1-27-25; Updated IL WC Rate Chart from Shawn Biery, JD; John Campbell on another new law and more

Synopsis: AS WE ARE NOW IN 2025—IL WC BENEFIT RATES STILL SPIRAL HIGHER??— SHAWN BIERY’S UPDATED IL WC RATE SHEETS AVAILABLE FOR ACCURATE WC RATES AND RESERVING!!! 

Editor’s comment: The IWCC has posted a new max TTD rate of almost $2,000 per week going into 2025 and max PPD RATE is growing higher, at $1,045.92.

FYI, Illinois WC rates have updated again so please be aware of the New IL WC Rates or your claims handling will suffer & penalties may ensue. Please also note that the IL State Min Wage also did rise another dollar on New Year’s Day, 2025. On January 1, 2025, the minimum wage in Illinois increased to $15 per hour and $9 per hour for tipped workers. This is the minimum wage for workers 18 years and older, or workers under 18 who work more than 650 hours in a calendar year—this is important in IL WC wage differential claims.

The Illinois WC system still appears to have some of the highest max rates in the entire country. 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 at sbiery@keefe-law.com

We caution our readers to pay attention to the fact the IL WC statutory maximum PPD rate is $1,045.92. However, this rate is retroactive to July 1, 2024 even though published in January 2025. Since this rate did change retroactively from July 1, 2024 forward, you need to check your reserves for cases with accident dates post July 1, 2024!!!!.  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 $1,936.86. An IL worker who earns over $2,905.29 per week or $151,075.08 per year will hit the new IL WC maximum TTD rate.

For WC Death Benefits: The new IL WC minimum still is well past the $900k floor for surviving widows/widowers. That amount is now 25 years of compensation or $726.34 per week x 52 weeks in a year x 25 years or $944,242!! The new maximum IL WC death benefit is over $2.5 million at the max over 25 years of benefits, plus burial benefits of $8K. IL WC death benefits are paid for 1,300 weeks—in contrast, IN WC death benefits are paid for 500 weeks.

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. It is also possible to settle IL WC death benefits for a discounted lump sum—again, if you have interest, send a reply to Shawn.

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    

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

Synopsis: Disability no longer equates to Discounted Pay In Illinois; this change can impact minimum TTD and PPD rates for such claims. Researched and written by John P. Campbell, Jr., JD

Editor’s Comment: Gov. J.B. Pritzker has signed off on a law which will prohibit IL employers from paying less than the minimum wage to workers with disabilities. While well-intended, it may have unforeseen consequences.

Section 14(c) of the FLSA authorizes employers, after receiving a certificate from the Wage and Hour Division, to pay subminimum wages - wages less than the Federal minimum wage - to workers who have disabilities for the work being performed. Organizations receiving the exemption are allowed to pay a “commensurate wage” based on the worker’s individual productivity in proportion to the wage and productivity of workers who do not have disabilities but are performing the same or similar work. In essence, the rule appreciates an adjustment in wages where disabilities may affect productive capacity, such as blindness, mental illness, developmental disabilities, cerebral palsy etc.

While proffered as an equity issue to offer fair wages to the disabled, those opposed to the bill point out that the disabled may be pushed out of the workforce entirely if minimum wage laws are enforced. Some organizations who employ disabled workers as part of their business model, as well as people with family members participating in them, cautioned this new law may drive them out of business. Illinois has almost 60 employers operating under the federal exemption. Those programs employ about 2,500 people, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. If those businesses closed, or the disabled workers are replaced due to equal pay compulsion, it would defeat the well-intended purpose of the law.

To remedy this concern, the bill creates a transition grant program designed to provide financial support for organizations to continue employing people with disabilities while paying them at least the state minimum wage. It also establishes a task force to oversee the transition.

Money for the transition program would come from the Illinois Department of Human Services’ line item for transforming the state’s developmental and intellectual disability system. That line item includes $20 million for various programs for the current fiscal year, but lawmakers and advocates had previously discussed using $2 million to fund the transition grant program.

The impact on the workers’ compensation industry should be relatively moderate, appreciating an increase in wages and therefore benefit rates for qualified workers under this program.

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

12-31-2024; Happy New Year!!!; New and Baffling "Traveling Employee" Appellate Ruling; Illinois' MInimum Wage Will Rise to $15 an hour and much more

Synopsis: Happy New Year to You and All Friends of the Firm!!!

Editor’s comment: It is hard to believe 2024 is coming to a close but we keep on fighting the good fight for Illinois Employers, Insurance Carriers and Government Bodies in the Workers’ Compensation field. If you have IL WC defense files you need to close, please remember our motto—“The Only Good File Is A Closed File!!!” We close them faster than any other WC Defense firm.

 Synopsis: The Illinois Appellate Court, WC Division issues a rather shocking “traveling employee” ruling that is challenging for us to fit into the IL WC matrix when we consider past precedent. Please note this is a multi-million dollar ruling that, to some extent, conflicts with prior rulings of the IL Supreme Court and the IL Appellate Court, WC Division. We are sure this decision isn’t an outlier—it is clearly becoming the law in this State. We are also sure this ruling dramatically expands work comp coverage and the cost of workers’ comp in Illinois.

Editor’s comment: Please also note the traditional and age-old concept of “traveling employee” is supposed to apply to workers who go to foreign countries or distant areas where there are challenging language barriers and customs that you and I might not be aware of. In other States, the concept wasn’t traditionally used for someone who works/drives to normal and ordinary jobs in an area they are familiar with. This Appellate Court, WC Division is greatly expanding that concept at what will be an enormous cost and high reserves for villages/towns and other Illinois employers.

I cannot countenance the logic of this baffling appellate ruling—there is no question Claimant was commuting to and from work and wasn’t actually doing any work when injured. He was not being paid for his time during travel. Numerous and longstanding Illinois appellate rulings and at least one Supreme Court ruling find that typical commuting to and from work doesn’t equate with WC coverage—in my view, the main rationale for such rulings was the workers weren’t being paid or supervised during the commute. Now, I feel no one will be able to tell when normal commuting equates with expensive workers comp coverage.

In light of this decision, one can only wonder if employers in this State can or should ban/bar workers from using motorcycles, scooters or even skateboards or roller blades for that matter, for travel to and from work, because of the increased possibility of serious WC claims.

Respondent Mechanical, Inc. appealed an order of the circuit court of Ogle County confirming a decision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission granting claimant Richard Boyden’s application for benefits under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. The employer, Mechanical, Inc. asserted the IL WC Commission’s finding Claimant was not a traveling employee at the time he was injured.

The unanimous Appellate Court, WC Division majority affirmed. As they almost always do, they published a “non-published” decision. If you don’t know what this means, send a reply. We do not know if there are other appeals to follow and this article is based on the Appellate Court, WC Division’s current ruling.

Claimant was involved in a motor-vehicle accident en route from his home to the one of the employer’s various job sites.

Following a hearing, the Arbitrator issued a decision finding Claimant was a “traveling employee” at the time of the accident and sustained injuries arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment with Mechanical, Inc.; the employer was given proper notice of the accident; and claimant’s injuries were causally related to the accident. The Arbitrator awarded claimant over half a million in medical expenses, substantial temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and prospective medical treatment. I am sure Claimant is totally and permanently disabled—this makes the permanency well into six and possibly seven figures, depending on how long Claimant lives.

The IL WC Commission reversed and found the claim did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment. The Circuit Court flipped that ruling and found Claimant was a “traveler.” The Appellate Court, WC Division affirmed that ruling.

Please note the term “traveling employee” doesn’t appear in the IL WC Act or Rules—for that reason, if the IL WC Commission or our courts are going to judicially designate someone a “traveler,” you can completely make up any legal or factual concept you want because you are not limited by legislation or rules.

The following evidence was adduced at the arbitration hearing.

• Claimant was employed by Mechanical, Inc. as a plumber and pipefitter for a year and change prior to the accident.

• The only equipment he was required to bring to work was a pencil, tape measure, channel locks, and torpedo level. 

• Claimant worked at various work sites, as plumbers and pipefitters usually do.

• Claimant worked for Mechanical, Inc. for about a year and a half to the day of the accident.

• Claimant never reported to the employer’s shop or office; rather, he would drive directly to whichever job site he was assigned.

• He travelled to work sites in his personal vehicle or whatever contrivance that might take him to a job site and choosing the route was up to him.

• If he refused to go to a job site that he had been directed to report to, he would be laid off.

• On May 8, 2018, Claimant was traveling to a job site but never arrived, as he was involved in a motor vehicle accident.

• This was claimant’s first day on this particular job.

• He was to report to work at a jobsite.

• Claimant came over a hill and “saw headlights coming toward him.” The oncoming vehicle was in claimant’s lane, and it collided with him.

• The driver of the other vehicle may have passed before the accident or may have lost control to then run off the road into Claimant’s vehicle and was killed.

• Claimant was transported by helicopter to Mercy Hospital in Rockford.

• Claimant suffered severe injuries.

• Claimant identified job sites he had worked at for Mechanical over the years. A number of these locations involved multiple, noncontinuous work periods.

• Claimant acknowledged that he was familiar with the roads he was traveling on.

• Claimant admitted he was not compensated for his travel time or expenses

• Claimant admitted he was not paid for his time until he reported to the job site.

• Claimant was not transporting any tools or supplies with him.

• Mechanical, Inc. did not direct claimant regarding where to live.

• There were none of employer’s logos or other advertising on his vehicle.

• The employer’s corporate safety director identified a provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that provided for “portal pay” for service employees “traveling from job to job on off time hours.” Claimant did not fall under this provision.

• Mechanical, Inc. provided Claimant with tools and supplies he used at the job site.

• Employer never told Claimant what kind of vehicle to operate or what route to take to a job site. We can safely say that Claimant could have driven a helicopter, scooter or bicycle to work—the employer didn’t care about how Claimant got to work, just that he showed up on time and was ready to go.

• I would point out Claimant could have stayed at a hotel near a jobsite or pitched a tent to walk to work—the employer couldn’t have cared less where Claimant was other than showing up for work on time.

• A supervisor opined traveling was not part of claimant’s job.

• He also testified Claimant was not compensated for travel time to and from work.

• Because Mechanical, Inc. did not consider claimant’s accident to be work related, it did not report the accident on the OSHA log.

• Another supervisor agreed travel was “not an integral part of the work [claimant] performed for [employer].”

• On cross-examination, he admitted Claimant did not work at the employer’s “premise or property.”

• He did not “work at a property owned and operated by [employer].” Employer “controlled where claimant went day to day for those job sites.” A foreman would tell claimant “where and when to report each day.”

• The Appellate Court cites the major ruling form the Illinois Supreme Court that denied benefits under facts very similar to these-- “The general rule is that an injury incurred by an employee in going to or returning from the place of employment does not arise out of or in the course of the employment and, hence, is not compensable.” Venture—Newberg-Perini, Stone & Weber v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2013 IL 115728.

• This is because “the employee’s trip to and from work is the product of his own decision as to where he wants to live, a matter in which his employer ordinarily has no interest.” Id.

• The Appellate Court, WC Division also said “We note that generally, ordinary commuters are not traveling employees because their travels are a consequence of their choice of where to live,” citing Venture—Newberg-Perini, Stone & Weber v. IWCC. Despite this citation, benefits were awarded under the facts summarized above. We find this to be a clear expansion of the “traveling employee” concept in this State.

In summary, we will have to wait and see where these liberal courts are going to “travel” (pardon the pun) As I have advised, Illinois is going to remain a “blue” State for the next generation and beyond. If you aren’t sure why, please send a reply.

Synopsis: The Illinois Minimum Wage Goes Up to $15 an hour at Midnight Tonight.

Editors comment: Please note this will change reserves and negotiations relating to IL wage loss differential claims—anyone with a full time job will get at least $15 an hour—we recommend you reconsider reserves on such claims. Send a reply if you need guidance.

10-31-2024;; Beneficial Ownership by John Campbell, JD; Illinois Supreme Court Expands Wrongful Death Claims by Bradley Smith, JD and more

Synopsis: What the heck is “Beneficial Ownership Information” and what is a “BOI Report”? Every U.S. company/LLC/corporation has to file this by January 1st

We are somewhat perplexed that this new federally mandated corporate reporting has not been more widely discussed in business and legal circles, yet most businesses throughout the country are required to comply by January 1, 2025. With less than 90 days before the reporting deadline, we wanted to be sure you, our subscribers, clients, and any friends or family with businesses are aware of this new layer of government red tape and avoid the potential penalties for non-compliance of up to $500/day.

Background and Legal Requirements:

The Corporate Transparency Act, enacted in 2021 to curb illicit finance and protect U.S. national security, requires many companies doing business in the United States to report information to the Federal government about their beneficial owners—in other words, the actual people who ultimately own or control them. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a U.S. Treasury Department bureau, is implementing the law. The intended goal is to safeguard the financial system from illicit activity, counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism, which will advance national security. Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen explained “Corporate anonymity enables money laundering, drug trafficking, terrorism, and corruption. It harms American citizens and puts law-abiding small businesses at a disadvantage. Having a centralized database of beneficial ownership information will eliminate critical vulnerabilities in our financial system and allow us to tackle the scourge of illicit finance enabled by opaque corporate structures.”

Companies must report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN where:

• a corporation or limited liability company (LLC) was otherwise created in the United States by filing a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or Indian tribe; or

• a foreign company that was registered to do business in any U.S. state or Indian tribe by such a filing.

Filing has been made relatively simple, secure, and free of charge. Companies that are required to comply (“reporting companies”) must file their initial reports by the following deadlines:

• Existing companies: Reporting companies created or registered to do business in the United States before January 1, 2024 must file by January 1, 2025.

• Newly created or registered companies: Reporting companies created or registered to do business in the United States in 2024 have 90 calendar days to file after receiving actual or public notice that their company’s creation or registration is effective.

Fortunately, the Beneficial ownership information reporting is not an annual requirement. A report only needs to be submitted once, unless the filer needs to update or correct information. Generally, reporting companies must provide four pieces of information about each beneficial owner:

• name;

• date of birth;

• address; and

• the identifying number and issuer from either a non-expired U.S. driver’s license, a non-expired U.S. passport, or a non-expired identification document issued by a State, local government, or Indian tribe. If none of those documents exist, a non-expired foreign passport can be used. An image of the document must also be submitted. 

The company must also submit certain information about itself, such as its name(s) and address. In addition, reporting companies created on or after January 1, 2024, are required to submit information about the individuals who formed the company (“company applicants”).

How do you get started?  Call KCB&A at 312 756 1800 for help or you can view informational videos and webinars, find answers to frequently asked questions, connect to the contact center, and learn more about how to report at www.fincen.gov/boi.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. This article was researched and written by John P. Campbell, JD | Managing Partner, Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Associates, LLC

Passafiume v. Jurak, 2024 IL 129761: Expanding Recoverable Damages to Wrongful Death Actions; Research and written by Bradley Smith, J.D.

Synopsis:

In a landmark ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court held in Passafiume v. Jurak that a plaintiff can recover damages for the loss of material services beyond the date of remarriage in a wrongful death case. This decision clarifies how damages for loss of household services are treated under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, expanding potential recoveries for plaintiffs and removing previous limitations tied to remarriage.

Editor’s Comment:

The Passafiume ruling represents a significant expansion in the scope of recoverable damages under Illinois' Wrongful Death Act. By allowing the loss of material services to be compensated beyond remarriage, the decision alleviates concerns about remarriage diminishing the value of a claim. This case is a crucial reminder for defense attorneys to reassess their strategies when dealing with wrongful death cases, as the scope of potential damages has widened.

Background

In 2014, Lois Passafiume tragically passed away due to negligent medical treatment by Dr. Daniel Jurak. Lois’s husband, Paul Passafiume, brought a wrongful death action against Dr. Jurak and others. Paul sought damages for the loss of Lois’s financial support and material services, such as household chores. The defendants argued that any claim for loss of material services should be limited to the period before Paul’s remarriage in 2015, under the theory that such damages fall under the umbrella of loss of consortium.

The Court's Ruling

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that damages for loss of material services are not limited by remarriage. The court clarified that these damages are a part of the pecuniary losses recoverable under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act and are not part of a loss of consortium claim, which traditionally terminates upon remarriage. This decision reinforces the distinction between pecuniary losses, which include household services, and consortium losses, which are more focused on companionship and emotional support.

Key Implications for Legal Professionals

The decision in Passafiume v. Jurak has profound implications for wrongful death litigation in Illinois. First, plaintiffs can now claim damages for household and material services even if they remarry. This widens the scope of recoverable damages and may result in higher awards for plaintiffs in similar cases. For defense attorneys, the ruling requires a reassessment of how damages are calculated in wrongful death actions, especially when remarriage is a factor.

Practical Takeaways for Wrongful Death Claims

1. **Loss of Material Services**: This ruling confirms that loss of household services is compensable beyond remarriage, significantly impacting the calculation of damages in wrongful death cases.
2. **Distinction from Consortium Claims**: Lawyers must recognize the clear separation between pecuniary losses and loss of consortium, particularly when remarriage is involved.
3. **Enhanced Recovery Potential**: Plaintiffs in wrongful death cases can now pursue greater damages, and defense attorneys must be prepared to argue against expanded claims in light of this ruling.

Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Passafiume v. Jurak is a pivotal moment in wrongful death litigation, expanding the scope of recoverable damages under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act. For claims professionals handling such cases, it’s critical to understand the implications of this ruling, both in terms of damages strategy and the legal framework surrounding remarriage. If you have questions about this decision or need guidance on how it may affect your current cases, feel free to reach out for a consultation.

Please contact Bradley J. Smith, JD at bsmith@keefe-law.com if you would like to discuss this decision or its implications.

Trivia Corner: 

This Edition’s Trivia:

• Was actress Margaret Hamilton (who played the amazing role as the Wicked Witch of the West) injured during the filming of the Wizard of Oz? She was burned when one of the lifts that was supposed to drop her malfunctioned.

• Was her stand-in Betty Danko also injured? Ms. Danko was injured twice. Reply if you need details.

• How was Buddy Ebsen (later Grandpa in the Beverly Hillbillies) injured? He was to be the Tin Man—turns out he was allergic to the paint and had to pass on the role.

• And while he didn’t appear in the movie, is Ebsen’s voice on the final soundtrack? Yep.

• What medical problem help Jack Haley get the job as Tin Man?

This Week’s Trivia:

• Who started the franchise known as Kentucky Fried Chicken?

• Who worked with the owner of Kentucky Fried Chicken, until he opened a competing and successful fast food restaurant?

• What was the “secret” to Kentucky Fried Chicken?

• Is the “secret” known to the public?

Synopsis: Free (or almost free) and Truly Handy Claims/Risk Management Stuff from Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Associates to our readers.

Editor’s comment: We do lots of things for this industry that you may not know about. Let us know if you have interest in any of these services.

1.            Send us a defense lead, any lead—we are always looking for new defense clients and contacts in Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan or Iowa. 

2.            Happy to help you on a 24/7/365 basis--send your claims inquiries and toughest questions to ekeefe@keefe-law.com for 24/7/365 answers to your toughest Illinois claims questions. Give us 24 hours and we will get back to you with reasoned thoughts and suggestions, recommendations on pro se settlements and best practices in handling difficult and complex claims concerns.

3.            We may be the most ethical firm in the U.S.—if you need a presentation on Ethics with CLE’s, we will come to your office, cater lunch and present an interesting and information program on Ethics.

4.            Next, take a look at actual winning results from the top defense firm in Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana or Iowa by going to this link: KCBA Successful Outcomes

5.            Shawn R. Biery does a continuously updated and very handy Illinois Workers Compensation Rate Sheet. It is available to anyone upon request. If you want it, send a reply or email Shawn directly at sbiery@keefe-law.com.

6.            We have a one-page document free to the industry called Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Associates Rules of Thumb that provides a quick reference for adjusters and risk managers with Illinois claims. Again, if you have interest, send a reply.

7.            We have a free presentation on the 2011 Amendments to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. It is also available in a condensed form. If you would like a copy, send a reply. 

8.            We also have a free book on all aspects of Illinois Workers’ Compensation Law and Practice. If you are unfamiliar with the Act and Rules and want a resource book, please send a reply. 

9.            We provide answers to questions adjusters have about appropriate reserves on your claims, usually within 24 hours. We employ WestLaw© research in rendering our evaluation for your complete file. If you have interest in a legal opinion to support your reserve calculations, email ekeefe@keefe-law.com.

10.         We are happy to provide a free legal audit of up to ten of your worst litigated claims. Our goal is to advise how to best bring such claims to rapid closure within authority. We have had solid outcomes from such reviews. All of our handling is attorney-client privileged. If you have interest in a legal audit, send a reply to ekeefe@keefe-law.com.

11.         We have a strong list of medical, diagnostic, pharmacological, vocational, utilization review, nurse case managers, surveillance, accident reconstruction, ergonomics, safety and other top-notch experts for your consideration to use in Illinois workers compensation, general liability and employment law defense litigation. Such recommendations are free. We update such lists continuously. We can also provide research backing up the credentials of such experts. If you have a need for an expert, send a reply. 

12.         We are the only defense firm that has several workers compensation law professors on staff—we have read and analyzed every single IL WC appellate ruling for over three and one-half decades. For any of our readers, if you have a complex (or even a simple) question about any aspect of Illinois workers compensation law and practice, please send a reply and we will advise within 24 hours. If you have interest in attending or auditing the best workers compensation course in Illinois at one of our top law schools, let us know and we will provide details.