2-20-2023; New IL WC Ruling in Allen v. Hot Spot Affirms Idiopathic Defense to Fall Downs (and others); "Firefighter" with Kidney Disease Related It to His Job Title; Rich Hannigan RIP

Synopsis: New IL WC Ruling in Allen v. Hot Spot Affirms Idiopathic Defense to Fall Downs (and others??).

Editor’s comment: The IL WC Appellate Ruling in McAlister caused much commotion when a worker injured himself merely standing up at work. Lots of folks worried this ruling indicated similar defenses were at an end with our current Commission and reviewing courts.

Not so fast! Now the IL WC Bar is talking about Allen v. Hot Spot, 30 ILWCLB 210 (Ill. W.C. Comm. 2022).

This claim involved a worker who was opening a gambling room as part of her work. The claimant worked for Hot Spot as an attendant in a gambling room. Her job involved opening the business, setting up for the customers, cleaning, sweeping, carrying cases of soda and stocking coolers. What was moderately unusual is she testified she had preexisting health problems, including chronic kidney disease and a foot injury that caused her to walk with a cane.

On April 27, 2021, the claimant arrived at work. She testified that she entered the business, put her break­fast on the table, and walked over to the property alarm to turn it off. She further testified she was walking fast but was not in a hurry. She had 60 seconds from the time she entered to turn off the alarm. The claimant fell while walking to the alarm. She did not testify so as to identify a specific cause that led to the fall-down.

The IL Arbitrator denied benefits, finding Claimant failed to prove her fall at work arose out of and in the course of her employment. In so ruling, the Arbitrator ex­plained that walking is a personal risk. Further, the claim­ant could not explain her fall or identify a cause. The Arbitrator ruled Claimant’s fall consti­tuted an “idiopathic accident,” that could only be caused by something internal or inherent to the claimant. An idiopathic accident is only related to employment if she can show her work created a hazard.

Here, the claimant did not testify to any defect or that she was carrying any objects or unusually hurrying. Moreover, she clearly explained that she was not rushing, as she had enough time to calmly put her breakfast down and walk to the alarm. The claimant was walking and, for a reason unrelated to her employ­ment or otherwise unknown, she fell. Accordingly, her fall was not compensable under the WCA.

Upon review, the IL WC Commission panel affirmed and adopted the decision of the Arbitrator. Regardless of the ruling in McAlister, we feel Illinois will not turn into a “positional risk” state—if you aren’t sure what that means, send a reply.

We are not aware if the matter is pending on further appeal. If we get further news, we will report.

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

Synopsis: Firefighter With Rare Kidney Cancer Establishes Condition as Occupational Disease That I Feel is Causally Related to His Job Title and Not His Actual Work.

Editor’s comment: The Illinois Appellate Court, WC Division upheld an award of benefits to a firefighter for kidney cancer, finding he established an occupational disease by a preponderance of the evidence. Please note this ruling has a WC reserve value well into the millions.

Claimant Wood worked as a firefighter for a city in Missouri before moving to Illinois and becoming a firefighter for the City of Springfield. In July 2013, Wood sought medical treatment for abdominal pain and fever. He was diagnosed with diverticulitis.

After undergoing a computed tomography scan, Wood saw a Dr. Sandercock. The scan revealed kidney cancer. A Dr. Lieber performed surgery to remove the upper portion of the kidney in September 2013. Wood was released to full duty the next month.

Wood filed a workers’ compensation claim, and an Arbitrator found that his cancer was compensable. The arbitrator noted that Wood was a firefighter for about 16 years and was entitled to a statutory presumption that his cancer had been caused by his employment. The Arbitrator didn’t make any findings as to how many fires Claimant Wood fought.

Please note my respectful opinion that all “firefighters” don’t typically or routinely fight fires. I would say, statistically, a very small part of any firefighter’s work involves dealing with live fires. And to some extent, the term “firefighter” is therefore misleading. However, when such workers go to the IWCC, everyone focuses on the word ‘firefighting,’ as if they are involved in heavy smoke and exposure to carcinogens all day, every day. Please also remember firefighters don’t typically encounter heavy smoke—they wear breathers. I have yet to see any defense attorney actually check records to confirm how many live fires a given firefighter dealt with in a year or five years or their entire career.

In this claim, while the Arbitrator acknowledged testimony from a Dr. Eggener that the type of cancer Wood had was rare and had a completely different etiology compared to more common types, the arbitrator said Dr. Eggener’s opinion that there was no evidence in the medical literature or elsewhere to suggest that the development of this kind of kidney cancer is associated with being a firefighter was unsupported by the credible evidence.

On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Commission agreed with the Arbitrator’s ultimate determination but differed in analysis. The Commission panel found that the city successfully rebutted the presumption by submitting evidence of an alternative cause of Wood’s kidney cancer in form of Eggener’s opinion, but that Wood still proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered an occupational disease based on a Dr. Orris’ testimony that it was more likely than not that Wood’s years of “firefighting” contributed to the development of cancer. Again, please note my view the Commission panel appears to assume anyone with the title “firefighter” has to fight fires.

A circuit court judge affirmed the Commission’s decision.

The Illinois Appellate Court said the Commission’s finding of compensability was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. They noted while Wood offered no evidence to causally connect his specific form of kidney cancer to his work as a firefighter, the reviewing court said neither Drs. Eggener and Orris were provided with the medical records pertaining to the specific form of kidney cancer that Wood had, and neither made any distinction among different forms of kidney cancer.

The experts agreed smoking, obesity, dietary habits and hypertension are risk factors for the development of kidney cancer, and none of these applied to Wood, the court added.

“The biggest issue with Dr. Eggener’s report is that he sought to find an absolute causation explanation where none was required,” the court said. “Orris reviewed the same literature and concluded that the studies established a connection between firefighting and the development of kidney cancer.”

With respect to our Appellate Court’s august members, that sentence indicates to me they found causation related to Claimant’s job title without any real indication of what he was exposed to in his actual work. To read the court’s decision in City of Springfield v. IWCC, No. 4-21-0604WC, 09/15/2022, unpublished, click here.

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

Synopsis: Rich Hannigan, RIP.

Editor’s comment: The IL WC Industry is saddened to hear of the passing of Richard “Rich” Hannigan. I am fairly sure Attorney Hannigan dates back to the days of working with the venerable Jack Cunningham and Arbitrator Angelo Caliendo. Rich practiced workers' compensation law since 1973. From 1973 to 1991, he represented both employers and injured employees before the good ole Illinois Industrial Commission. After 1991, his practice was limited to serving the injured worker. Mr. Hannigan received his Bachelor's from the University of Dayton in 1970, and his Juris Doctor from what used to be known as the John Marshall Law School in 1973.

Rich was a member of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, the Illinois State Bar Association, the Workers Compensation Lawyers Association, Chicago Bar Association and Lake County Bar Association. He was also a member of the Arizona State Bar since 1975 and was a member of the Arizona Bar Association's Workers' Compensation Section.

Rich was a member of the Illinois State Bar Association's Workers' Compensation Section Council from 1992 through 2001 and 2002 to date. In 1998 he was appointed Vice-Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Section. In 1999 he was appointed Chairman of the Illinois State Bar Association Workers' Compensation Section Council. Richard Hannigan served as president of the Workers' Compensation Lawyers Association in 1992, vice president in 1991, and secretary from 1989 to 1990 and on the Workers' Compensation Lawyers Association Board of Managers from 1984 to 1988 and 1983 to 1985.

Rich Hannigan was editor of the Illinois Bar Association Workers' Compensation Newsletter since 1998. As editor of the newsletter, he was responsible for a minimum of four newsletters per year. I considered him a “competitor” with the highest and greatest respect. His newsletter was used as a teaching tool for attorneys, risk managers and adjusters handling workers compensation. He was honored by the Illinois Bar Association with an award for his commitment to the Workers' Compensation Newsletter.

I believe I speak on behalf of the entire IL WC industry to confirm he was a great and wonderful man and strong advocate for his many clients. Speaking for myself, I will always miss this great man and remain sad about his passing.

Synopsis: Governor Pritzker Appoints Ms. Efi James as IL WC Arbitrator.

Editor’s comment: Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker appointed Efi James to serve as an arbitrator on the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission starting March 1, 2023. Ms. James was with the Chicago area law firm of Karchmar & Stone.

She has appeared and argued cases at arbitration before the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, in circuit court and at the appellate court level.

James received her bachelor’s degree from De Paul University and her law degree from what used to be called the John Marshall Law School. Upon admission to the bar, she worked in the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office until 2007. During her time there, Efi worked in Appeals, Traffic Court, Misdemeanor Court, Domestic Violence Court, Preliminary Hearings, Felony Review and was assigned to the Jury Room.

She has participated in more than 500 bench trials and has seen 18 jury trials to verdict. She has been honored for her advocacy work on behalf of victims of Domestic Violence and has worked as an adjunct professor at Moraine Valley Community College and Kaplan University. Since then, Efi has concentrated her practice in the area of worker’s compensation and Personal Injury.

She has appeared and tried numerous cases at the Arbitration level before the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission and argued in Circuit Court and at the Appellate Court levels on behalf of her clients. In the Appellate Court, Efi successfully argued the case of Cox. V. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 406 Ill. App. 3d 541 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) which was instrumental in changing the law applicable to traveling employees.

Ms. James is a past chair of the Chicago Bar Association Workers’ Compensation Committee, has acted as moderator for the Workers’ Compensation Lawyers Association Seminar on Current Issues in Illinois Workers’ Compensation and is a member of the Illinois State Bar Association.

New Arbitrator James is bi-lingual and fluent in Greek.

1-31-2023; First Covid-19 Ruling from IL WC Comm; New IL Laws (with one old one) and more

Synopsis: The first Covid-19 ruling has been dispatched by the IL WC Commission, affirming the Arbitrator’s finding of work-related exposure.

Editor’s Comment: Nearly three years into the Covid-19 pandemic, the IWCC has considered and now published the first litigated IL OccDisease Covid-19 claim. In Lucero v. Focal Point, LLC, 20WC018985, 22IWCC0231, the Commission affirmed the Arbitrator’s finding of occupational workplace exposure, ruling Petitioner’s Covid-19 infection/illness arose out of employment. We note the ruling was correctly classified as an Occupational Disease Act case vs. a Workers’ Compensation Act matter; a relatively minor, but proper distinction.

Petitioner worked as a machine operator for an aluminum and steel fabricator, testing positive in April 2020. The alleged exposure date is within the timeframe of the rebuttable presumption under Section 19(g) for workplace exposure during the current Governor’s Executive Order 2020-10 for “essential workers”. The COVID-19 rebuttable presumption provides any employee developing occupational disease resulting from an exposure to COVID-19, the exposure and contraction shall be rebuttably presumed to have arisen out of and in the course of the employee’s employment.   This presumption creates a prima facie case that the exposure arose out of and in the course of the employment. Left unrebutted and uncontested, the worker is entitled to benefits. However, employers may rebut the presumption via three avenues:

1. Demonstrating that it complied with recommended CDC or Illinois Public Health guidelines in the 14 days prior to the diagnosis (including sanitation, masks, other protective gear, barriers, social distancing, etc.)

2. Presenting evidence claimant contracted the virus elsewhere; or

3. Demonstrating the claimant worked solely from home or was off work at the employer’s facility in the 14 days prior to the Covid-19 diagnosis.

In our view, this Respondent offered fairly substantial evidence to adequately rebut the presumption of exposure under the first item above. The Arbitrator actually commended Respondent’s efforts, which included hand-washing stations, masks, limited in-person meeting attendance, contact tracing, as well as a significant financial commitment to Covie-19 response and safety. In fact, defense evidence was sufficient to compel the Arbitrator to find Respondent to have successfully rebutted the presumption of work-place exposure. However,  this is not an automatic “win” for Respondent… the successful rebuttal of the presumed workplace exposure simply returns the burden of proof to Petitioner and the Arbitrator weighs the totality of evidence, as would be considered in any claim.

While Respondent implemented several protections for workplace safety, it was noted that a number of these measures were taken after Petitioner was already infected. There was also no evidence to suggest an exposure occurred outside of work. Notably, at least one co-worker confirmed to be infected before Petitioner, who would have been in relatively close contact with that worker each day.

In our view, this may be (and continue to be) the most persuasive element for Commission consideration in these claims. Absent evidence of direct exposure outside of work (e.g., evidence that a family member was positive just before the claimant), we believe it will continue to be challenging to defend an IL Covid-19 claim where direct evidence exists of co-worker infection just prior to claimant’s illness.

Covid-19 claims are certainly a challenge for IL Respondents, particularly for claims made during the rebuttable presumption period. The rebuttable presumption will apply to all cases in which the diagnosis of COVID-19 was made on or after March 9, 2020, and on or before June 30, 2021 when Exec. Order 2020-10 expired. Regardless of when the claim of infection is asserted, a thorough investigation is critical to the defense of the claim, just as with any work injury or exposure alleged. In addition to demonstrating safety protocols at the workplace, an employer’s ability to demonstrate the absence of any other positive Covid-19 employees may be the key to establishing a sufficient defense worthy of denial. Absent the evidence of other co-workers’ infection(s) prior to Petitioner, the Arbitrator may have had a much more difficult time finding sufficient basis to award benefits in this case. The Covid-19 positive co-workers may often prove the “smoking gun” triggering an award. Therefore, a thorough investigation is key.

This article was researched and written by John P. Campbell, Jr., partner at Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Associates, LLC. We appreciate your thoughts and comments, please post them on our award-winning blog at www.keefe-law.com/blog.

                -----------------------------------------------

Synopsis: “When Congress is in Session, no one is safe” -Mark Twain

Editor’s Comment: A series of new (and one old) Illinois laws went into effect on January 1st 2023. These new and fully enacted IL laws address workplace issues and employers in this State should be aware of each:

Time Off for Miscarriage (SB 3120)

Permits women who have a miscarriage, still birth, or other adverse diagnosis affecting pregnancy or fertility to use up to 10 days of unpaid leave.

Safer Food Prep (HB209)

Latex gloves are now banned for use in handling and preparing food, as well as for emergency responders like paramedics, reducing risk of reaction for people with latex allergies.

Crown Act (SB 3616)

This new addition to the Illinois Human Rights Act is intended to address hair discrimination in the workplace. We are not making this one up folks. In our view, this one is really pushing the boundaries of what should qualify as a “protected right”.

This law prohibits discrimination/adverse employment decisions based on hair texture and protective hairstyles like braids, locks and twists. Perhaps well-intended, but in our view, this law exemplifies the micro-management tendencies of the very liberal IL State Legislature over employers which have a cumulative suffocating effect on Illinois business. We will be sure to watch and report on the first IL. Department of Human Rights case litigated over a bad haircut…

Family Bereavement Leave Act (“FBLA”)

This new went into effect on January 1, 2023. It broadens the scope of the Child Bereavement Leave Act by covering additional family members and reasons for leave. The FBLA requires that covered employers (i.e., employers with 50 or more employees during 20 or more workweeks in the current or previous calendar year) provide up to 10 workdays of unpaid leave to eligible employees who are absent due to any of the following: (1) a miscarriage; (2) an unsuccessful intrauterine insemination or assisted reproductive technology procedure; (3) a failed adoption; (4) an adoption match that is not finalized because it was not contested; (5) a failed surrogacy agreement; (6) a diagnosis that negatively impacts pregnancy or fertility; or (7) a stillbirth.

The FBLA also requires employers to provide 10 workdays of unpaid leave for employees attending the funeral of, grieving the death of, or making arrangements due to the death of a “covered family member.” Under the FBLA, a “covered family member” includes children, stepchildren, spouses, domestic partners, siblings, parents, parents-in-law, grandchildren, grandparents, and stepparents.

An employer may require the employee provide documentation supporting the leave request, but the employer cannot require that the employee identify which category of leave they are requesting to take under the FBLA.

To be eligible for leave under the FBLA, an employee must have 1) been employed by the employer for at least one year; 2) worked at least 1,250 hours for the employer during the prior 12-month period; and 3) worked at a worksite with at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius.

IL Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Program

Since 2020, all Illinois employers are required to do an annual Sexual Harassment Prevention Training program. Enforcement rules/requirements are various and sundry.

If you aren’t doing this, bad things may happen in your workplace. If you need help with this program, send a reply.

1-13-2023; Will City of Chicago WC Claims Start to Make Sense Under this Mayoral Administration?; PFLAW Coming to the IL Workplace; New IRS Mileage Rates and more

Synopsis: Will City of Chicago WC Claims Start to Make Sense Under this Mayoral Administration?

Editor’s comment: For decades, City of Chicago WC claims were mis-managed by a former Alderman who is now facing federal criminal charges. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges and trial is set for the fall.

In my opinion, this Alderman used the WC system along with the police/fire disability program to recruit and help political cronies—he is not facing any charges for those actions. The saddest and most obvious example of this mis=management technique was a police cadet who was placed on disability while in the Academy and remained on the dole for decades, using his disability pay to put himself through law school and then started a law practice in the south suburbs. If you want details, send a reply.

Now that the former Alderman has been charged, he is no longer seeking office and the City’s WC program is being run much more professionally. For one thing, a national WC claims management group is now handling the claims. We hope they are bringing claims to a reasonable close and City workers aren’t allowed to get life-time or decades-long benefits from City taxpayers. In my view, they are cutting City WC claims costs to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars because the politics have been removed from claims management.

With that in mind, I can report the Illinois Appellate Court, WC Division recently upheld a determination that an injured worker was not entitled to wage-differential benefits, penalties or fees, but said further proceedings are necessary to determine the employer’s entitlement to a credit.

Claimant Haepp worked for the City of Chicago as a carpenter. He allegedly injured his left knee at work in May 2010, and again in January 2011. Haepp filed two separate workers’ compensation claims, which were consolidated for a hearing before an arbitrator. The arbitrator found Haepp sustained compensable injuries on each of the alleged dates and awarded him temporary total disability benefits. The arbitrator also awarded attorney fees and penalties for the 2010 injury, but not for the 2011 injury.

The IL Workers' Compensation Commission panel affirmed the award for the 2010 injury and modified the award for the 2011 injury to include an award of penalties and fees. Neither party appealed from this decision.

In 2014, Haepp filed two more workers’ compensation claims; one for a hernia and one for a right shoulder injury. The two claims were consolidated and an arbitrator found both injuries were compensable. The arbitrator awarded permanent partial disability benefits, along with penalties and fees.

The IL Workers’ Compensation Commission panel made some modifications to the arbitrator’s decision, but upheld it. A circuit court judge then confirmed the Commission’s decision.

Haepp appealed, seeking additional benefits, penalties and fees. Among other things he argued that the Commission erred as a matter of law by failing to award him lifetime wage-differential benefits.

The IL Appellate Court, WC Division said the Commission’s decision to award permanent partial disability benefits instead of wage-differential benefits was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court explained wage-differential benefits are available to a worker who can prove an impairment of earning capacity by showing actual earnings for a substantial period before the accident and after returning to work with or without “reasonable accommodation” required by the ADA. Section 8(d-1) of the IL WC Act provides such benefits.

Here, the Appellate Court noted, Haepp had permanent work restrictions, but he was able to continue working for the City as a union carpenter, earning the identical compensation as the all other union carpenters. The Court also said the Commission did not err in discounting the opinion of Haepp’s vocational expert since he failed to identify any jobs similar to Haepp’s chosen field of work, and completely disregarded Haepp’s prior work experience.

The decision states “In our view, the Commission's finding that Claimant failed to establish an impairment of earning capacity was a reasonable determination based on the evidence presented at the arbitration hearing.” The Court went on to find that Haepp did not establish an entitlement to additional penalties or fees, as his arguments pertaining to these issues were not clearly defined and were not supported by sufficient authority to warrant consideration.

The Court also said it was unclear from the record whether the Commission had intended to award the City a credit for medical expenses paid by Haepp’s group health insurance. The arbitrator sustained Haepp’s objection to the admission of a document that itemized the benefits and payments made by group health insurance, the Court said, and the Arbitrator found the city failed to prove entitlement to a credit. The Commission’s decision did not address the credit issue other than stating that the city "shall receive credit for medical bills paid through its group medical plan.” Under these circumstances, the Court said, the matter would have to go back to the Commission to clarify its decision on the issue of the city’s entitlement to credit.

I salute the august members of the IL Appellate Court for a solid and well-written decision. I also salute current Mayor Lightfoot for her professionalism in dealing with the City’s WC claims.

To read the court’s decision in Haepp v. IWCC, No. 1-21-0634WC, 12/09/2022, published, click here. I appreciate your thoughts and comments, please post them on our award-winning blog.

Synopsis: Illinois Passes A New Bill, Starting Next New Year’s Day, Guaranteeing Up to 1 Week of Paid Leave for All Workers. Please note it isn’t necessarily “sick leave.”

Editor’s comment: As I have advised my readers, Illinois is a one-party State and will be for a generation. In my view, it is going to be almost impossible to block social legislation like this, regardless of the costs or impact on Illinois business.

On January 10, 2023, the Illinois legislature passed the Paid Leave for All Workers (PLFAW) Act, making Illinois just the third state in the U.S. to require private employers to provide earned paid leave to employees to be used for any reason. Our Governor signed it.

The PLFAW Act will take effect on next year on January 1, 2024, and, once enacted, will provide nearly all Illinois workers with a minimum of 40 hours of paid leave, or a pro rata number of hours, during a designated twelve-month period. Employers can choose to frontload the leave on the first day of employment or the first day of a designated twelve-month period, or use an accrual method. Under the new Act, leave accrues at the rate of one hour of paid leave for every forty hours worked. The law will deem exempt employees to have worked 40 hours in each workweek for purposes of PLFAW Act accrual, unless their regular workweeks are less than 40 hours. Once enacted, the law will permit employees to use the PLFAW Act leave after 90 days on the job, unless an employer allows them to utilize leave earlier. Employees may determine how much leave to use, but employers may set a reasonable minimum of increment of no less than two hours per day.

The law will not require employees to give a reason for taking leave, and employers will not be permitted to require any documentation or certification of the need to take leave. Employers may require up to seven calendar days’ notice of foreseeable leave if they have a written policy provided to employees outlining notice requirements and procedures. If the leave is not foreseeable, employees must provide notice as soon as practicable.

Rate of Pay While on Paid Leave

Leave under the law will be paid at the employee’s hourly rate of pay for the hours of paid leave he or she takes. An employee who is paid gratuities and commissions must be paid at least the full minimum wage for the jurisdiction, or their hourly rate, whichever is greater.

Carry-over if Leave is Unused

Unused accrued PLFAW Act leave will carry over annually, but the employer will not be required to provide more than 40 hours of paid leave for an employee in the designated twelve-month period. Employers that choose to frontload the 40 hours will not be required to carry over unused paid leave to the next twelve-month period.

Termination of Employment

While the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act requires employers to pay out earned vacation time at the end of the employment relationship, the PLFAW Act expressly states IL employers will not need to pay unused paid leave under the PLFAW Act at the end of the benefit year or any other time, provided the employer has not credited PLFAW Act leave to an employee’s paid time off bank or employee vacation account. The new law will require employers to restore the PLFAW Act leave of employees who leave their employers but return to the same employer within twelve months.

Records

The law will require employers to create records documenting hours worked, leave accrued and taken, and remaining paid leave balances. Such records must be maintained for at least three years, and employers must allow the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) access to the records. Employers that provide PLFAW Act leave on an accrual basis must provide notice of the amount of leave accrued or used by an employee upon request. Failure to comply with the recordkeeping requirements subjects employers to a penalty of $2,500 per offense.

Posting Requirement

The law will require employers to post, where other notices are customarily posted, a notice (that IDOL will prepare) summarizing the requirements of the act and giving information on filing a charge. Employers that have workforces comprised of a significant portion of workers who do not read English will be required to request a notice in the appropriate language from IDOL. Violations of the posting requirements would subject employers to a penalty of $500 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent violation.

Retaliation

The PLFAW Act, once enacted, will prohibit employers from taking adverse action against employees for:

• Exercising their rights under the PLFAW Act;

• Opposing practices the employee believes to be in violation of the PLFAW Act; or

• Supporting others’ exercise of rights under the PLFAW Act.

• In addition, the law prohibits employers from considering the use of leave under the PLFAW Act in making discipline, promotion, or evaluation decisions.

Remedies

The Il Department of Labor will be responsible for administering and enforcing the PLFAW Act. Employees may file complaints with the IDOL within three years of the alleged violation. Employers found to violate the PLFAW Act are subject to actual damages, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees/costs, and civil penalties, as well as being subject to equitable relief. The IDOL can conduct investigations and refer matters to hearing. The state attorney general may enforce the collection of awards.

Exclusions

The New Act does not affect the validity or change the terms of bona fide collective bargaining agreements in effect on January 1, 2024. After January 1, 2024, the requirements may be waived by a collective bargaining agreement only if the agreement includes a clear and unambiguous waiver. The law does not apply to:

• school districts or park districts;

• students employed on a part-time, temporary basis by the college or university they attend;

• short-term employees of higher education institutions who are employed for less than two consecutive calendar quarters during a calendar year without a reasonable expectation that they will be rehired in a subsequent calendar year;

• employees working in the construction industry covered by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement;

• employees covered by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement with an employer that provides national or international services of delivery, pickup, and transportation of parcels, documents, and freight; or

• employers covered by municipal or county ordinances in effect on January 1, 2024, that provide for paid leave or paid sick leave. After January 1, 2024, any municipal or county ordinance enacted or amended must comply with the Act or give greater protections to employees.

Next Steps for IL Employers

While employers have about a year to prepare for the PLFAW Act to take effect, employers may want to consider thinking through processes and policies now. While employers that already have paid leave policies that provide at least forty hours of leave per year are not required to modify their policies as long as the leave can be taken for any reason, employers may want to consider creating a policy specifically addressing the PLFAW Act and may want to change existing accrual policies.

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

Synopsis: IRS announces new mileage rates for your WC claims.

Editor’s comment: Please note this mileage rate is used for IL WC IME’s making it important to IL WC claims handlers. I don’t agree with that focus, as IRS publishes a “medical” rate but it isn’t worth fighting over it.

The IRS announced the 2023 business standard mileage rate is increasing to 65.5 cents, up 3 cents from the 2022 midyear adjustment of 62.5 cents. The agency made the rare midyear change in June—in addition to a regular annual adjustment announced last December that put the rate at 58.5 cents per mile for the first six months of 2022—as a way to combat inflation and high gas prices that have been taking a toll on employees.

The 2023 mileage rate took effect Jan. 1. In addition to the 65.5 cents per mile driven for business use, the IRS also announced the standard mileage rate for 2023 will be:

• 22 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes for qualified active-duty members of the armed forces, consistent with the increased midyear rate set for the second half of 2022.

• 14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations; the rate is set by statute and remains unchanged from 2022.

These rates apply to electric and hybrid-electric automobiles, as well as gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, the IRS announced.