11-24-2020; Can U.S. Employers Require Workers to Vaccinate? And What Happens If Your Folks Refuse the Vaccine?; Kevin Boyle, JD on important new Indiana defense ruling and more

Synopsis: Can Employers Require Workers to Vaccinate? And What Happens If Your Workers Refuse the New Vaccine?

Editors Comment: To my understanding, there are two ways the Great Pandemic of 2020 is going to end—“Herd Immunity” or an effective and new vaccine.

“Herd Immunity” is simple and sporadic—right now, 12,637,714 people have such immunity, as they got the disease and should be immune (or no longer with us—not to be rude), going forward. When enough people have the disease and recover from it they have the antibodies needed to fend off future re-infections; around 12.3M U.S. citizens should be immune. If you research the concept of herd immunity, you will note it is not a precise science we can rely on, as there are lots of unknowns about COVID-19. It also doesn’t appear to be a great idea to encourage or force people to get sick and maybe die to end a virus. Duh.

Ending the Great Pandemic of 2020—Vaccines are Coming!

To truly and more safely end the Great Pandemic, we need an effective vaccine or vaccines. Without question, a vaccine is the best scientific method to attack and block infections and re-infections on this shrinking planet. When I say that, I mean we have to have effective vaccines and the willingness to take the shots! I am signing up the day they are available and I suggest you do too.

It appears two groups have figured it out. Actually, one news source indicates the Chinese science community figured out the RNA string that led to the vaccine(s). This concept is considered an amazing breakthrough that may greatly advance “vaccinology” going forward.

Right now, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have developed separate vaccines considered 95% effective in blocking COVID-19 infections. Both vaccines requires two doses and there is a “two-shot” 28-day waiting period for the vaccine to take full effect and provide needed antibody protection. Early “user reviews” indicate there are side effects you may expect for your workers who get the shots that are similar to having a “bad hangover.” These effects are transient and disappear in the majority of test subjects relatively rapidly. Safety in using either of the vaccines appears fairly clear. A third vaccine from AstraZeneca may be used in other parts of the world.

This is all coming by the millions of doses in December 2020—we aren’t talking months or years, this is hitting risk and employment managers very soon!!!

To my understanding many businesses are considering implementing mandatory vaccination policies for the coronavirus called COVID-19. If the Pfizer/BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines provide a safe and widely accessible vaccine this should allow businesses to open their work sites and start returning to a productivity and normalcy—we could all stop looking like “bank robbers” because you might not have to wear masks, shields and gloves to perform normal work. If you don’t want mandatory vaccines, consider encouraging and educating your folks to not get sick from this malady and possibly die from it. Trust me, thousands of folks have already tested both of the major vaccines.

U.S. employers are caught in the odd position of having to protect your workers and customers from possibly lethal infection in your worksites as well as respecting the wishes of individual employees who may object to being required to be vaccinated in order to return to or remain at work. 

Please also note—if your workers get temporarily sick from a non-mandatory vaccine itself and then oddly claim their malady is “work-related,” consider putting up with some of these sorts of shenanigans for a time. Consider the public relations impact of fighting such claims. My vote is avoid a rabid and wacky media blitz about your company.

The issue on folks that don’t want a COVID-19 vaccine then involves the new inbound “liberal” Federal administration for both the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission regulations and guidance, as well as OSHA workplace safety rules and their guidance. Employers mulling mandatory vaccination policies need to consider:

• How to decide if a vaccine policy is good for your company,

• How you might very carefully enforce a vaccine policy,

• The medical risks of requiring vaccines that might injure/disable or kill your workers;

• The legal risks of mandating and enforcing a vaccine policy, and

• Work comp/OccDisease responsibilities in administering a vaccine policy.

Every article I have read in my legal research indicates you have to proceed with caution. You may note our incoming President-to-be is bringing in the hyper-aggressive, business-challenging folks that were in place during the Obama administration.

In 2009 Pandemic guidance issued during the H1N1 influenza outbreak, the EEOC stated both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII bar a U.S. employer from compelling its workers to be vaccinated for influenza regardless of their medical condition or religious beliefs — even during a pandemic. You can agree or disagree but this states how the EEOC may act moving forward. The guidance stated under the ADA, an employee with underlying medical conditions should be entitled to an exemption from mandatory vaccination (if one was requested) for medical reasons. And Title VII would protect an employee who objects due to religious beliefs against undergoing vaccination. In these cases, the employer could be required to provide accommodation for these individuals (such as working from home). If you don’t provide accommodation, you can be sued and owe the other side’s legal fees and costs.

Additionally, the employer would have to enter into an “interactive process” with each worker to determine whether a reasonable accommodation would enable them to perform essential job functions without compromising workplace safety. You company can be sued for not offering this process. This could include:

• The use of personal protective equipment,

• Moving their workstation to a more secluded area,

• Temporary reassignment,

• Working from home, or

• Taking a leave of absence.

One issue which may not have any legal standing is if an employee objects to inoculation based on being an “anti-vaccinatable,” or someone who objects to vaccines believing they are inherently dangerous. In this case, depending on which state your business is located, you may or may not be able to compel someone who randomly objects to vaccines to get a shot.

Protecting You and Your Company

To mount a successful defense of a vaccination policy if sued, you need to be able to show your policy is job-related and consistent with clear business necessity. Assuming your rationale is based on facts and relate to each employee’s job description—you have to document you are enforcing the policy consistently without prejudice or favoritism. Also, you must ensure that any employee who requests accommodation due to their health status or religious beliefs does not suffer any adverse consequences. In other words, you cannot punish someone protected by the ADA or Title VII for refusing a vaccine. Also, under HIPAA, you need to protect and safeguard your employees’ medical information.

In my view, once a vaccine or vaccines are widely available, most employers will have the right to require your workers get it, as long as you heed my advice above about the ADA and Title VII.  If you do implement a policy requiring vaccination, consider:

• Fully covering vaccine costs if they are not fully covered by your employees’ health insurance.

• Allowing employees to opt out entirely if they have medical or religious objections.

• In the event of a medical or religious objection, you must engage in an “interactive process” to determine whether the individual’s objections can be accommodated. Send a reply if you need help.

• Include safeguards for keeping employees’ medical information confidential.

The Weird IL OC Act

The Illinois OD Act has an odd provision indicating a voluntary vaccination might be required to “arise out of” and occur “in the course of” employ. This is a challenging provision that we don’t feel lots of folks are aware of—I was advised about it from an in-house attorney with a great hospital chain. If you are concerned about this or the compensability of any COVID-19 claim, send a reply. I assure you I can help defend such claims.

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

Synopsis: We have an important new Indiana WC defense verdict you should know about: Gilley’s Antique Mall v. Sarver: Plaintiffs cannot add new defendants after the two year statute of limitations runs. Article and analysis by our IN WC Defense Team Leader, Kevin Boyle, J.D.

Editor’s comment: It doesn’t happen very often, but we have a newly published Indiana Court of Appeals decision on an important statute of limitations worker’s compensation issue. The case is Gilley’s Antique Mall v. Sarver, __ N.E.3d. __, 2020 WL 5808386 (Sept. 30, 2020). Plaintiff fell through a roof while he worked on a job site, sought medical treatment and then continued working on the project until it’s completion. The opinion did not discuss whether the claim was accepted or whether benefits and treatment were paid for. Eventually an Application for Adjustment of Claim was filed before two years from the date of the injury. Two years and four months after the date of injury, Plaintiff filed an Amended Application asserting claims against other defendants when it turned out the original defendant didn’t worker’s compensation insurance coverage. Ten months after that Amended Appiation, another Amended Application was filed to add another defendant. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to add them to the case within the two year limitation period set forth in IC 22-3-3-3. The Single Hearing Member granted the motion and dismissed those defendants. The Full Board reversed and allowed the late additions under 631 IAC 1-1-7 and the secondary liability provisions of the Act.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the Full Board, and dismissed the Defendants. In summary, the Court held that allowing plaintiff to add new defendants extended the statute of limitations without authorization, it was erroneous and contrary to the Act. Nowhere in IC 22-3-1-3 is the Board delegated authority to increase the two year statute of limitations for filing claims.

The two year cut off has always been, and with this ruling, still is, very important to consider. Please keep this in mind with any new claims that come up after the two years from the date of injury. The two year deadline may also apply to your claims where plaintiff does not file an Application against any defendant, too. If you have any issues like these, please contact me and let’s discuss the potential defense.

Kevin can be reached at kboyle@keefe-law.com.

11-9-2020; Biden Wins, Pritzker Loses HIs Tax Hike--What Does It Mean for Work Comp?; IL WC Appellate Court Ruling of Interest and more

Synopsis: Biden Wins; Pritzker Loses His Tax Hike; What Does It Mean for Work Comp?

Editor’s comment: I congratulate President-to-be Joseph Biden and forward condolences to the supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump. It is our strong hope our country will continue to thrive and survive. From incoming President Biden, I feel certain we are going to see:

• Ramped up efforts to stomp out the Great Pandemic of 2020;

• Trillions more in government borrowing for “stimulus” packages to hopefully get us past the economic crisis brought on by the Great Pandemic but continue to steep our country in lots of debt;

• “Black Lives Will Matter” and it is about time—it is my hope sworn police officers start to act like actual “officers” and not like drunken biker gangs;

• Global Warming will again return to public discourse and debate; hopefully before we all cook ourselves in the oven this planet is unquestionably turning into.

What does it mean to the World of Work Comp?

Well, I am seeing some but not zillions of COVID WC claims. These odd claims are going to work themselves through the WC systems in all five States we handle and defend our insurance and self-insured employers. As I have advised, they are either moderately irritating “flu” claims without a great deal of value/reserves or, in stark contrast, work-related death claims that have gigantic value and business-busting reserves. The defense team at KCB&A warn all U.S. employers--you have to continue to employ PPE, masks and whatever you need to avoid new infections. If you get a “super-spreader” in your workforce who infects and possibly kills lots of your workers, you may find your company or government in bankruptcy and yourself on a bread line. Don’t be misled, keep on dealing with the Great Pandemic until it is erased by a vaccine or herd immunity.

I consider there to be a mania about presumptive coverage for “first responders” that may continue or intensify, so as to provide untouchable coverage and benefits for police, fire, medical and other similar occupations. I feel this sort of global work comp coverage for such workers is going to expand even after the Great Pandemic is over. I don’t feel such legislation was needed, as our administrators across the country wouldn’t put up with baseless denials. It is my concern that, once we start global and unrebuttable coverage for COVID, that is going to apply to any goofy thing a police officer or firefighter claims. Trust me, that is going to cost a lot of money.

I do feel reasonable economic stimulus packages are needed but I hate to see our country go even further into the abyss of debt we are already in and getting worse every minute. The folks at usdebtclock.com feel we have more than $27 trillion in national debt. That number terrifies me and I hope all Federal and State legislators start to see it for the threat to our country that it is.

What Did Our Nutty IL Governor Pritzker Just Lose With His Proposed Tax Hike and When Will His Silly Illinois State Government Start to Reform Itself And Make Fiscal Sense?

IL’s Zillionaire Governor JB Pritzker just did something I consider, for lack of a better term, borderline insane. He donated over $60M of his own bucks to support a constitutional amendment to strip away protections against uneven income taxation. I don’t know if any Governor in any State has ever spent that sort of money to basically put the blocks to taxpayers.

The problem he is now going to have to face is what to do to get IL State Government back to any sense of being on sound financial footing in the next twenty-thirty years. After his embarrassing loss, he is now faced with cutting government and salaries and benefits which will cause pain to his strongest supporters—government unions and workers who all supported and voted for him to insure he would “protect” them and the billions of tax-free dollars they are raking in every day of every year from the day they started in their government jobs until they die of old age. I consider fake IL Gov’t pensions to be a shameless scam—these retirees are getting something in the hundreds of billions for absolutely nothing. If you don’t understand what I mean, please send a reply and I will explain it to your satisfaction.

Trust me, the State of Illinois is as “bankrupt” and poorly designed as a business as any in the history of bad businesses/governments. Someone is going to have to take the reins and say—“ENOUGH!” When our dads and moms were raising us and they got short on money, they cut their budgets to the bone. Someone in IL State Government has to start recognizing they are literally hundreds of billions in debt and budget cuts should come first before you go to taxpayers and start stripping out more taxes, tolls and fees that are already among the highest in the country, if not the world.

It is my view, IL State Government and many IL local governments are over-staffed, over-paid and “over-retired.” The State of IL has 88 State agencies with dramatically overlapping, redundant and unneeded workers. As one example, our IL State government has seven, count ‘em, seven different police departments with seven different police department chiefs and HR directors and redundant managers and line workers. The IL General Assembly has “representatives” and “senators” who each represent exactly the same people! That is 120 IL legislators and staffs—could we find a way to get along with half of all those pay-rollers and cigar chompers? Please also note those 120 legislators only have to work in the General Assembly for two terms or four short years to then be insured they will receive lifetime tax-free fake pensions and healthcare coverage that can pay them literally millions of dollars to the day they pass. One such IL legislator put about $100K into his unfundable IL Gov’t fake pension and has already collected about $3.7M from the scam, I mean, plan. To my understanding, there are about 700,000 IL gov’t pensioners with unfundable fake gov’t pensions that are certain to bankrupt this nutty State if budget cuts and gov’t pension reform don’t follow.

From the perspective of the IL WC Commission, I haven’t seen any effort to try to maximize the great talent they have and minimize rising costs. Please note the number of IL WC claims has greatly decreased in the last decade or so, while IWCC staff and budgets have increased. We have over 30 Arbitrators--I feel the IWCC could get along with half that number once budget cuts were in place. We now have 27 lawyers at the second administrative appeal level—our Commissioners and their staff attorneys. As I have advised in the past, if each of those 27 attorneys would issue one contested decision a week, they would have literally nothing to do in about ninety days. Budget cuts and consolidation should be considered a no-brainer at the IWCC and all IL State gov’t agencies.

In short, some day, some way, I hope to see budget cuts and efficiencies and common sense start to happen in Illinois and other similar States. If it doesn’t start and continue, I am sure the piles of unpaid bills and escalating taxes will continue until our great-great-grandchildren have the guts to do something. I hate to think of our State become a larger version of the financial miasma that is the City of Detroit.

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

Synopsis: Rule 23 IL Appellate Court Ruling confirms their view “loss of trade” for gov’t worker doesn’t have to relate to income loss because income from gov’t benefits isn’t actually income?

Editor’s comment: My readers know I am not a fan of IL Rule 23 Appellate Court decisions that are unquestionably published but are supposed to be magically “non-published.” If you don’t understand what a published “non-published” court ruling is, send a reply and I will try to explain it.

In their recent decision in City of Peoria v. IWCC, the IL Appellate Court considered a claim for a woman police officer who, in the course of her sworn duties trying to apprehend a bad guy or girl, badly broke an ankle on the job. She underwent surgery and has permanent issues. I respect her and feel sorry for her sacrifice and hope she recovers as much as one possibly can from such injuries.

But if you take a look at my article above, in other States, this sworn police officer wouldn’t be pensioned off when there is lots of work she can and should be doing at a desk job. Whenever I go into any police department, there are lots and lots of police officers sitting at desks. As you read this, probably thousands of sworn police officers across our country are working at desk jobs—there is no shame in having to work a desk or handle a 911 radio/phone system. You need to speak “cop talk” to handle those jobs.

But this officer was given a lifetime line of duty disability pension and other benefits. Please note she can find other work and make more money—just not police work. Along with the pension, the Arbitrator and IWCC provided her what I call a “going away present” of 40% body as a whole that I assume is probably six figures of tax-free income from the taxpayers of the City of Peoria. It appears obvious to me someone in gov’t management objected and appealed the award all the way to the Appellate Court, WC division to point out there is no true “loss of income” when this officer is certain to receive the pension and other benefits she is statutorily provided.

In my respectful view, the decision of the Appellate Court majority holds the income derived from benefits isn’t actually income under Section 8(d-2) of the IL WC Act so the IWCC’s ruling was affirmed. In my view, the logic of that matches the logic of published “unpublished” decisions—you have to be a lawyer to smile when you hear it.

If you want to know why the IWCC picked 40% BAW over 20% or 90%, all I can say is you and I need a Ouija board to figure that one out—in my view, there is no science or guidance that will ever answer that question.

I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog. If you want the link to the ruling, send a reply.

10-20-2020; Stumbling Along In IL Work Comp—A New Permanency Concept of “Loss of Job???”; Marsh Publishes an Amazing and Informative Update on COVID-19 and Workers’ Comp and more

Synopsis: Stumbling Along In IL Work Comp—A New Permanency Concept of “Loss of Job???” Thoughts and commentary from Gene Keefe, J.D.

Editor’s comment: Probably around a decade ago, someone or three of the IL WC Petitioner’s bar was successful in getting IL Arbitrators to award “loss of trade” to firefighters and police officers who could not longer be in the fire or police department due to a work-related event. To my mind, this was happening as a “going-away-present” as such workers receive line of duty disability pensions that provide lifetime benefits. You may not know but when police/fire officers get line of duty disability benefits, the IL Pension code doesn’t allow them to also seek wage loss differential or total and perm benefits at Work Comp. In this setting, the “loss of trade” concept could get the appropriate worker $100K+ in tax-free “going away” money when they left their respective departments and moved into retirement or other work. In some States that are more government economical, the lifetime benefits of a line of duty disability pension would be all such a worker might receive.

This “loss of trade” concept also occurred for the construction trades to provide lots of money to electricians, plumbers, iron workers and others who had restrictions and didn’t choose to take wage loss differential benefits for any number of reasons.

Please note the “loss of trade” concept does make some sense in the context of the language of Section 8(d-2) of the IL WC Act that indicates that section of the IL WC Act contemplates increased benefits for an accidental injury that results in a lifetime loss of income. That said, please note no provision in the IL WC Act says or uses the words “loss of trade.” In short, that concept isn’t defined anywhere. When an IL WC hearing officer uses the term “loss of trade,” one can attach whatever legal meaning you like to what I respectfully feel is a “made-up” legal and claims term. In my view, we do that a lot in the IL WC system. Making up benefit concepts renders IL WC very unpredictable and wildly challenging to accurately set PPD reserves.

I am now advised most IL WC Arbitrators are looking at any claim where Claimant is changing jobs to merit dramatically increased permanency/impairment under Section 8(d-2). There is no requirement from the IL Arbitrator that an employer first exhaust all efforts to return the worker to the same position with accommodation, as the ADA requires. Basically, the Arbitrators are looking at “loss of job” claims and reacting. Again, as a WC veteran in this State, I don’t agree with any undefined concept that mandates an increase in reserves for the insurance carriers, TPA’s and self-insured employers in both the private and public sector. Please also note if a given Claimant has a leg or shoulder or wrist injury and they are compensated for “loss of job” under Section 8(d-2), IL employers and governments get no credit for paying such benefits if the employee injures the same body part repeatedly.

Case in point--we have an active claim in the office where the worker was working for around $15 an hour. She has purported restrictions making keeping her existing job a challenge—she may need to change to a lighter job.

Due to the giant and staged increases in our IL minimum wage, everyone who has any job in this nutty State will soon be making $15 an hour. The Illinois minimum wage goes up on 1/1 every year for the next five years. There is no question this worker, if she gets a job doing anything, sedentary/light or medium work, she will be making $15 an hour or more at some point in her life. In my respectful view, she isn’t going to suffer a loss of income.

Regardless, the Arbitrator in the claim is saying her needed job change is “loss of job” due to the work injury and OC is asking for 45% LOU BAW for a single injury to one body part. Ouch. We are countering at about half of the demand, which is still a lot of money. In my view, it isn’t the same when someone like Claimant has “lost her job” to change from a minimum wage job to a different minimum wage job. And, as our IL Supreme Court has just expanded IL WC to make us a “positional risk” state, if we are going to provide giant “loss of job” settlements and awards for anyone who might need to change jobs after an injury, the cost of IL Work Comp poker is going to go way up.

As I indicate above, please also note this “loss of job” concept runs directly contrary to ADA or the Americans with Disabilities Act. When Claimants can do some but possibly not all of the essential tasks of a job post-injury, all U.S. employers are supposed to reasonably accommodate them and bring them back. Some employers treat WC claimants as pariahs and won’t bring them back and let the insurance carrier or TPA deal with it. This can subject the employer to an ADA claim for not providing an “interactive meeting” as ADA and the EEOC requires—if you need help with this concept, please send a reply.

In short, it is my hope the defense WC bar in this State is going to start to push back on “loss of job” awards and settlements to try to keep the lid on things. Understanding Illinois is a one-party State and will be for years to come, this may be challenging to do.

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

Synopsis: Marsh Publishes an Amazing and Informative Update on COVID-19 and Workers’ Comp. We consider this a must-read for U.S. risk and claims managers.

Editor’s comment: The U.S. work comp matrix is not experiencing the worst-case scenarios stakeholders predicted at the start of COVID-19, though employers and injured workers aren’t out of the woods yet, according to a new study from a global insurance broker and risk adviser, Marsh.

The workers’ comp insurance market is still competitive, as COVID-19 OccDisease claims have been balanced by declines in other categories of occupational injuries, Marsh announced in its recent study, COVID-19’s Impact on Workers’ Compensation Market Is Minimal, but Challenges Persist. If you want to read the study—click on the link “recent study” above.

As the pandemic continues, employers are likely to face obstacles such as payroll management, changing worker classifications and new legislation that could make it easier for employees to claim they caught Covid-19 on the job, according to the study. “At the same time, new tools such as telemedicine and a more collaborative approach to claims management can present opportunities for employers to stay ahead of the curve,” the study’s summary states.

The climate for WC insurers has shifted after years of growth and favorable workers’ comp trends, and systems saw that progress continue into early 2020 before the pandemic began. Despite an unstable labor market and forecasts that workers’ comp premium volume could fall by as much as 10% to 20% by the end of 2020. Longer-term impacts on WC carriers’ profitability should end up being less dramatic, according to the study.

Industry watchers predicted that a tidal wave of COVID-19 claims would enter U.S. workers’ comp systems. But aside from the health care sector, no such influx has happened, according to the study. Data analysis reveals average severity of COVID-19 claims is lower than anticipated.

As KCB&A has advised our clients and friends, there are two sorts of COVID-19 claims:

1. Folks who get test positive and get mildly sick or not but recover in a week or so and

2. Folks who get very ill and possibly pass from the exposure/disease.

In our experience, Category 1 above is basically the “flu.” Workers who recover from the COVID-19 “flu” go back to work just like folks that recover from Influenza A. The medical and lost time costs are minimal. Such COVID-19 claims haven’t been very expensive, with one survey reporting about 96% of claims cost less than $3,500, according to the Marsh study. 

Category 2 claims can involve long stints in the ICU and dramatic and six- and seven-figure exposures for WC/OD death benefits. The Marsh study indicates 4% of COVID-19 WC/OD claims have been very costly, creeping into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per claim to cover extensive procedures and hospital stays.

The Marsh study indicates “With the frequency of non-COVID-19 claims remaining lower than expected, the workers’ compensation line is expected to be less affected by the pandemic.”

Marsh says employers still need to be diligent when it comes to managing coverage and maintaining work site safety protocols. Many elements can dictate premium costs, including calculating payroll, classifying workers based on assumed risk while conducting normal job duties, and a company’s experience rating modification. A shift toward telecommuting and working from home has also created challenges for employers — as some employees must be temporarily reassigned classification codes — although the trend is likely to contribute to fewer workplace injuries, according to the study. To avoid missteps when it comes to reporting, Marsh says employers should keep separate records for payroll given to workers for time not worked in relation to the pandemic, instead of rolling into paid time off or another category. Employers should also keep payroll records for workers who continue to work but have assumed new roles in a way that the payroll could be split based on workers’ comp class codes, according to Marsh. Maintaining separate overtime records related to COVID-19 and recording the start and end dates of employee furloughs should also be helpful to employers, according to Marsh.

Workers’ comp claim trends have varied by industry, according to the study. While many industries have seen lower frequencies since the pandemic began in March, the health care sector is experiencing an uptick in year-over-year claims, and retail businesses have seen an increase in claims volume after seeing declines in the early days of the outbreak. The mix of claim types has changed since March, even while overall claims frequency has dropped, according to the study.

Before COVID-19, about 21% of all claims were for indemnity. But since the pandemic began, the share has risen to between 24% and 35%, according to a study by Marsh and consulting firm Oliver Wyman that looked at data through June 30. More uncertainty could be on the horizon, according to Marsh’s most recent study. Unemployment, furloughs and employees who are hesitant about filing WC/OD claims because of unclear job prospects could send new injury claims tumbling by as much as 20% by year’s end.

“As the economy continues to reopen, however, these trends may gradually be reversed,” the study states.

Despite the trend toward enacting new COVID-related workers’ comp laws, “many COVID-19 claims have ultimately not met compensability requirements,” according to the Marsh study. Industry estimates show that only 20% to 30% of all COVID-19 claims have been accepted, with most coming from the health care sector, according to the study. “In contrast, about one-third of all claims have been denied for various reasons, including a lack of diagnosis and/or symptoms, refusal by claimants to be tested for COVID-19, and the fact that some claimants have largely been working from home,” the study states.

We salute Marsh for this interesting analysis. We hope the pandemic is going to end, as it has to. We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

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/