Keefe, Campbell & Associates, LLC

Running a government isn’t a tough thing to do. You collect taxes and fees and spend what you bring in. All of it presumes you are wisely spending the tax money you are getting. At present, we are watching the wasteful Democratic administrations in the City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of Illinois struggling to find ways to pay for their institutional waste; including wildly inefficient, incompetent and ineffective workers’’ comp defense programs. Now it would appear they are attacking hospitals to try to make up their deficits.

Last week, the Chicago Sun-Times reported four hospital CEOs from South Suburban, Ingalls Memorial, St. James and Little Company of Mary Hospitals voiced their opposition to a proposed Cook County tax seeking to charge all hospitals in the county a fee if they fail to meet county-mandated criteria for charity care – the equivalent of 4.5 percent of their annual expenses. Few Cook County taxpayers want to steer more money to a county government that recently dished $14,000 to a sheriff’s employee who claimed a back injury twice after reaching to pick up a piece of toilet paper. In 2008, the county paid a whopping $69 million in litigation-related expenses, according to a report.

Because the majority of hospitals are exempt from paying property and income taxes and certain state and local sales taxes, they are expected to provide a commensurate level of free care to indigent patients. Although there’s no question hospitals are providing millions of dollars in free care every year, some of the larger ones that can absorb low-income patients are not meeting the burden as much as they should, claim county officials. And the same officials claim larger, wealthier hospitals are dumping uninsured patients on the already cash-strapped Stroger, Provident and Oak Forest hospitals that are run by the county.

The Hospital CEO’s say the last thing Cook County government needs is a new revenue stream when it can’t control its budget now. Costs are out of control. Represented by the Metropolitan Chicago Healthcare Council, the hospitals oppose the new proposed fee. The four CEOs said they also oppose such fees on their larger health-care counterparts because eventually smaller providers would be hit, too. Hardest hit under this proposal would be the Advocate Health Care Network, which provided in 2008 the equivalent of only 1.4 percent of annual expenses toward charity care – even with half of its bad debt included in the charity care figures.

If enacted, the tax could cost as much as $350 million annually for hospitals in Cook County, according to the hospital group. And the last thing Cook County needs is more revenue, it said. Travis Akin, executive director of Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch, compiled a report showing the rising litigation-related expenses in Cook County, which are 738 times higher than in DuPage County, even though Cook has six times as many people as DuPage.

The Cook County Board’s workers’ compensation committee chairwoman Elizabeth Doody Gorman claims her hands are tied by state laws. We respond to say balderdash. As we have outlined, Cook County doesn’t do any of the things other companies do to cut costs, like hand-written or tape-recorded accident reports and surveillance to catch its employees when they are abusing the system. The City of Chicago refuses to implement light work to make their employees return to work from injuries as soon as possible and get off the dole. Workers’ comp vendors at the Illinois state, county and city level are not competitively and fairly chosen to provide value—you still get the job when someone’s cousin’s brother’s uncle says you do. All three governmental bodies are regularly hit by the IWCC with penalties and attorney’s fees for mismanagement and litigating issues they can’t and shouldn’t fight. The politicians and administrators continue to randomly pick a “whipping boy” as they seek more reasons to justify throwing away taxpayer money.

Well, the Illinois state-wide primaries are a month away, folks. The general election is this fall. Please don’t hesitate to respond with your thoughts and comments.

Illinois employers and more particular truck leasing organizations should be aware of this important and peculiar decision. You may want to take steps to prevent the potential windfall that may come as a result of frivolous third party claims.

In U.S. Bank v. Lindsey, No. 1-07-2606 (1st Dist. Dec. 7, 2009) the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a Circuit Court decision on appeal. Defendant Carmichael Leasing Company leased a vehicle to a company and their driver of the leased vehicle ran into and killed a co-employee whose job it was to load the truck. Only in Illinois would the leasing company now owe over a million dollars for their simple act of leasing the vehicle that allegedly caused injury.

To clarify, on the date of injury Decedent was an employee of the driver’s employer. He was unloading trucks when he was struck by the truck being operated by the driver. There was conflicting testimony as to what precisely caused the accident, however the prevailing testimony was the driver somehow negligently misused the truck’s brakes causing the vehicle to roll and pin Decedent against another vehicle. Decedent’s ribs were crushed and he passed from his injuries.

This was an unfortunate accident to be sure, and our hearts go out to Decedent’s children but it must be noted he was under the influence of heroin at the time of the accident. In fact, Defendant’s expert testified Decedent had 10-20 times the amount of morphine in his blood as would be given to a normal patient in severe pain. This amount of morphine is not only enough to kill a man but the fact that he was able to tolerate it was suggestive of chronic abuse. Defendant’s expert further testified the amount of heroin in Decedent’s blood was tantamount to “molasses on the brain” and his cognitive and motor abilities were undoubtedly significantly impaired. This was not lost on the jury who found Decedent to be contributorily negligent, but only 50%. Likely because of unusual jury instructions including the circuit court barring of some of Defendant’s expert’s testimony, this level of comparative fault may have been far less than we would have anticipated given someone working directly next to Decedent was able to smoothly avoid injury while Decedent was crushed.

Nevertheless, $3,000,000.00 was awarded to Decedent’s estate, less 50% for his own negligence. As the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy for recovery against an employer in workplace injuries, Decedent’s employer was released of all civil liability. It may be presumed they paid death benefits pursuant Illinois workers’ comp law. Similarly, the driver could not be held liable as the Act provides immunity for injuries caused by the tortious acts of a coworker.

Who was then left for decedent’s estate to collect from? Well why not a company with no relation to any parties involved, other than a vehicle lease agreement with Decedent/Defendant’s employer?

That’s right, Carmichael Leasing was found to be liable for the entire award. To our knowledge, Illinois has never been faced with facts similar to this. Our Appellate court opted to take the most liberal route possible and implement what is called “logo liability.” Essentially, this means a company providing a leased vehicle is blindly liable for the negligence of the driver of said vehicle who they don’t know, don’t train and don’t warn. There were no allegations of any problem or dysfunction with the equipment. Particularly disturbing in the case at hand is Decedent was found to be within the coverage of the Interstate Commerce Act which provides protection to members of the travelling public. It is beyond us how unloading stationary trucks in the course and scope of his employment rendered Decedent a member of the “travelling public.”

The legislative intent in providing protection to the travelling public was to provide a financial remedy for those without other recourse. It was almost certainly not to provide a windfall of benefits from multiple sources with minimal or no relation to the injured party. We also don’t see the need for strict liability for anyone leasing a truck—the risk should fall upon the person who is actually negligent. The Appellate Court, in our opinion, took as liberal an approach as possible and the floodgates will almost certainly be opened for excessive litigation and frivolous third party suits, all at the cost of Illinois truck leasing companies.

This article was written by Michael Sullivan, one of our top law students and paralegals. Please do not hesitate to reply with thoughts and comments or post them on the blog. If you need the cite of the case, send a reply.

We have all heard one or the other WC myth or urban legend across the years. As we begin the New Year, we truly feel analysis in an open forum is a great idea.

1. Whatever is good for the Plaintiff-Petitioner bar is good for workers’ compensation.
2. Defense attorneys can effectively represent Plaintiffs-Petitioners in work comp claims.
3. Total and permanent and wage loss claims have to be lifetime benefits and widow(er)s “need” WC benefits for 25 years.
4. The only way to “reform” workers’ compensation law and practice is in the legislature.

Please let us know if you have other thoughts or ideas on the myths underpinning our system.

A. Whatever is good for the Plaintiff-Petitioner bar is good for workers’ compensation is a myth that has been out there for decades. The main idea is getting injured workers to come to the system for adjudication of their rights and responsibilities under the law. We have repeatedly pointed out the fact the vast majority of workers’ compensation claims are not litigated and are handled as either medical only or medical and lost time claims without the need for litigation or other disputes. One aspect of the Illinois WC system is the rights and rules can be complex and we are sure some of the top Plaintiff lawyers insure their clients get all the rights the system provides. However, the other side of that coin is the need to simplify benefits and make the system more user-friendly for everyone on all sides.

The other concern with this myth is the growing perception in the state and national WC insurance and claims industry the Plaintiff-Petitioner’s bar so thoroughly dominates workers’ comp outcomes in Illinois that, no matter what it takes, don’t let any claim go into litigation or, once a claim becomes litigated, don’t let it go to hearing. We are hearing more and more clients tell us they will settle at the high end of the range, rather than take a chance with Illinois’ biased WC system. We feel only time will tell on that one but we are confident Illinois employers are going to continue to seek to counterattack the high litigation levels in this state.

And last but not least is the awful example of what is happening in Michigan where the Plaintiff-Petitioner bar won’t simply seek to win workers’ comp cases but has now gone federal in their efforts to vex and harass an Illinois employer who denied several WC claims in that state. In their effort to get triple damages, the Plaintiff lawyers have dropped the veneer that we are all in this together and need to amicably work out differences in the best interests of workers and their employers. The business-busting efforts by the Plaintiff lawyers in Michigan painfully highlight the rift that continues to grow between such zealot lawyers and the industry that uncomfortably feeds them.

B. Defense attorneys can effectively represent Plaintiffs-Petitioners in work comp claims is a myth we truly hate! The main issue for Illinois workers’ comp risk, safety and claims managers is the simple fact most “new” changes to Illinois workers’ compensation law and practice doesn’t occur in the legislature—we only change the “written” law once every other decade or so. What changes constantly is the way the law is viewed and implemented by the Commission and our reviewing courts.

So the problem with Illinois’ many “cross-over” firms happens when the law starts to morph from some silly theory which twists a former analysis of accepted workers’ compensation practice. The question is how long does the defense industry battle the issue. For example, overtime started to be included in the average weekly wage following the 1978 ruling in Edward Hines Lumber v. Industrial Commission. No one knew how the ruling would reach “acceptance” in the industry, particularly because the decision ran directly counter to the language of Section 10 which still excludes overtime from the calculation of the AWW. There was the possibility the claims industry would refuse to follow this law or continue to send lots of battles to the Commission to resolve the many questions raised.

What we saw that drove us nuts was the second case to reach the reviewing courts was handled by a defense firm that handled lots and lots of claimant cases. While their ethical responsibilities on the file were to their major defense client who they actively represented, everyone knew they didn’t want to have the Edward Hines Lumber ruling reversed. When the claim was orally argued, they quietly rolled over and lost.

Trust us, this is one that is relatively easy to sniff out—write your defense firm and ask them to disclose how many Plaintiff-Petitioner claims they handle. All of it is now online and they would be taking an enormous chance to lie to you. If you aren’t fully confident they are telling you the truth—“Google” the firm name. Trust us, the IWCC call sheets come up on www.google.com and it is pretty easy to figure out who represents who. If you need more tips, send a reply.

C. Total and permanent disability and wage loss claims have to be lifetime benefits and widow(er)s “need” WC benefits for 25 years is another monster Illinois WC myth. Guess what? Most states across the United States put caps on such benefits. What even the most ardent claimant lawyer will readily admit is very, very few T&P, wage loss or death claims are paid out as the Act clearly contemplates—on a weekly basis. Case after case is “lumped out” or paid on a one-time, one-check basis to allow the injured worker or the widow(er) to get their hands on the money faster. We still love to report the major Illinois Plaintiff-Petitioner firm that trumpets the fact they got not one but two life-changing wage loss differential recoveries for the same claimant.

We were also told by a veteran claims manager in Dallas last year that Illinois truly stands alone in providing such benefits for the supposed “lifetime” or 25-year basis. Almost every state she was aware of capped such benefits at a period of approximately 10-15 or even 20 years. She felt the lifetime or 25-year cap was one of the obvious reasons Illinois WC costs and underwriting were so totally out of whack with every surrounding state. As we have told all of you, the projected cost of most total and permanent disability, wage loss and death claims was now moving well into seven-figures to be multi-million dollar risks. We are confident more and more businesses and excess carriers will run screaming from this state when they see the potential exposures that we are certain are coming.

In summary, as the lifetime value of a T&P, wage loss or death case doesn’t normally provide any “comfort” or true protection for the injured worker or widow(er), it is just the starting point to create the lump sum value. If we are going to keep raising rates on a twice-annual basis, as we have done since the 1980’s, we suggest the legislature be called upon to cap the benefits for the period that would

Actually provide weekly protection to the worker or their family or

Simply provide a reasonable lump sum value in the right situation.

Either way, you should only be allowed to get one such settlement every lifetime.

D. The only way to “reform” workers’ compensation law and practice is in the legislature is another myth we want the various Republican candidates and all of our business readers to better understand. While the changes we outline in letter C above would have to come from the legislature, the vast majority of work comp law and practice in this state have little to do with legislation. We assert almost every major development in Illinois workers’ compensation law and practice came from either the reviewing courts or the Commission or both. We truly feel the “plain English” interpretation of the Workers’ Compensation Act is the exception and not the rule.

We want our readers to understand almost every major facet of Illinois workers’ comp law and practice has been molded and changed and sometimes changed again without any legislative amendments. Even the 2005 Amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act aren’t being enforced in the fashion explained to the members of the business community who negotiated the deal—everything is molded to fit.

So we ask the rhetorical questions:

• Do you want work to be “the” cause of accidental injury and not just “a” cause—all you need are Commissioners who agree with that view, the statute doesn’t have to change at a bit.
• Do you want AMA Guidelines to determine permanency?—there is no rule against it; you just need the Commission to start using it.
• Do you want overtime kept out of the average weekly wage?—if the Commission started doing so, it would probably start to happen, if they won’t, good luck trying to write a law they will enforce.
• Do you want fewer penalty and attorney fee awards?—all the Commission has to do is stop writing them or provide clear guidelines on when to expect them.
• Do you want police officers who turn around to answer questions at work to not be able to get workers’ comp benefits as if they had an “accident?”—you simply need Commissioners who won’t award such claims.

On a happier note, Illinois employers should review and understand two important Commission rulings which provide clarity with regard to the compensability of mental-mental injuries, a topic which has garnered a lot of discussion over the years and where there has long been ambiguity. We remain happy to report the Illinois Commission hasn’t gone to the legal standard on our “Left Coast” of allowing everyone who can demonstrate they are more stressed out from work than normal life can get weekly workers’ compensation benefits.

For our readers who are unaware, what Illinois calls a “mental-mental” injury occurs when normal and expected workplace stress causes psychological “injuries,” dysfunction or mental disorders. We see several such cases every year and with each claim even the most veteran adjusters have identical questions on whether it is acceptable to deny. Obviously the circumstances of each case are different and we cannot give a universal rule but in our experience it is rare that we find sufficient evidence to accept a mental-mental injury as compensable in this state. Over the years there have been conflicting decisions on the topic, however we applaud the Commission for the recently issued decisions in Cook v. Pactiv and Peters v. Albertson/Jewel Food Stores where in a well-reasoned and rational fashion, the Commission ruled against compensability for different mental-mental injuries. In doing so they provided significant clarity on the handling of such matters for attorneys on both sides, risk managers and claims adjusters alike.

In Cook, the Illinois Commission held the mental-mental theory of compensation for psychological injuries does not include mental injuries caused by stressful situations characteristic of the normal workplace. The claimant in Cook was a machine operator who alleged trouble sleeping, hypertension, depression and anxiety as a result of a change in his shifts and job duties. The case was initially found compensable by the arbitrator who noted claimant’s hypertension was physical, rendering what the Arbitrator felt was a compensable physical-mental claim.

On review, the Commission found error in the arbitrator’s rationale and reversed the decision as the physical-mental theory was improperly applied to the facts. To be clear, the physical-mental theory of compensability is applicable only where a sudden, unforeseen physical injury directly leads to an adverse mental condition. Thus the claim fell under the mental-mental theory and was not compensable because the claimant did not meet the requisite burden for establishing a compensable mental-mental claim. The Commission clearly identified the three aspects of a claimant’s burden as

1. A mental disorder must arise in a situation where stress is greater than the day to day emotional strain experienced by all employees,
2. The condition exists in reality, from an objective standpoint, and
3. The employment conditions were obviously a contributing factor to the mental disorder.

Similarly, in Peters the Commission affirmed an arbitration decision finding mental disorders not resulting from trauma must arise in a situation of greater dimension than day to day emotional strain and tension which all employees must experience. The claimant in Peters was a grocery store employee who was asked to apologize at a meeting and was prevented from leaving the room for five to ten minutes. It was ruled this situation did not expose the claimant to an identifiable condition of employment that was common and necessary to all or a great many occupations.

Please remember psychological injuries arising from sudden and unforeseen traumatic events at the Illinois work site are compensable. We tell all of our clients and readers if someone dies or is seriously injured in your workplace, you have to deal with the serious injury or death but also remember every worker who saw, experienced or knew of the accident is also potentially a claimant. Be sure to provide counseling and sensitive assistance if other ostensibly “non-injured” workers start to show signs of strain or mental problems. They may be suffering expected sequalae of the tragedy and may be entitled to benefits; a wise risk manager shouldn’t ignore their psychological needs in the workplace.

This article was drafted by law students and KC&A paralegals Michael F. Sullivan and Kevin J. Carey. We recommend all claims adjusters and underwriters use these decisions and Mike and Kevin’s analysis as guideposts for the future handling of mental-mental claims. Please respond with questions or concerns or post them on our blog.

One great thing about American jurisprudence, like the football playoffs or most anything that appears in the public eye; you get to disagree. If you think a wide receiver in a football playoff game caught the ball but landed out of bounds and the referee calls it a touchdown, you get to disagree. The ref’s call may stand and the game may still end as a loss for your team but this is a country where we get to disagree and the referee is supposed to be willing to take reasonable and respectful criticism—it is part of the game. Our goal is to be sure all fans understand someone has to call the game and we have to accord respect to the folks who take on that mantle.

Well, in the legal sphere, we feel the same concepts should apply. We sometimes respectfully disagree with what is usually our highest reviewing court for workers’ comp purposes, the five-member Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division. We want all our readers to understand they make and are charged with managing the law as given them by the legislature. What we say below is our view of two recent developments which is intended to be properly respectful of the august and learned members of the Court.

Is there any way to expedite dismissal of an appeal where the appellate bond was defective?

We recently read about a major defense firm that got whacked by the Court when they misfiled an appeal from the Commission to the Circuit Court. In Securitas, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, et. als. (05-09-0184WC, issued Nov. 23, 2009), it appears counsel for the employer didn’t follow Illinois’ demanding appellate rules for workers’ comp appeals. If you don’t know them, once the Commission issues an award, an employer that is a corporation (and almost all Illinois employers are corporations) has to obtain and file an appeal bond in an amount set by the Commission in its award. Counsel for the employer has to prepare a number of court forms, one of which is evidence of that appeal bond. That appeal form also has to be signed by a party who has the power to bind the corporation to the debt contemplated by the bond; their title has to be on the form. All of it has to take place in twenty days without any possible extensions—a period that we consider to be the shortest of any appeal in this state.

In the case we reviewed, it appears the defense firm messed up not one but two appellate rules:

They filed an appeal bond for $10,000 when the Commission set the bond amount at $10,100;
They didn’t indicate the person signing the bond form was an officer of Respondent.

These two things combined to lead the Court to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We agree with that outcome because they strictly followed the “plain English” language of the Act. Our problem is the fact the case went to the Circuit and Appellate Court and sat for something like two years. The date of initial loss was November 13, 2006 and it was filed as an emergency petition; the Arbitrator’s ruling was in an emergency fashion for TTD and medical expenses only. The Arbitrator’s ruling clearly did not dispose of the entire claim which remained pending all that time. This Court’s simple and straightforward two-page ruling on that “emergency petition” issued November 23, 2009!

It remains our position the Circuit and Appellate Courts should allow for expedited summary dismissal of such claims upon motion from the opposing party. It is our impression delays associated with the briefing of all underlying issues and lengthy wait for an oral argument date is unnecessary in such circumstances.

For all of you who may want to know the name of the defense firm that had the problem, go to the web at http://state.il.us/court/Opinions/WorkersComp/2009/November/5090184WC.pdf where you will find the Court published their name on the last page. We don’t know why the Court wouldn’t “non-publish” such a simple and routine ruling under Rule 23—we don’t get to ask them such questions.

B. New rule following recent judicial discovery of a “bright line” for paying amputation losses in Illinois in our legislation that is 100 years old!!

On the other side of the same coin is a ruling we just saw reported about amputation claims. This is now the third ruling, following Beelman Trucking and the most recent Freeman United Coal decision where the Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division is now demanding double weekly benefits be paid. We completely disagree with that view of the “plain English” of our Illinois Act.

In Greene Welding and Hardware v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, et. als. (04-09-0144WC, issued Dec. 23, 2009), the Court reviewed an amputation case. There is no dispute claimant lost 100% of the ring and 50% of the middle finger as the result of a work-related event. He was paid TTD in a timely fashion. There was about a six-week delay in starting statutory PPD benefits but prior benefits were paid when the first payment was made. The ruling indicates the employer’s defense counsel basically claimed at all levels of hearing and appeal that they didn’t know when to pay PPD in amputation claims—we vote you fire and replace defense counsel who demonstrates that level of confusion and uncertainty before the Commission and reviewing courts.

The Arbitrator provided an award for the amputation loss and denied penalties and fees. The Commission affirmed and awarded penalties and fees. The Circuit Court confirmed the Commission’s award.

Thereafter the Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division affirmed the award including penalties and fees. The language we cringe to read is

Rather, we hold that the Act established a bright-line test for payment of such benefits. Where there is no dispute regarding whether a claimant’s amputation injuries arose out of and in the course of his or her employment, statutory benefits for amputation are to be paid no later than the time at which the employer reasonably knows the extent of the amputation and is capable of calculating the appropriate average weekly wage.

Please understand that is now the law in this state. You have to follow it in all amputation claims. Amputation occurs in Illinois when bone loss is clear—it is not typically considered an amputation when skin is lost. No one knows what to do when bone loss occurs and the bone is later reattached—that couldn’t happen in 1909 when the Act was drafted and Illinois hasn’t updated our law. We disagree with the Court’s view of this provision of Act but they are charged with enforcing it and you have to follow their rules.

In reaching an academic disagreement with the court’s majority, we look to the statute for direction. It is basically a three-part Act. Section 8(a) provides virtually unlimited medical benefits for reasonable, necessary and related care. Section 8(b) provides for temporary total disability for all periods an injured worker is off due to injury. Sections 8(c), 8(d) and 8(e) provide permanent partial disability benefits for permanent loss of use in a number of ways. The injured worker receives benefits for his/her medical bills for life. TTD is received while healing.

Thereafter, the statute uses these words about payment of PPD in Section 8(e)

For accidental injuries in the following schedule, the employee shall receive compensation for the period of temporary total incapacity for work resulting from such accidental injury, under subparagraph 1 of paragraph (b) of this Section, and shall receive in addition thereto compensation for a further period for the specific loss herein mentioned…

We academically disagree with the Court’s analysis of the Act in Greene Welding and Hardware and Lester, their prior ruling upon which they rely to ignore the clear statutory language which requires PPD be paid “for a further period” following TTD. The Court has now ruled there is a “bright line” requiring simultaneous payment of both TTD and PPD. We feel the Act doesn’t say that and there is no such “bright line” in any provision of the legislation we or other academic sources can locate.

In support of our view of the plain English version of the Act, we point out Richard K. Johnson and Martha Garcia, the astute authors of the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s Illinois Workers’ Compensation Handbook state in Section 8.23 of their chapter on Disability Evaluation:

The amount due for permanent partial disability is payable weekly after the payments for TTD have been made.

It would appear their chapter has to now be brought up to date with the newly discovered “bright line” standard for amputation losses only. We assert numerous legal treatises and other Illinois Workers’ Compensation resources, like our KC&A WC book, the Illinois Trial Lawyers Handbook and the Commission’s own handbook may have to be brought up to date due to the recent breakthrough by this Court in their view of the payment of amputation losses as provided in our century-old Act. The ruling is on the web at: http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/WorkersComp/2009/December/4090144WC.pdf

Why are we telling you this? Well, in 2005 the cost of amputation losses in Illinois went waaaaay up. The minimum weekly PPD rate for any Illinois amputation loss right now is $466.13. 100% loss of use of the index finger in Illinois for a part-time worker making $20 a week is at least $20,043.59. The maximum amputation loss for 100% loss of use of one index finger is $53,449.00. The minimum benefit in Illinois for 100% loss of use of an arm is $117,930.89; the maximum is $314,479.00. If you don’t follow this new payment rule and get hit with a 50% penalty and a 20% attorney fee on top of such numbers, you are looking at lots and lots of money. Follow the new rules and start to pay weekly PPD on amputation losses right away.

All in all, we want our readers to understand one overwhelming reason to read this Keefe, Campbell & Associates Monday Law Update is so you get the current gossip, new judicial “discoveries” and everything else that may be going on at the Commission and reviewing courts these days. While we don’t agree, if the ref calls it a touchdown and under scrutiny is stands as a touchdown, you have to adjust.

If you have questions or concerns about handling amputation losses or any other aspect of Illinois workers’ compensation claims handling, send a reply. We don’t charge for such inquiries and we are happy to answer on a 24/7/365 basis. Please also don’t hesitate to reply with your thoughts and comments or post them on our award-winning blog.