8-31-2023; Shawn Biery, Esq. Issues His Updated IL WC Rate Chart; Crossing Guard Gets Benefits From Fall-Down in Public Parking Before Getting to Work and more

Synopsis: AS WE HEAD TO 2024—IL WC BENEFIT RATES STILL SPIRAL UP WITH THE HUMIDITY??—SHAWN BIERY’S UPDATED IL WC RATE SHEETS AVAILABLE FOR ACCURATE RATES AND RESERVING!!! 

Editor’s comment: The IWCC hasn’t posted a new TTD rate going into 2024 but other WC rates stayed the same.

Our PPD max doesn’t update until 2024 regardless, so find attached the new SRB rate chart.

FYI, Illinois WC rates have updated again so please be aware of the New IL WC Rates or your claims handling will suffer and penalties may ensue. Please also note that the IL State Min Wage is now $13 per hour and will rise another dollar in 127 days on New Year’s Day, 2024. With the already mandated increases over the next few years wages are sure to go up to $15/hr in January 2025, we will see the IL WC rates again increase for sure. You may also note the City of Chicago’s minimum wage is already $15 per hour—this is important in IL WC wage differential claims.

If you look online at https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0452150045#c16, you may note our IL WC rates are double or more than our sister States and because of the statutory increases built into the IL WC Act, this anti-business disparity will only increase. It clearly appears our IL WC Rates are going up much faster than inflation.

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

As we have mentioned in the past, since the 1980’s, the IL WC Act provides a formula which effectively insures no matter how poor the IL economy is doing, WC rates continue to climb.

As we indicate above, rising minimum wages will strip value from Illinois’ expensive wage loss differential claims. We feel reserves and settlements need to reflect the legislative boost to anyone who has any job. If you aren’t sure how this works, send a reply to Shawn or Gene Keefe.

We caution our readers to pay attention to the fact the IL WC statutory maximum PPD rate is $998.02. However, this rate is only going to be valid through June 30, 2023 and the new max PPD will be published in January 2021. When it will be published in January 2024, this rate will change retroactively from July 1, 2023 forward. At that time, if you don’t make the change, your reserves will be incorrect--if this isn’t clear, send a reply.

The current TTD weekly maximum has risen to $1,861.18. An IL worker has to make over $2,791.77 per week or $145,172.04 per year to hit the new IL WC maximum TTD rate.

For WC Death Benefits: The new IL WC minimum has sped past the $750k floor for surviving widows/widowers. That amount is now 25 years of compensation or $672.28 per week x 52 weeks in a year x 25 years or $873,964.00! The new maximum IL WC death benefit is now over $2 million at the max $1,861.18 times 52 weeks times 25 years or a lofty $2,419,534 plus burial benefits of $8K. IL WC death benefits also come with annual COLA increases which we feel can potentially make Illinois the highest in the U.S. for WC death claims—again if you aren’t sure about this issue, send a reply to Shawn or Gene.

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

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

Synopsis: Crossing Guard Gets IL WC Benefits for Injuries From Fall in Public Parking Lot Before Getting to Work Because Police Patrol It?

Editor’s comment: The Illinois Appellate Court, WC Division reversed the Circuit Court and reinstated a decision of the IL Workers’ Compensation Commission finding a crossing guard was entitled to benefits for her injuries from a fall as she exited her car to go to work.

Claimant MacDonnell-Dayhoff worked as a crossing guard for the Village of Western Springs Police Department. MacDonnell-Dayhoff arrived for work at around 7:30 a.m. and parked in an angled space directly across from the Village Hall. She testified that she frequently parked in one of the commuter spaces across from the hall because they were close to where she worked as a crossing guard, even though there are two employee-designated lots behind the hall not for use by the general public.

The space in which MacDonnell-Dayhoff parked was for commuter train passengers and are available for use by the general public. Claimant gave the Village her license plate number so that the police patrolling the commuter parking lot would not issue a citation.

MacDonnell-Dayhoff admitted she could park anywhere she wanted and that no one from the Village told her where to park. There also appears to be no dispute she was not on the clock and was not performing any tasks of employment as a crossing guard.

As she was stepping out of her vehicle, MacDonnell-Dayhoff slipped on ice and fell, injuring her wrist.

An IL WC arbitrator found MacDonnell-Dayhoff had not sustained an injury from an accident that arose out of and in the course of her employment, since she parked on a public street in a space open to the general public and not designated solely for Village employees, and she fell at a point well away from her crossing guard post. 

The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission panel reversed, finding MacDonnell-Dayhoff’s accident compensable, since she fell in a parking space patrolled by her employer. FYI, I feel we can safely assume Village police patrol all Village parking lots.

The Circuit Court overturned the IWCC’s decision, finding the accident did not arise out of and in the course of MacDonnell-Dayhoff’s employment.

The Illinois Appellate Court explained for an injury to “arise out of” the employment, its origin must be in some risk connected with, or incidental to, the employment. "In the course of the employment" refers to the time, place and circumstances under which the worker is injured, the court ruled. Generally, the court said, when an employee slips and falls while walking to work at a point off the employer's premises, the resulting injuries do not arise out of and in the course of her employment and are not compensable. This is known as the “general premises rule.”

There is an exception to the rule when the employee is injured in a parking lot provided by and under the control of the employer, and the injury is caused by some hazardous condition in the lot. Another exception applies when the employee is injured at a place where she was required to be in the performance of her duties and is exposed to a risk common to the general public to a greater degree than others.

The Appellate Court declined to find that a municipal employer's premises for purposes of determining the compensability of an injury incurred while traveling to work would include all streets and sidewalks throughout the municipality.

“We believe that a municipal employer's ‘premises’ in the context of a workers' compensation claim includes only a place where the injured employee reasonably might be in the performance of his or her duties and any place incident thereto, including employer-provided parking areas,” the court said. “It does not include all property owned by the municipality regardless of its connection to the performance of an injured employee's duties.”

Here, the Appellate Court said, the IWCC’s conclusion that MacDonnell-Dayhoff fell in an employer-provided parking space was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

From my perspective and in my respectful opinion, this decision is challenging to understand. Claimant fell in a public parking lot from a risk every parker in that lot would face every day. The only justification that I can see is the Western Springs Police Department didn’t ticket her for parking in the commuter lot that clearly was open to the public. I consider that a very tenuous and confusing basis for compensability, particularly in light of the many “rules” the IL Appellate Court cites that would support denial but then this ruling appears to ignore the cited rules completely.

To read the court’s decision in Western Springs Police Department v. IWCC, No. 1-21-1574WC, 01/13/2023, published, click here.

8-14-23; Indiana WC Board Testing New PPI Portal Starting Right Now; IL Appellate Court, WC Div Orders Some Medical For Police Officer But Not All; IL WC Arbitrators Coming/Going and more

Synopsis: Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board is Testing a new PPI Submission Portal Starting Now, 8/14/23. Article and analysis by our IN WC Defense Team Leader, Kevin Boyle, J.D.

Editor’s comment: IWCB is doing voluntary testing of their PPI Submission Portal for the rest of August 2023, and it will be mandatory by October 1, 2023.

Today, August 14th, 2023, the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board will begin testing a PPI Submission Portal.

The Board anticipated that it will be available for use by all adjusters on September 1, 2023. Your Indiana adjusters may receive email blasts before the “go live” date. The portal will only be an available to adjusters for the time being. 

We caution use of the new PPI Portal to submit PPIs will become mandatory on October 1, 2023. Please immediately start needed processes for this important change.

The PPI Submission Portal will be accessed through Gateway. The PPI Portal will allow adjusters to not only submit all documentation including the State Form 1043, Medical Report and Waiver electronically, but to monitor the status of each submission, once accepted, through review and IWCB approval. There also will be a Help document available on the Board’s website as well as on Gateway.

For more details, here’s a link to the 15 page Gateway User Guide that explains it all, too:

https://www.in.gov/wcb/files/PPI-Adjuster-portal-user-guide_July-2023.pdf

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Feel free to ask any questions or concerns from Kevin at kboyle@keefe-law.com. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

Synopsis: IL WC Appellate Court rules East St. Louis Police Officer Gets WC Medical Expenses for Knee, Back, but Not Hip. See Gene’s Thoughts on How to Handle Such Claims, Moving Forward.

Editor’s comment: In East St. Louis Police Department v. IWCC, No. 5-22-0536WC, 05/22/2023, unpublished, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that an injured police officer was not entitled to an award of payment for medical expenses for the treatment of his left hip, but he was entitled to awards for treatment of his left knee and lumbar spine.

Claimant Franklin suffered injuries in August 2018 while working as an East St. Louis police officer. According to Franklin, he injured his back, left knee and bilateral hips when he tackled a person running from the scene of a traffic stop.

The East St. Louis Police Department conceded Franklin had sustained injuries that arose out of and in the course of his employment, but it contended that his condition was not causally related to the August 2018 incident. Claimant Franklin had problems with his hips, spine and left knee that predated the August 2018 incident, and they were the subject of two previous workers' compensation claims. From what I can tell in research, Claimant Franklin had ten prior IL WC claims against the same Department.

Prior to the event in question, in 2013 to 2016, Dr. Mall repeatedly recommended surgery to repair a tear of the anterior cruciate ligament in Franklin’s left knee, but he declined the procedure when he learned that it would not be covered by his workers’ compensation benefits. From 2016, when Claimant last saw Mall, until August 2018, Franklin performed his full, unrestricted duties. Until the August 2018 incident, Franklin asserted, he experienced no symptoms from the ACL tear. After the incident, Franklin claimed his knee became unstable, causing him to trip or lose his balance.

Dr. Pitts reported no evidence that the left knee had been aggravated by the August 2018 incident, but Dr. Paletta  opined the event “aggravated” the preexisting pathology. Dr. Robson opined that the incident had caused a temporary exacerbation of Claimant Franklin’s degenerative disc disease in his spine, but Dr. Gornet testified an aggravation of the lumbar spine was evident in the before-and-after diagnostic studies.

An IL WC Arbitrator heard the claim and found the opinions of Drs. Paletta and Gornet to be credible, but she found Claimant Franklin lacked credibility. The Arbitrator found a causal relationship between the August 2018 incident and the conditions of Franklin’s lumbar spine and left knee. She found no causal relationship for Franklin’s hip condition.

The Arbitrator awarded all past medical expenses for which Claimant Franklin sought reimbursement, including those for treatment of the cervical spine and the left hip, and for diagnostic procedures on the right hip, as well as future medical expenses for treatment of the lumbar spine, left knee and right hip. The Arbitrator also awarded temporary total disability benefits through August 2018, when Franklin declined an offer of light-duty work within restrictions.

On administrative review, the IL Workers’ Compensation Commission panel affirmed the Arbitrator's findings on causation and the award of medical benefits, except the award of prospective medical expenses for the right hip. The Commission panel said an award of future medical expenses for a mere strain of the right hip was unwarranted.

The Commission panel also extended TTD benefits through the date of the arbitration hearing and struck language from the arbitration decision that required the Police Department to indemnify Franklin from any claims by health providers or third parties arising from expenses for which they claimed credit.

A circuit court judge confirmed the Commission panel’s decision.

On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court, WC Division noted even though Franklin took the position that a magnetic resonance imaging scan of his neck was related to the August 2018 incident, he declined to seek compensation for medical expenses associated with treatment of his neck. Thus, the Court ruled, the question of whether the Police Department should pay bills for the treatment of Franklin’s neck was not a contested issue and no causation conclusion was required.

The Appellate Court said it was unclear why the arbitrator's decision omitted a causation conclusion on the left hip, though, since Franklin alleged an injury, and the parties requested a written decision on this issue. Since the Arbitrator's decision lacked a finding of fact as to whether the condition of the left hip was causally related to the August 2018 incident, the Court ruled, the Commission panel lacked authority to order the payment of medical expenses without a finding of fact and conclusion of law from which the order results.

The Court ruled the Commission panel did not make a finding that was against the manifest weight of the evidence by finding that the August 2018 incident aggravated the preexisting problem in Franklin’s left knee or finding the incident had aggravated his low-back condition.

The Commission’s award of TTD benefits through the date of the arbitration hearing was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, either, the Court ruled, since the treating physician opined Franklin was physically incapable of any work.

In short, the portion of the Commission's decision ordering payment of medical expenses for treatment of the left hip was vacated and the circuit court's judgment was reversed insofar as it affirms that portion of the Commission’s decision.

From Your Editor--Consider a 911 Desk Job for Police/Fire Claimants Like This

My advice to Village/City/Town administrators in dealing with Claimants like Mr. Franklin is to transition them to 911 Desk jobs. Please consider Claimant Franklin has at least 10 IL WC claims at whatever cost. While we don’t want him to be injured again, it would appear he is almost certain to have another and another, ad infinitum. I would feel any active police work would aggravate something and he is going to again be on the dole.

Right now, as you read this, www.indeed.com has 28 pending East St. Louis area police dispatch jobs that would be perfect for such claimants. All of them pay well and have solid benefits. There are always openings, all across our State. As Claimant Franklin is a trained police officer, you wouldn’t have to train him in “cop talk” to man a 911 line. Please also note the 911 desk job will allow a worker to stand or sit at their option—there are headsets that can be worn during 911 desk duty. The position is sedentary with options for changing positions.

https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=Emergency+Dispatcher&l=East+Saint+Louis%2C+IL&from=mobRdr&utm_source=%2Fm%2F&utm_medium=redir&utm_campaign=dt&vjk=b23e3c28caf632ab

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

Synopsis: Some Current IL WC Arbitrators re-appointed; Some Depart and Two New Ones Enter the IL WC Fray.

Editor’s comment: On Friday, July 21, 2023, Governor JB Pritzker announced the reappointment of the following Arbitrators:

Jeanne AuBuchon                                        Paul-Eric Seal

Linda Jean Cantrell                                      Rachael Sinnen

Bradley Gillespie                                          Charles Watts

Gerald Napleton                                            Raychel Wesley

We congratulate each of the Arbitrators on their reappointment.

Arbitrators David Kane and Steven Fruth have announced their retirement, effective at the end of the month. Arbitrator Kane has been in that job since 1990! We congratulate Arbitrator Kane and Arbitrator Fruth and wish them good health and happiness upon their retirement.

Finally, Governor Pritzker has appointed two new Arbitrators to serve upon the retirement of Arbitrators Fruth and Kane. The new Arbitrators are:

Jennifer E. Bae

Ms. Bae has been a practicing attorney, with more than 25 years of experience, in various capacities. She is currently the Director of Employee Discipline for the Cook County Sheriff’s Office. As the Director, she is responsible for the handling of disciplinary matters for the more than 6000 employees of the office. She has acted in this capacity since 2019.

In the past, she has been self employed as a private practitioner, worked as a Staff Attorney for the City of Chicago, was a Member of the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board and worked as an Assistant State’s Attorney in Cook County. As an ASA, she worked in the Appellate, Traffic and Domestic Violence Divisions. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School.

James Byrnes

Mr. Byrnes has been a practicing attorney for more than 30 years, with an emphasis on workers’ compensation matters. He is currently a partner at the firm of Ganan & Shapiro, in Chicago. He has been with the firm since 2002.

Mr. Byrnes has previously been an Associate Attorney at the firms of Freeborn & Peters and the Law Office of Patricia Cassiday. Additionally, Mr. Byrnes was a Staff Attorney at the IWCC, working with then Commissioner Linzey Jones, Jr. As is evident, Mr. Byrnes has a long career in the workers’ compensation field. He earned his Juris Doctorate Degree at the University of Illinois.

We congratulate Ms. Bae and Mr. Byrnes on their appointment. We are certain they will bring strong professionalism, accuracy and fairness to their new posts.

8-10-2023; New Law Allows Observer Attendance at WC IME's with Video; Staffing Agency management in our State Just Changed with New Law; Murder at Arby's--Does WC Act Block Negligent Hiring Claim

Synopsis: New IL Law Allows Observer(s) Attendance at Work Comp IME's with Video.

Editor’s comment: IL SB 1748 was signed by the Governor and is now law. We assume but cannot confirm the driving force behind this change is ITLA or the IL Trial Lawyers Association that is one of the biggest political donor organizations in this State. The new legislation says:

Section 5. The Code of Civil Procedure is amended by changing Sections 2-1003 and 2-1007.1 as follows:

    (735 ILCS 5/2-1003)  (from Ch. 110, par. 2-1003)

    Sec. 2-1003. Discovery and depositions.

    (a) Discovery, such as admissions of fact and of genuineness of documents, physical and mental examinations of parties and other persons, the taking of any depositions, and

interrogatories, shall be in accordance with rules.

    (b) (Blank).

    (c) (Blank).

    (d) Whenever the defendant in any litigation in this State has the right to demand a physical or mental examination of the plaintiff pursuant to statute or Supreme Court Rule, relative to the occurrence and extent of injuries or damages for which claim is made, or in connection with the plaintiff's capacity to exercise any right plaintiff has, or would have but for a finding based upon such examination, the plaintiff has the right to have his or her attorney, or such other person as the plaintiff may wish, present at such physical or mental examination. The plaintiff also has the right to designate an additional person to be present and video record the examination. The changes to this Section by this amendatory Act of the 103rd General Assembly apply to actions commenced or pending on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 103rd General Assembly.

We are confident this new legislative language applies to IL WC claims. It is possible IME doctors may increase their charges to deal with three folks being in their examination rooms.

An issue this new law might create is a possible malpractice action against a Claimant lawyer who doesn’t take advantage of the law to have someone present and/or video an IME.

If this practice becomes widespread, it would end the silly assertion, particularly from some Claimant attorneys in southern IL, that an IME doctor only saw the examinee for a couple of minutes. The duration of the IME would be documented in the video.

Please also note the video may show Claimant acting in a fashion contradictory to their claim. I have reviewed WC IME’s where the examinee outlined an injury to the wrong side of their body!

We asked an IME doc who we consider to be extraordinarily knowledgeable about this situation and got this response:

I’ve have IME’s videotaped on occasion, usually in personal injury cases and not WC. I have no issue with being recorded. I do a very typical and straightforward evaluation and I’ve nothing to hide. On occasion, the video captures inconsistencies or shows the patient doing something they has said that they are unable to do. There is almost always a rep from the patient’s lawyer’s office as well, and that is also fine for me. I do set ground rules that any observer has to be completely mute, cannot gesture or make any other actions that might direct the patient’s responses. I tell the rep/observer they get one warning, and if they ‘coach’ a second time I would stop the exam, but that has never been an issue.

My recommendation for everyone who has to deal with any controversy about this new law is to take it to the Arbitrator assigned. Our IL WC Arbitrators are aware of the new law and I am sure they will act in a professional and fair manner to resolve any dispute.

We seek your thoughts and comments. Please do not hesitate to post them on our award-winning blog at keefe-law.com/blog

Synopsis: HB 2862 becomes IL law greatly changing Staffing Agency management in our State.

Editor’s comment: IL House Bill 2862 is now the law in this State and was effective as of July 1, 2023. This bill creates significant changes to the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act (820 ILCS 175/).

Like most changes to IL law, there was no crying need for any of this and it continues IL anti-business and pro-litigation trend.

Among various changes, here are the major issues all Staffing Co. Managers will need to memorize:

• Right of Workers to Refuse Assignments to Third-Party Client Locations Where Labor Disputes Exist

Staffing agencies may not send a worker to a client where there is a pending strike, lockout, or other labor issue without informing the worker, in writing and in a language understood by the worker, of the labor dispute and the worker’s right to refuse the assignment “without prejudice to receiving another assignment.”

• Equal Pay for Equal Work

Staffing agency workers assigned to a client for more than ninety calendar days must be paid, by the staffing agency, at least the rate of pay along with equivalent benefits as the lowest-paid directly hired employee of the client performing at the same level of seniority and the same or substantially similar work.

Comparative work includes “substantially similar skill, effort, and responsibility … performed under similar working conditions.”

• Requirement of Labor Agencies and Third-Party Clients to Take Steps to Provide Oversight of Worker Safety

Staffing agencies have a statutory responsibility to provide some safety oversight of workers at third-party client worksites.  The third-party client also has related safety responsibilities under the amendments.

• Illinois Attorney General Can Now Seek Suspension or Revocation of Registration of a Staffing Agency for Violating the Act

It has long been unlawful under the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act for a staffing agency to operate without registering with the State of Illinois. Now, the Illinois attorney general will have the authority to request that a circuit court suspend or revoke the registration of a staffing agency for violating the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act.

• Civil Penalties May Be Brought by “Interested Parties”

If an interested party has a reasonable belief that a staffing agency or client violated the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act, the party may bring a civil action in a county where the alleged offenses occurred after exhausting remedies with the Illinois Department of Labor.

• Increased Registration Fees and Penalties

The annual fee to register a labor agency with the Illinois Department of Labor has tripled to $3,000 per agency (up from $1,000) and $750 for each branch office (up from $250).  A staffing agency or client that violates the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act will be subject to increased penalties.

From a WC perspective, remember both the staffing agency and its client are jointly responsible for work injuries. Primary liability is with the employer at the time of the injury, unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. If you need help with any staffing agency WC issue, send a reply.

We seek your thoughts and comments. Please do not hesitate to post them on our award-winning blog at keefe-law.com/blog

Synopsis: Murder at Arby’s—Does the IL WC Act Block a Negligent Hiring Claim?

Editor’s comment: IL WC Exclusive Remedy Provision Bars Mother's Suit Over Son's Murder by Co-Worker

In Price v. Lunan Roberts Inc., et. als, No. 1-22-0742, issued 08/08/2023, Decedent Price and an individual named Thomas were the only employees working the night shift at an Arby's restaurant in Hickory Hills, IL. Surveillance video showed Thomas clocked in for his shift at 10:04 p.m. About two minutes later, Price was seen on video gesturing toward Thomas. Thomas walked away from where he was preparing food and exited the surveillance camera. When Thomas returned into view of the camera, he was carrying a kitchen knife. 

The video depicted Thomas grabbing Price and he stabbed him several times. Decedent Price was able to escape through the back door but died as a result of his injuries, having suffered 27 stab wounds. Thomas fled but was later arrested and charged with murder.

Decedent Price’s mother filed suit against Arby's and Thomas. She alleged Defendants were liable for the negligent hiring, retention and supervision of their employees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case and later filed a motion for summary judgment. They argued they were not liable because the mother’s exclusive remedy was under whatever coverage might be provided in the IL Workers' Compensation Act.

The trial judge granted the motion and an appeal was perfected before the IL WC Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court ruling explained the Workers' Compensation Act generally serves as the exclusive remedy for a person who is injured during the course of employment. However, when the injury results from a personal conflict between employees unrelated to their work, the Workers' Compensation Act may not bar a civil suit. In this case, the mother argued there was evidence that the murder was the result of a purely personal dispute between Price and Thomas. According to their supervisor, Price and Thomas frequently discussed video games during their shift. Price also sometimes gave Thomas rides home from work and gave him a portable video game console.

A forensic examination of Price's phone revealed text messages with an unknown person and appeared to reference drug transactions and indicated the unknown person was involved in similar transactions with Thomas. But the mother also admitted she did not know of any personal disputes between Thomas and her son. During the course of the criminal case against Thomas, no motive was conclusively established for his actions, either.

“The fact that Price and Thomas had some degree of a personal relationship does not mean that the incident was caused by a purely personal dispute,” the Appellate Court said. "Even if there is some evidence of a personal relationship between Price and Thomas outside of work, there is no competent evidence in the record that the attack was motivated by a purely personal dispute."

The Appellate Court affirmed denial.

To read the court’s decision, click here.

We seek your thoughts and comments. Please do not hesitate to post them on our award-winning blog at keefe-law.com/blog