Keefe, Campbell & Associates, LLC

Editor’s comment: A recommendation for a nearly 25 percent increase in workers’ compensation pure premium rates in California has prompted the state’s insurance commissioner to investigate why medical costs in the workers’ comp system are skyrocketing. According to a March 18 press release, the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau’s governing board recommended a 24.4 percent increase in the rate, or “claims cost benchmark,” which is the estimated change in claim costs for the next 18 months. The recommendation is based on increased medical costs and anticipated cost increases stemming from three recent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board decisions.

The governing board directed WCIRB to submit a filing to the California Department of Insurance recommending the increase. Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner announced in another release that he would convene a hearing to determine why workers’ comp medical costs are increasing. Even with the 24.4 percent recommended increase, the pure premium rate would still be lower than its high from 2003, according to WCIRB.

Trust us, Illinois needs to get medical costs in line or we are going to see the same sort of spiral in WC premiums. California saved billions by using mandatory UR; in 2005, Illinois business was promised UR that was to be mandatory until the “wise guys” found out what it was and put the kibosh on it. Please let us know your thoughts and comments.

Editor’s comment: After last week’s KC&A Update article about what appears to be intentional overbilling for implants, we got the following responses from you and provide our thoughts:

1.  Who was the surgeon? I ask because Dr. X did an IME on a claim I recently received. He is recommending a “hybrid procedure” which is a 1 level disc replacement and a 1 level fusion directly below. According to his office he charged a patient for a similar procedure in December $137,000 for the surgeon fees. The assistant fee would be 20% of the surgeon fee. Between the doctor and his assistant we would be looking at $164,400! That does not include the hospital or anesthesia or anything else. Of course now my injured worker would like to treat will Dr. X. The only good thing in all this is that I can tell him no.

From our perspective, surgeon’s bills are coded and covered by the Illinois Medical Fee Schedule and they can’t charge whatever they want. The assistant’s participation and fee should be a subject of UR.

2. One strong overall suggestion was for major self-insured employers to try to find a way to pay/process WC medical bills under group coverages and then have WC reimburse your group people. We will bet major self-insured employers are effectively self-insured for both workers’ comp and group health care payments. No group carrier would ever pay what you are being asked to pay for WC care in this goofy state—they would straighten the hospital out and pay a much lower cost. Trust me, it isn’t happening by mistake that hospitals and doctors are billing so much money when they know it is a WC claim—they are opening playing to the system that treats employers in this state so poorly.

From our perspective, we are looking for any major self-insured employer to provide input on this concept. Is it “legal” to do so? Wouldn’t the savings be enormous? What if they gave a Medical Fee Schedule and no one showed up?

3. Three of the major “benefits” that were to accrue to the employer community as a result of the adoption of the medical fee schedule were that:

(1) It would set a baseline (capped) price;

(2) It would limit the growth in expense to CPI-U; and

(3) Price increases would be limited to one per year.

It greatly surprised (and dismayed) the employer community when the Commission announced via the rulemaking process that certain “carved-out” revenue codes* would be paid at 65% of billed charges. Clearly, a percentage based payment with no controls does not comport with the statutory intent—providers may raise prices as often and as much as they wish to meet their then current revenue goal. Under these circumstances, nothing prevents a provider from targeting a revenue goal that makes up for any perceived slights in the rest of the fee schedule.

The hospital fee schedules were created using Illinois Department of Public Health data. At the time the schedules were created, the Commission said that it removed charges related to the carved-out revenue codes from the data to insure that there was not a duplication of expense.  Thus, we know that the Commission has the capacity, using IDPH data, to determine whether there have been wholesale and/or egregious increases in the carved-out revenue codes. Further, the IDPH data is at a level where the individual hospitals can be identified (not by the public, but by the Commission).

What prevents the Commission from examining this issue as part of the report to the Governor and General Assembly that is due by January 1, 2010?

Are hospitals taking advantage of this provision in the rules? What have price increases in these revenue codes been since the implementation of the schedule? Is this a flaw in the implementation of the statute that needs to be corrected?

This comment came to us from one of Illinois’ most knowledgeable experts on the Medical Fee Schedule. To answer her questions:

A. What prevents the Commission from examining this issue as part of the report to the Governor and General Assembly that is due by January 1, 2010? We still feel the IWCC is not run by people who care about the Medical Fee Schedule and saving money for Illinois business—it is run by the other side of the bar who are trying to make as much money as possible in a tough economy. In our view, they aren’t going to care about this issue or want to report it to the Governor and legislature. We will have to see.

B. Are hospitals taking advantage of this provision in the rules? Some hospitals clearly appear to be doing so—you can’t hide the fact the many bills we received were charging amounts like $166,000 for “implants” when the rest of the bill was a third of the cost. Even paying at 65%, this markup is wildly high.

C. What have price increases in these revenue codes been since the implementation of the schedule? To our knowledge, “implant” makers kept their products out of the codes.

D. Is this a flaw in the implementation of the statute that needs to be corrected? Yes, it is one of a number of flaws that no one appears to be addressing in any way. We are writing this article hoping someone takes notice and does something to close the gaps. Illinois also needs a prescription medical fee schedule.

Editor’s comment: In Herman v. Power Maintenance & Constructors, LLC, No. 4-08-0509 (February 19, 2009), the Appellate Court was faced with a claim in which Plaintiff was a third-year apprentice boilermaker. He claimed he was terminated due to an injury occurring at work and a subsequent claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Turns out, claimant wasn’t actually terminated he was laid off, later he would claim the employer wouldn’t recall him, as they did with others.

After taking discovery, Defendant asserted, in a motion for summary judgment, it was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff made three admissions in his deposition that were fatal to his case. Plaintiff had admitted

(1) Defendant laid him off rather than discharged him;

(2) In laying him off, defendant had no intention of retaliating against him for exercising his rights under the Act; and

(3) Defendant had a valid, nonpretextual reason for laying him off, namely, his physical inability to perform the work.

The Appellate Court ruled because the doctrine of judicial admissions was not intended to punish unintentional mistakes and confusion, plaintiff’s misstatement at first summary judgment hearing that plaintiff’s cause of action accrued when defendant initially laid plaintiff off will not be treated as a binding judicial admission.

Further, the Appellate Court ruled the trial court erred when it granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for retaliatory discharge; because, although defendant initially laid plaintiff off when his medical limitations as result of a work-related injury prevented him from performing the work that was required, its subsequent letter to union refusing to recall him allegedly because of poor work performance could have been pretextual reason for retaliation because he filed a workers’ compensation claim in the interim.

If you need the cite or have any questions about retaliatory discharge claims, please send a reply.

Editor’s comment: We figured someone might step over the line one of these days but it is still something to wince about. Last week, we saw a civil action for libel filed in the Cook County Circuit Court by one of Illinois’ top surgeons. In our view, this surgeon is one of the very best in the U.S. We consider him a scientist and craftsman who is unsurpassed in his field. He has published books and articles on his intricate area of surgical expertise and lectures regularly.

We are aware of this surgeon working round-the-clock with teams of fellow surgeons to successfully reattach limbs. We consider all such surgeons to work miracles to help injured workers with space-age technologies—twenty-five years ago, such workers would be amputees where today with a little luck and a lot of hard work by doctors like him, the injured worker may get to keep and recover full use of a traumatically detached limb. We feel there should be a special deference given to such devoted and competent care-givers regardless of which side of the practice of law one may come from.

This surgeon’s problem is that part of his practice takes him out of the surgical arena and into the maelstrom that is Illinois workers’ compensation law and practice. As a small part of his overall practice, he gets involved in giving opinions in independent medical examinations. We researched for this article and note he has been cited 196 times in reported Illinois decisions. Please understand he is probably called upon slightly more by Respondents than claimant attorneys. We assure all of our readers this defense firm sends claimants to him and we are thrilled to have someone this solid and fair participate in the sometimes tawdry world of workers’ compensation.

We also recommend our clients send claimants to him. We rely strongly upon his opinions and tell all of our defense clients to rely on him because he is a both a man of science and a solid practitioner. If he feels a condition is related to work or that surgery is needed, we tell the clients that is how the chips fell and to pay benefits and certify recommended care. If there is a way for a claimant to actually treat with him, we tell our clients to authorize such care, understanding we are now “welded” to his determinations as to the need for surgery and time off.

The problem he has is the same with anyone denying any part of any WC claim by anyone in this state. Many of the zealous practitioners on the other side of the workers’ compensation field seem to live to attack, vilify, malign, denigrate and belittle anyone who doesn’t uniformly agree every claimed condition of any type has to be related to work. As we have told our readers in the past, some of the Arbitrators who were claimant attorneys prior to becoming hearing officers continue to draft and issue decisions indicating this bias. We have now identified two new strategies or workers’ compensation concepts, “repetitive [insert any noun or verb]” and “traveling employee” that seem designed to provide uniform or global workers’ compensation coverage of any malady, big or small.

So what happened? Well, this attorney wrote a letter to a well-known rehabilitation specialist, telling the specialist he has no idea what he is doing and “firing” him from that case and any case with his firm. We always love claimant attorneys who feel they have that sort of power because there is no “rule” or legislation that allows claimant attorneys to select or reject Respondent’s rehabilitation counselors.

Then counsel for Petitioner took a parting shot at the surgeon saying: “Dr. …. is the most widely purchased Respondent hand surgeon opinion in the history of Illinois. How sad that you have chosen to become his bedfellow. Shame on you.”

The complaint for libel asserts the letter and statements above severely prejudices the surgeon and imputes a lack of integrity in the surgeon’s professional, medical and business activities. The complaint further alleges the statements are false and defamatory. The complaint asserts the letter was published to a third party with the knowledge the statements were defamatory and false. All of this is now public record.

We want to point out to all of our readers we consider the letter by counsel and inflammatory statements to demonstrate tunnel-vision of the highest (or lowest) water. We assure all of you this surgeon doesn’t keep score; he just calls them as he sees him. The last claim your editor sent to this doctor resulted in a finding the condition was related to work and we accepted the claim and paid benefits, quickly settling for fair value. Arbitrators don’t actually see such reports and such opinions are not the subject of litigation. Our advice to the advocates on the other side is to try to look at the bigger picture—you get the claims where there is a dispute and where the doctor has provided a defense opinion. That is not a high percentage of all claims; but it may be a high percentage of litigated claims.

We will advise of the progress of the litigation as it moves forward. We would appreciate our readers’ thoughts and comments.

Editor’s comment: As our readers note, we are sitting on the fence with our current Gov watching closely to see if he can rectify the hilarious antics of his predecessor. Understanding the state of our State is total turmoil; we will wait and see if his tax plan will be accepted by the legislature and electorate. We are satisfied to see the Gov is acting like a grown-up and telling all of us the money is desperately needed for the business of the state which includes paying hospitals and lots of government agencies.

We will remain quiet waiting to see what cost savings and efficiencies the Gov will bring to the table for the long-term. If he doesn’t take action, we hope State Senator Matt Murphy and the Republicans start grilling him on it. We can think of at least ten ways the IWCC can save costs without changing their overall task of protecting the rights of Illinois’ injured workers while keeping benefits somewhat competitive for Illinois employers. If you have any suggestions, please send them along.

One of the very easy ways to save jillions in most branches of state, county and local government is to bring them into the 20^th and then the 21^st centuries. Most Illinois state agencies are wildly and intentionally inefficient, preferring paper documents and records and lots of folks to handle everything.

We recently learned Madison County has been designated by the Illinois Supreme Court as a pilot for electronic filing (e-filing) of Law and Arbitration cases. E-filing of Law cases begins Monday, April 6, at the Madison County Circuit Clerk’s office. Arbitration cases will be eligible for e-filing at a later date.

LexisNexis (LN) is the filing service used for this pilot project. LN is making free web training available for the industry. Fees for e-filing, training schedules and registration information are also provided. The Third Judicial Circuit Court’s Rules on e-filing are posted at the Circuit Clerk’s webpage. To see the new rules, go to www.co.madison.il.us, click on “Circuit Clerk” and select “Local Court Rules.” E-filing rules are listed as “Rules of Practice, Part 7, E-filing Rules. One key provision of the local court rules (Rule 2) is all parties must agree to e-filing for cases filed prior to April 6. On and after April 6, if an initial pleading is filed electronically, whether the complaint or answer, the case is automatically eligible for e-filing. The Circuit Clerk’s office asks attorneys who wish to exercise e-filing as an option to please send a signed statement to Circuit Clerk-E-filing, 155 North Main Street, Edwardsville, IL 62025 stating their agreement to submission by electronic filing on all cases pending as of April 6, 2009. Statements will soon be available at the clerk’s counter and in courtrooms.

Can this happen at the IWCC? Well, we expect all the “wise guys” who run the place will be clucking and snapping how they can’t learn all this new-fangled stuff. We still laugh to think how long it took some of them to buy fax machines and get email. Well, we hope they understand e-filing is coming and won’t be stopped. And the faster it hits the higher the cost savings will be.

If you have thoughts and comments on e-filing or any other cost saving tactic, we would appreciate your reply and comment.

Editor’s Comment: In the wake of this decision, employers looking to recover workers’ compensation costs pursuant Section 5(b) of the Act are cautioned to spend the money and perfect filing of their own complaint prior to the running of the statute of limitations, or at minimum, ensuring the complaint filed by their employee/Plaintiff has named the proper parties and is timely filed. Failure to do so may cause the employer to lose your lien completely or accept a nominal lien recovery where the employee accepts a far lower settlement than the amount sought by the employer or his/her case is dismissed.

In Pederson v. Mi-Jack Products, Inc., No. 1-07-2327 & 1-07-3228 Cons. (March 10, 2009) 2nd div. (Hall), Plaintiff was injured while at work when a boom from a crane fell upon him. Substantial workers’ compensation benefits were paid and not in dispute. Plaintiff’s civil complaint for product liability, however, named the wrong defendant as the manufacturer of the crane. Further, the statute of limitations had already run.

Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew, citing an impending malpractice suit. Plaintiff proceeded to settle on a pro se basis with the remaining defendants after firing counsel for alleged malpractice. The employer, seeking to recover far more on their lien, then filed their own complaint against the defendants. Defendants motioned for dismissal of the employer’s obviously untimely complaint.

Please note in Eastman v. Messner, Illinois courts ruled an employer of an injured worker had no workers’ compensation lien in a legal malpractice suit brought by an injured worker against their lawyer who committed malpractice, as claimant’s counsel arguably did in this matter. With respect to our courts, we strongly disagree with the Eastman v. Messner ruling and consider it to guarantee double recovery by the injured worker which is precisely what numerous cases outline is what the legal concept of subrogation recovery as defined in Section 5 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act is designed to prevent.

In Pederson, the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the employer’s complaint in the products liability action, since their filing was clearly beyond the statute of limitations. The Court also approved the proposed settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant for an amount less than employer’s workers’ compensation lien, subject to payment of lien. The Court reasoned that, Plaintiff’s incentive to settle with Defendant in order to pursue his legal malpractice claim against his attorneys for suing the wrong company did not give the employer the right to control litigation or settlement of the present claim.

The Court went on to rule that, pursuant to Section 5(b) of Workers’ Compensation Act, the employer has surrendered the right to participate in the litigation after it failed to file suit within three months of expiration of statute of limitations. We find this aspect of the ruling too far-reaching, as it implies the employer cannot “participate” in the civil litigation at all, except as a third party defendant. We feel the Courts should appreciate employers/insurance companies may have workers’ compensation liens approaching $1 million or more in some instances of catastrophic injury. To suggest they have no right to actively participate in the related civil litigation process is unsettling, especially when it leaves the fate of the litigation in the hands of a sometimes unpredictable Plaintiff or their counsel. It is our reasoned impression that, once an employer files their petition to intervene, they should have the option to pursue and protect their lien to the fullest extent, regardless of the agreement reached by Plaintiff in the case.

This case stands for the legal principle that employers should not ever rely on Plaintiff’s counsel to protect their lien interests, particularly when you have clear liability and a substantial workers’ compensation lien. To do so, puts you at risk for what happened in this claim—a bumbling lawyer sues the wrong party or misses the statute of limitations and your rights are lost. The higher your lien rises, the stronger your need to reach out to competent defense counsel who understands the nuances of lien recovery.

This article was drafted by John P. Campbell, Jr., Esq. If you have thoughts or comments on these concepts or need the actual ruling, please send a reply to John at jcampbell@keefe-law.com.

Editor’s comment: One of our clients sent us not one but two separate hospital bills for a similar lumbar surgery. Two different patients underwent a comparable lumbar procedure at a well-known hospital in the western suburbs of Chicago. The surgeon is well-known to the workers’ compensation community.

We would ask all of our readers to provide your idea of what you would think would be a high hospital bill for a surgery that takes about 45 minutes to perform. As part of preparation for this article, we asked about two-dozen people from Illinois’ medical, claims and legal community their thoughts. Most of the folks we asked figured $50,000 would be a high amount for a hospital or outpatient surgical center to provide a surgical suite, recovery room and related goods and services. So we then asked them to figure a truly high amount and most of them doubled the amount to $100,000. From our perspective, $100K is a lot of money for most surgical interventions.

Well the two bills were approximately $217,000 and $221,000! We are still shaking our heads. Please understand this is not the only cost—there are the surgeon’s fees along with post-surgical physical therapy and other modalities. We would conservatively estimate the total cost will easily exceed $300,000 for each surgery. With any complications, the cost could easily pass one-half million dollars for one surgery.

So what bomb went off? Well, we like to call it LARD but they actually named it LADR for lumbar artificial disc replacement. The basic concept is to replace a worn out or blown out lumbar or cervical disc with a new foam rubber or similar disc of the same height, weight and size. Artificial disks, which were introduced in Europe 25 years ago, promised the same or better pain relief as spinal fusions. The concept of a spinal fusion is to protect degenerating natural disks from pressure by joining the vertebrae above and below the disk into a single immobile segment of bone. The advantage of a LADR is patients recover more quickly from insertion of disks, retain far more flexibility and were less likely to need further surgery than spinal fusion patients.

The first LADR was named Charité after the hospital in Berlin, where the first version of the device was created 20 years ago by Dr. Karen Buttner-Janz, a former East German Olympic medalist in gymnastics. Some of the anecdotal evidence for the Charité was impressive. The first European recipient of a Charité disk claims to be playing tennis 20 years later. Jeffrey Lee Gibson, a 46-year-old stunt man who received a disk as part of a trial of Charité in the United States, said he left the hospital the day of the surgery and was able to perform a four-story stomach-first fall for the television show “Third Watch” 12 weeks later.

The LADR device received FDA approval for use in 2004 and there are a number of similar products out there. The use of the artificial disc has engendered mixed results in the world medical community. What you may not know is the makers of implants and their end-sellers, the hospital community fought to keep all implants out of the Illinois medical fee schedule when it was first enacted in 2005. Now, you can start to see what all the lobbying and partying may have been about.

The two bills we outline charged approximately $156,000 for two LADR implants and $177,000 for three LADR implants. The bills were from the same institution and the same billing department and the surgeries were performed within three months of each other. We have no idea why the first bill charged $78,000 for each of two LADR implants and then $59,000 each for the three implants. Please note the Charité disc was listed for sale on the open market at $11,500 which is a load of money for foam and metal. If that number remains the invoice cost for these implants, the markup to sell them at $78,000 is a cool 6,800 per cent!

We don’t really know what to tell our readers about this situation other than to say we consider it borderline insanity to allow anyone in this state to perform such surgery at those costs. You would save thousands to provide round-trip airplane tickets, hotels and food in Paris, France for claimant and their entire family for a month than have the surgery performed in this state! We saw a different IWCC decision where the same surgeon who performed this surgery indicated in a deposition their opinion artificial discs might last only ten years!!

We assure our readers you are not going to get a break from the IWCC on any award of PPD following LADR surgery. Our lengthy research indicates the permanency award you can expect is in the 25-45% range. If you need case law, please send a reply.

For our clients and all of our readers, we note the Commission’s decision in Hawkins v. Apostolic Christian Home, 05 IL.W.C. 15078, No. 08 I.W.C.C. 1359 (November 24, 2008), lumbar disc replacement surgery cost $78,000. The bill wasn’t paid by the employer or a workers’ compensation carrier; the cost went through BC/BS. We truly seek everyone’s thoughts and comments on how you would handle such a staggering bill.

One of the people we talked to thought the bills should be sent to Attorney General Lisa Madigan for further investigation. We ask our readers to provide your thoughts and comments on this truly extraordinary billing and what the Illinois workers’ compensation community should do to address it.

Editor’s comment: Ah, well. We recently saw claims for state benefits being filed against a government agency providing volunteer “foster grandparents.” It would appear there is no government program, no matter how noble it might be, that can’t be hauled into the Illinois workers’ compensation arena for the potentially giant benefits awaiting claimants from our state.

We looked on the web and found a 2007 IWCC case named: Violet Jackson v. Springfield School District #186 and Central Baptist Children’s Home, 02 IL.W.C. 23999, 02 W.C. 23999, 07 I.W.C.C. 0502, issued April 30, 2007. In that ruling, the IWCC noted claimant received a stipend of $2.65 per hour and have to volunteer between 20-40 hours each week. Despite the fact she was effectively a low-paid volunteer, they awarded about $50,000 in medical, lost time and permanency benefits. Please note federal pre-emption was not raised by counsel in this claim and it was apparently waived.

Now, a private, non-profit organization also created and administered under the rubric of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended, 42 USC Section 5000, et seq., has sued the IWCC in federal court and requests a declaratory judgment finding their “volunteers” ineligible from obtaining workers’ compensation benefits under our state Act. Most observers may note volunteers, who aren’t paid and have no expectation of payment are not entitled to WC benefits. We do note the small stipend appears to simulate wages. Obviously, Plaintiff isn’t willing to “trust” the IWCC and our state courts from following our law.

In Kids Hope United v. Roberta Montgomery, Amy Masters, and the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, (No. 2009-C-1491), filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (District Court), Kids Hope United (Plaintiff) seeks “federal preemption” to preclude volunteers from receiving the Act’s hefty benefits. Plaintiff is a not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago.

According to the complaint, on or about October 18, 2004 Defendant Roberta Montgomery (Montgomery) enrolled as a volunteer foster grandparent pursuant to the Foster Grandparent Program (FGP). The FGP is administered under the authority of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973. Montgomery volunteered to provide services in her community in connection with a program sponsored by Plaintiff. Montgomery was assigned to the North Chicago Community Unit School District 187. While serving as a volunteer Montgomery received a “monthly stipend funded by the federal government” according to the complaint. Plaintiff asserts at no time did it pay Montgomery a salary, wages, or benefits. While acting as a volunteer foster grandparent Montgomery allegedly slipped on a slice of ham and sustained an injury to her person. On October 31, 2008 Montgomery filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim under the Act which named Plaintiff as a party Respondent. To our knowledge, the Application remains pending and has not yet been adjudicated by the Arbitrator assigned.

In its Complaint filed March 9, 2009, Plaintiff asserts pursuant to 42 USC Section 5058 “the stipend paid to enrolled volunteers shall not be treated as wages or compensation for purposes of worker’s compensation.” Plaintiff further cites the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution in support of its claim federal law preempts state law when the latter serves “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objective of the Congress.” Plaintiff requests the District Court

a) Declare the Act preempted by the Domestic Volunteer Services Act of 1973,

b) Find Montgomery is not entitled to recover state workers’ compensation benefits from Plaintiff, and

c) Enter an order enjoining the IWCC from invoking the Act with respect to any claim for workers’ compensation benefits brought against Plaintiff by any person enrolled as a volunteer in the FGP.

This matter has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge John Grady. An Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint has not yet been filed. We will keep you advised as to progress. This article was drafted by Matthew A. Wrigley, J.D. Please do not hesitate to forward your thoughts and comments.

Editor’s comment: John Roddy passed away Saturday at the age of 88. John was one of the true gentle giants of our sometimes combative profession and will be missed by everyone who had the pleasure to meet and work with or against him. Your editor worked for John for five years and never met a man who cared more about everyone whose life he so quietly touched. John was the beloved husband of Peggy Roddy; loving father of Patrick (Elke), James (Barbara), Michael (Peggy); devoted grandfather of 13; great-grandfather of two; proud friend to many.

John was a founding member of the Illinois firm known for decades as Roddy, Power & Leahy. John was licensed to practice law in 1948. He taught numerous attorneys the nuances of Illinois workers’ compensation along with Arbitrators, Commissioners and judges. His extensive biography is on the web at http://www.roddylaw.com/roddy.html. John served as a member of the American Bar Association, Illinois State Bar Association, and the Chicago Bar Self-Insureds Association. He was past President of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Lawyers Association and past Chairman of the Industrial Commission Committee of the Chicago Bar Association and Illinois Bar Association. John lectured on workers’ compensation for the Chicago Bar Association, Illinois Bar Association and the Institute for Continuing Legal Education. He was one of the authors of the book “Illinois Workers’ Compensation Practice” published by the Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education in 1990.

John’s wake will be today, Monday March 16, 2009 from 3-9pm @ McGann and Sons Funeral Home, 10727 S. Pulaski, Chicago. The mass will be Tuesday at 9:00 am @ Christ the King. Internment will be Saint Mary’s Cemetery.

Editor’s comment: We recently heard a rumor indicating the Commission’s budget, which raises millions directly from Illinois business outside the strapped state budget process, is certain to drop like the rock of all other government budgets. When that happens, we are confident the 35 Arbitrators we currently have may be pared down substantially. If heads are to fall, we feel confident the cuts will come on a seniority basis, which may lessen the influence of our controversial former Chairperson who more than doubled the IWCC budget while in office.

Another source indicates the third IWCC Commission panel will be cut and that change may come sooner rather than later. As we have said many times, there is no reason to have 27 lawyers working full-time on the number of disputed claims pending at the IWCC review level. It is also our understanding many of the sitting Commissioners have not had their terms formally reinstated and are hanging in limbo.

We have also been advised there is new legislation to make it a rebuttable presumption against compensability if the employee is using alcohol or illegal drugs or a combination of same when injured. We applaud that effort. There is also a sweeping bill that would make giant changes in the Act and Rules for things we strongly support, like requiring the work be the primary cause and not “a” cause of the disability.

We assure you the gurus at the State Chamber are closely watching and fostering change in the best interests of Illinois business. If you are a business person and care about WC costs at your Illinois facilities, please consider joining the gurus in the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce and their Employer’s Law Council. More information can be found on the web at:

http://www.ilchamber.org/Business_issue_councils/Employment_law/employment_law.htm

If you want details or have questions or concerns about any of these issues, please send a reply.