - Presented by Matthew Horn, SmithAmundsen LLC

For more information and to register:

https://ilchamber.org/workerscompconference/

September 02, 2020

9-1-2020; WC Central Misses the 800lb City of Chicago Pink Gorilla; HITECH Enters WC Claims and Litigation Practice and more

September 02, 2020/ Eugene Keefe

Synopsis: Missing the 800lb. Gorilla—WorkCompCentral Reports City of Chicago WC Committee Saved $1 Million After Ald. Burke Stepped Down—What About the $100M WC Claims Spend?

Editor’s comment: All Chicago media outlets are reporting Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s City of Chicago budget is expected to have a $2 billion deficit in the next 24 months. We are fairly sure it is going to be virtually impossible to make up that deficit and keep the “Second City” running in the fashion that has driven it into this whirlpool of skyrocketing debt. Municipal Bankruptcy and unpaid bills loom—hello Detroit.

In the past, I have reported one reason for this hilarious and scary financial situation is the City of Chicago was arguably a vastly “dangerous” place to work because hundreds and hundreds of City workers filed questionable WC claims over and over and over again. Along with high numbers of claims, City WC managers would allow workers to remain on TTD for years/decades to then provide giant settlements. I have warned over and over this can’t continue, as they are now completely running out of money.

You might not be surprised to learn the alderman who formerly ran the City’s WC program would not allow for light duty--causing high reserves, lost time and overtreatment. He also would not allow for surveillance of City workers, claiming it wouldn’t help—this meant City workers would quietly open businesses or make cash on the side while also getting TTD. If you research it, once this alderman was forced out due to a federal indictment, numerous workers who had been on TTD suddenly reported for work or retired.

WorkComp Central, a great national WC news outlet today reported an annual audit and financial report found the Council's Finance Committee, which ran the comp program for City employees, has saved almost $1 million in the year since the prior WC alderman managing the committee stepped down as chairman, according to the audit and a Chicago news report.

In 2018, the report indicates the committee spent $2 million, more than any other City of Chicago council committee. After the indictment was served, the managing alderman stepped down in January 2019 after he was charged with extortion. Since then, committee staff was cut to just three and the committee spent $1.1 million in 2019. Mayor Lori Lightfoot also brought in a new program administrator, and national TPA Gallagher Bassett was hired—this was a giant step for the City which hadn’t had an outside administrator, ever.

My issue is simple—the City of Chicago is broke, past broke. When I last looked they were spending over $100M annually in WC costs—please note this is for City of Chicago employees who aren’t police officers and firefighters. Police and firefighters in Chicago aren’t covered by WC. That doesn’t mean that hundreds of millions aren’t spent on such workers. The combined spend for all City workers on WC or police/fire disability is well over $200M per year in my opinion. I am not hearing any significant savings is occurring from my secret squirrels.

In short, I am not concerned about “committee costs.” I am concerned about government dysfunction and waste, waste, waste in managing WC and police/fire claims. I am hoping someone can tell us what the City is wasting, I mean, spending annually or monthly on combined WC and police/fire costs. Trust me, someone is going to have to make progress on ending phony claims and eternal disability for City of Chicago workers and police/fire folks.

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

Synopsis: Trying to Get The Low Down on HITECH In WC and Other Medical Records.

Editor’s comment: HITECH Act was implemented in 2010. It is a federal law. There has been widespread uncertainty about how to it works. The U.S. Department for Health and Human Services (DHHS) has worked several times to clear up the law, but unfortunately this has sometimes led to more confusion, not less.

Should Claimant Attorneys Use HITECH?

YES!!! Get the records needed to support your claims. Don’t mess with stupid State subpoenas that some caregivers ignore or over-charge for. File complaints with DHHS when treaters routinely ignore requests from patients for records.

When Claimant attorneys get the records and bills needed, share, share and share with the other side to support reserves, negotiations and your position in WC litigation.

Here are a few key principles:

HITECH only applies to records requests from a patient, when the request comes from the patient directly and is in writing;
HITECH does apply when the patient requests their medical records be sent to a designated representative, including the patient’s attorney;
HITECH does not apply when an attorney directly requests the patient’s medical records;
When the request is in writing from the patient, the healthcare professional must comply with HITECH and its rules
When the request is from any other source, HITECH does not apply, and the healthcare professional can charge under state law and its rules, including the previously standard handling fee and per-page charge.

Does HITECH Apply to WC IME Reports?

The five bullet points above create something of a legal anomaly—IME docs are very careful to tell examinees they aren’t “patients” and no doctor-patient relationship is created. Very few IME docs make direct recommendations to patients for care. IME docs tell someone other than the examinee of their opinions and best thoughts.

In my view, HITECH requests should not apply to WC IME’s due to the lack of a doctor-patient relationship. Watch this space for news on this issue, if I hear of it.

1. A physician or healthcare giver has a request from a patient asking for a copy of their records in electronic format. Can the doctor or healthcare giver charge the patient a handling fee and per-page copy fee?

From what I can tell, the HITECH Act is a federal law, and federal law preempts state law. The HITECH Act states a doctor/healthcare giver can charge a flat fee of $6.50. Alternatively, a provider can charge a “reasonable, cost-based fee” for producing electronic records when requested directly from the patient. That means the labor cost to the healthcare giver of producing records, is the demonstrable labor cost to put the records onto a CD, plus postage.

2. The patient requested electronic records, so the doctor/hospital/caregiver scanned the paper records and put them on a CD. What can be charged under HITECH?

Whether the doc has to scan paper records into an electronic version, or drag and drop already-electronic records onto a disc, they may only charge the patient a flat fee of $6.50. HITECH does give them a second option, which is to charge a “reasonable, cost-based fee” instead of the $6.50, for the actual labor cost to produce the electronic records. This would involve the labor-related cost to the healthcare giver’s business in scanning the paper record, uploading the record to a cloud-based system, or time spent creating and sending out a CD. For example, if they pay someone on your staff $20.00 an hour to process records requests and they spend 10 minutes on the request, the labor cost is $3.33. They can add on the cost of the CD, which is about .20 cents and postage.

However, if they intend to charge something other than the flat fee, they must disclose those charges to the patient before sending the records. That is why most providers are choosing to charge the flat $6.50 fee for all requests, as it is simpler and more cost-effective to have one unified procedure for all requests.

3. The patient letter also asked for a verification/certification that a caregiver has produced all the records. Can they charge the State administrative fee for preparing that?

No. The HITECH Act does not allow a provider to charge for the verification of the patient’s electronic record. DHHS has expressly stated that a provider cannot charge an administrative fee to verify the patient record.

4. The caregiver doesn’t keep records in electronic form, so can they charge the old state per-page and handling fees?

The short answer is no. The HITECH Act requires they comply with a request for records in electronic format if it is readily producible electronically. That means they must scan the paper records (typically into .pdf form) and transfer them onto a CD or flash drive.

If you have absolutely no ability to produce the records in any kind of electronic format, then (and only then) can you provide the patient with a hard copy of the record. Even in that case, they still must comply with HITECH in how they charge the patient. They cannot charge the handling and per-page fee allowed under state law. Under HITECH, they may only charge for actual labor costs and the cost of supplies.

6. What does the doc do I do about x-ray films? They can’t scan those.

In this situation, it would be acceptable to charge the client the cost to you of reproducing the films and putting them onto a CD because the Act states that the records be “readily producible” in the manner requested.

7. The patient (and not the patient’s attorney) sent a letter asking for their records in electronic format, but there was no HIPAA form. What is to be done?

When a provider receives a letter signed by the patient asking for medical records, the patient’s signature serves as the authorization. A separate HIPAA release is not required.

8. If a provider outsources all of records requests to a records provider, can they charge the patient for the cost of the third party vendor to copy the records?

No. HITECH does not allow the provider to pass the costs of a third party vendor to copy/scan records.

11.What is the deadline to respond to a request for electronic records?

The provider has 30 days to comply with the request. If you cannot comply within this time period, the provider must notify the patient of the reason for the delay within the initial 30 days and then the records are due in 30 more days.

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

Synopsis: The “Nuts and Bolts” of Investigating OccDisease Claims with a Specific Focus on this Pandemic—Consider Asking Shawn R. Biery, J.D. for His OccDisease Investigation Protocol.

Editor’s Comment: Shawn R. Biery of Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Assoc understands the challenges this crisis has brought to you and your claims management protocols. Suddenly, we are all being asked to figure out when/where and how someone contracted a life-threatening disease which comes with possible 7-figure OD claims exposure. To understand the risks and costs, please remember Shawn regularly updates his Illinois WC Rate Sheet—if you want a copy, send an email to Shawn or his great assistant Marissa Patel at mpatel@keefe-law.com

What Shawn has begun to detail are crucial investigation materials which you might want to consider--his new OccDisease Investigation protocol to allow you to:

Investigate and verify OccDisease claims for emergency workers covered under the new Rules promulgated by the IWCC;
Investigate and verify claims for other workers possibly not covered by the Rules and
Insure you have a strong basis to accept or deny OccDisease benefits in settings that may come at you and your company very rapidly.

We are constantly working to update the potential investigation protocols. Please again note, as we outline above, any Covid-19 exposure may come with 7-figure risk/reserves on a per claim basis—this is possibly a business-busting concept.

Please also make note, if you don’t diligently investigate, even without a presumption, our IL WC Commission may rule any Covid-19 claim is going to be adjudicated to be compensable.

Those supervisors, managers and adjusters who are now becoming OccDisease investigators will need the following skills:

Interviewing – the ability to draw out the relevant information through effective questioning

Communication (verbal and written) – the ability to interact effectively with injured persons, witnesses and suspects, as well as other investigators, and to communicate the findings of the investigation to a wide variety of individuals and organizations

Technical competence – the awareness of safe working procedures that should be adopted, with particular relevance to the event under investigation

Hazard recognition – the ability to ensure workers and investigators are not exposed to unnecessary risk

Interaction – personal attributes that enable effective relations with other people

Deduction – the ability to scrutinize all the evidence obtained, e.g. through observation, from witnesses’ statements and from documentary evidence, and to form a coherent picture that enables the causal factors to be identified

If you want a copy or someone to consult with an OccDisease Investigations and Rules, feel free to contact Shawn at sbiery@keefe-law.com or John Campbell at jcampbell@keefe-law.com

August 17, 2020

8-17-2020; Kevin Boyle, JD on "Must Read" for Construction Liability Claims; AMA Guides for Impairment Going Online and more

August 17, 2020/ Eugene Keefe

Synopsis: Federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rules in Indiana case that Property Owner, Contactors Not Be Held Civilly Liable for Worker’s Fall. This is a “Must Read.” Comment by Kevin Boyle of Keefe Campbell Biery & Associates, LLC.

Editor’s comment: Independent Contractor’s Employee was Unable to Pursue Negligence Claims Against Various Parties to the Construction Contracts. Jeffords v. BP Products North America Inc., Case No. 19-1533 (7th Cir. June 29, 2020).

BP has an oil refinery in Whiting, Indiana and hired Fluor Constructors to provide engineering, procurement and construction management services for a project. BP and Fluor each entered into separate contracts with MC Industrial for the construction work. BP also contracted with Central Rent-a-Crane for crane operation services. Central had no contracts with Fluor or MCI.

Mr. Jeffords worked for Central, and while on the catwalk of the crane he lost his balance, fell and suffered injuries. He filed a negligence suit against BP, Fluor and MCI. The Northern District, Hammond Division judge granted summary judgment for defendants, finding that none owed a duty of care. The Court of Appeals affirmed applying Indiana law.

The court held that plaintiffs asserting negligence claims must prove that defendant owed him a duty of care and breached it in a way that caused injury. The court said that even if it accepted the premise that BP, MCI and Fluor all could be characterized as general contractors or construction managers, that did not mean they owed a duty of care to Mr. Jeffords as the employee of an independent contractor. Whether a duty exists depends solely on the language of the contracts.

While MCI was contractually charged by Fluor with responsibility for the safety of its subcontractors' employees, Central was not MCI’s subcontractor. Therefore, MCI owed no duty of care to Mr. Jeffords under its contract with Fluor. The court also noted that none of the contracts contained language imposing on any defendant a specific legal duty toward, or expressly assigning responsibility for the safety of, Central's employees.

Fluor and MCI had contractual obligations to take reasonable precautions related to sanitation and health for the safety of its personnel and the personnel of others, and to protect all work done and all materials furnished, but this language was designed to protect property, not people.

It was noted that defendants additionally had contractual obligations to comply with regulations promulgated under OSHA, but the Court held that contractual promises cannot be enforced by anyone not a party to them, in privity with a party to them, or an intended beneficiary of them. Mr. Jeffords was not a party or in privity with a party to any of defendants' contracts. Finally, the Court found that none of the defendants had assumed duties of care toward Mr. Jeffords by their conduct, and that BP could not be held vicariously liable for negligence by Fluor or MCI, since neither owed him a duty of care.

To read the federal court’s decision, click here.

This analysis was researched and drafted by Kevin Boyle, JD, KCB&A’s IN defense team leader. Kevin can be reached for thoughts, comments and defense of IN or IL WC/GL and EPLI claims.

Synopsis: Impairment Ratings Protocols To Morph from AMA Guide Books to Online Guidelines.

Editor’s comment: When the Workers' Compensation Institute's national conference convenes this week online, enormous interest will be focused on the American Medical Association's new concept for issuing valid impairment rating guidelines in the work comp arena. To the extent the IL WC Act contemplates impairment ratings as a method for choosing “permanent partial disability,” this is important to claims and risk managers and lawyers on both sides.

The AMA “Big Book” Will End In This Cyber-Era

Books are much out of style in this digital age. We expect the AMA’s prior practice of releasing a large and complex hardcover version of their AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment every 10 years or so is going to forever end. Versions of these Guides were adopted by more than 30 states' workers' comp statutes, and the latest, the Sixth Edition, has been challenged by appellate court decisions in two states.

In response, the AMA will start to offer the Guides in an online fashion only, perhaps by subscription. They will revise them in “real time,” constantly updating and evaluating impairment ratings as medical evidence evolves and input from all sides of the WC matrix flow in.

Once this online capability starts, for the first time, if any party objects to the formula to create an impairment rating, they'll be able to quickly petition an AMA panel of experts to revise the AMA Guides. This process will allow for peer review and input from a range of specialists. The main focus is to create a formulary that is open to input from all sides—a more “transparent process,” in the words of one expert.

One question from worker advocates is whether the new system, in the works for more than a year, will lead to substantial changes in the current impairment ratings.

Many Veteran Observers Don’t Expect Significant Change

In our view, Claimant lawyers oppose anything that limits their ability to get high impairment values from hearing officers and maximize claimant and their recoveries. Any “science” that limits their involvement, influence and income is certain to be criticized. For that reason, we feel there will be court challenges to follow whatever the online AMA Guides might do to limit Plaintiff/Petitioner recoveries.

One proposal under consideration by the AMA panel would refine functional inventories, which include exercises and questionnaires that help measure impairment. Another would require use of the newer version of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to help doctors assess mental and behavioral issues.

The defense team at KCB&A still recommends our clients consider getting an impairment rating on any significant WC claim, as such ratings are admissible and provide lower values than traditional IL Permanent Partial Disability levels. There is no “science” of any kind supporting how our hearing officers used to and still set PPD values in pretrials and decisions—they go by tradition and a “seat of the pants” view of what to write. We feel this is contrary to what the AMA Guides and impairment ratings are supposed to provide—reproducible and scientific values.

You Can Still Register and Participate in the WCI Virtual Conference That Starts Tomorrow—It is Free and Should Be Informative

https://event.vconferenceonline.com/microsite/html/event.aspx?id=1693

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

Synopsis: The “Nuts and Bolts” of Investigating OccDisease Claims with a Specific Focus on this Pandemic—Consider Asking Shawn R. Biery, J.D. for His OccDisease Investigation Protocol.

Editor’s Comment: Shawn R. Biery of Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Assoc understands the challenges this crisis has brought to you and your claims management protocols. Suddenly, we are all being asked to figure out when/where and how someone contracted a life-threatening disease which comes with possible 7-figure OD claims exposure. To understand the risks and costs, please remember Shawn regularly updates his Illinois WC Rate Sheet—if you want a copy, send an email to Shawn or his great assistant Marissa Patel at mpatel@keefe-law.com

What Shawn has begun to detail are crucial investigation materials which you might want to consider--his new OccDisease Investigation protocol to allow you to:

Investigate and verify OccDisease claims for emergency workers covered under the new Rules promulgated by the IWCC;
Investigate and verify claims for other workers possibly not covered by the Rules and
Insure you have a strong basis to accept or deny OccDisease benefits in settings that may come at you and your company very rapidly.