Archive

Archive for the ‘Workers Compensation’ Category

Are the ever-rising Illinois workers’ comp rates now wrong? Should we demand the IWCC correct them?

March 1st, 2010 Eugene Keefe No comments

Editor’s comment: At some point in December of each year for several decades, the IWCC posted a new PPD maximum rate. When that happened, the new and higher PPD maximum rate had to be retroactively implemented by claims handlers for claims occurring in the period backward to July of the applicable year and then for future claims until next July. This year nothing happened! The rates simply remained the same.

Well, inquiring minds need to know. Turns out the statewide average weekly wage (or SAWW) went down!! For the first time since the SAWW was implemented to make WC rates spiral up, one would have thought Illinois business would get rate relief in the workers’ comp arena. We learned from George Picha of Picha and Salisbury and KC&A’s own WC rate guru, Shawn R. Biery, the Commission did not change the existing maximum PPD rates since the SAWW actually decreased and also for the reason the Act does not contain a specific provision authorizing a corresponding decrease in the maximum rates.

The Commission’s own website says:

Every six months, the Illinois Department of Employment Security publishes the statewide average weekly wage (SAWW). The SAWW sets the maximum and minimum weekly benefit levels for workers’ compensation. To calculate the SAWW, total wages are divided by the total number of employees in the past six months. Some employees worked every day, and some worked only a few days, but all are counted together. (Federal workers and self-employed workers are excluded.)

Although every attempt is made to calculate the workers’ compensation rates in an accurate and reliable manner, only the Illinois statute governs. Where there is a disagreement between the statute and the IWCC’s calculations, the statute is correct.

*As provided in Section 8(b)4, there is no increase in the benefit rates for 1/15/10 – 7/14/10 because the SAWW decreased.

In a website we have saluted for years, we remain stunned to see they didn’t post their decision as web news or something of note.

We then understood there may be no need for a specific statutory provision authorizing the Commission to reduce the maximum rates since Section 8(b)4 mandates the maximum TTD rate “shall be increased to 133-1/3% of the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act.” Section 8(b)4.1 further states: “Any provision herein to the contrary notwithstanding, the weekly compensation rate for compensation payments under subparagraph 18 of paragraph (e) of this Section and under paragraph (f) of this Section and under paragraph (a) of Section 7 and for amputation of a member or enucleation of an eye under paragraph (e) of this Section, shall in no event be less than 50% of the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act.”

If you do the math, by leaving the current maximum TTD rate at $1,243.00, that number would actually represent 134-3/4% of the current $922.45 SAWW and not 133-1/3% as the statute patently outlines. The current published minimum rate for death, PTD, amputation and enucleation cases would actually be 50.53% of the current SAWW and not 50%. We feel where the current maximum TTD rate applies our readers may want to consider paying $1,229.93 per week, and in Section 8(b)4.1 cases, $461.23 per week. Please note this recommendation may result in litigation to debate this statutory issue.

We have not researched the issue of computing the accurate maximum PPD rate, if the rate retroactive to 7/1/09 is based upon the $922.45 SAWW, there should be a proportionate decrease for the same reason. There is no question the maximum TTD and minimum rates for Section 8(b)4.1 cases are specifically tied to a stated percentage of the SAWW, a specific provision in the Act authorizing a decrease in the rate when the SAWW decreases is unnecessary and, in our view, should be presumed to be the law.

We need your thoughts on all of this. In order to push for a change favorable to Illinois business, we need to take this matter to the courts on what is called a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus can be used to have a court compel an administrative agency, such as the IWCC to act and follow the provisions of the law. In Illinois, one may petition the circuit courts for a writ of mandamus “to command a public official to perform some ministerial nondiscretionary duty in which the party seeking such relief has established a clear right to have it performed and a corresponding duty on the part of the official to act.” The authority of the respondent to comply with the writ must also be clear. Finally, Petitioner must show that a demand was made on the official concerned but he or she refused to comply. This is to make sure the officer in question has the option of performance before the court exacts compliance. Please remember the Illinois courts may follow the law and they may make it up as we go along.

So we are asking all of our readers, should we take this to the courts? Well, if we don’t, Illinois business is certain to continue to overpay benefits. And if the economy stays flat and the SAWW goes down even further, the gap will increase. We invite your thoughts and comments. We have made inquiries and the Illinois State Chamber may consider supporting these efforts if this is important to Illinois business.

Categories: Illinois, Workers Compensation Tags: ,

Illinois WC Legislative stuff currently cooking in Springfield.

February 22nd, 2010 Eugene Keefe 2 comments

Editor’s comment: We are happy about some of this stuff and scared of the rest of it—we don’t know what organized labor is cooking up to counter the business initiatives.

Like secrecy in hiring, we hate the secret “agreed bill” process and it appears to be rearing its ugly head yet again. We will never forget the public relations fiasco that led to passage of the 2005 Amendments to the Workers’ Comp Act that might have sounded great but have delivered very little effective savings to Illinois business. We are now advised by several reliable sources; the Governor convened a meeting recently of some employers and organized labor to discuss the agreed bill process involving potential changes to workers compensation law. This meeting led to a discussion of the process in general and several bills may be cooking out there.

Several measures potentially helpful to Illinois employers have been introduced. We add our thoughts at the end of each description in bold.

Workers’ Compensation Alcohol/Drugs HB 5721 (Zalewski-D-Chicago) provides no compensation is payable if an injury was caused “primarily” by the intoxication of the injured worker, to include the influence of alcohol or certain drugs not prescribed by a physician or the combined influence of alcohol and drugs that affected the worker to the extent that the intoxication constituted a departure from employment. We point out if there are no mandatory guidelines the Commission has to follow in enforcement; this bill isn’t worth the paper it is written on. We hate the legal concept of requiring denial of benefits for injury while intoxicated to necessitate a showing of “departure from employment” and consider the whole concept unenforceable and nonsensical.

Workers’ Compensation Workplace Prevailing Cause HB 6159 (Reis-R-Willow Hill) defines injury as an injury that has arisen out of and in the course of employment; provides that an injury by accident is compensable only if the accident was the prevailing factor in causing both the resulting medical condition and disability. Again, we point out that if this bill isn’t coupled with a provision similar to Missouri’s which requires strict adherence to the legislative intent, this bill is similarly not worth the paper it is written on because everyone will simply swim around it, like an ice cube in a hot swimming pool.

Workers’ Compensation Collective Bargaining SB 3829 (Link-D-Lake Bluff) provides an employer or group of employers and the representative of its employees may agree to establish binding obligations and procedures relating to workers’ compensation; provides the agreement must be limited to, but need not include an alternative dispute resolution system to supplement, modify, or replace the procedural or dispute resolution provisions of the Act. We point out this sort of legislation indicates the Commission should be reformed or not; why create a binding arbitration system and another binding arbitration system? If an employer “opts out” of the current system, do they get to keep the money they are required by law to pay for a system they won’t use?

Workers’ Compensation Objective Medical Standards SB 3830 (Brady-R-Bloomington) provides permanent partial or total disability shall be certified by a physician and demonstrated by use of medically defined objective measurements, that subjective complaints shall not be considered unless supported by and clearly related to objective measurements, and a specified publication shall be applied in determining the level of disability; provides that temporary total disability payments shall not exceed 104 weeks. In our view, this legislative concept is borrowed from other states and would be a very solid, sober and sweeping change to Illinois workers’ compensation law. Therefore, in our view, organized labor will fight it like crazy. Please note this is being sponsored by the leading Republican candidate for Governor! We feel it may have a strong chance of enactment if the political winds change as many feel they may during this coming election year.

Workers’ Compensation Fraud SB 3832 (Brady) provides the Workers’ Compensation Commission may recall a decision or settlement when fraud has been determined to be committed related to a case; provides the Commission shall implement a rule to establish a process for recalling a decision or settlement that is subject to recall due to fraud; provides the fraud and insurance non-compliance unit of the Department of Insurance shall employ one or more attorneys as special prosecutors. Again, this is a sweeping change proposed by the leading Republican candidate for Governor.

Workers’ Compensation Coverage HB 6266 (Rose-R-Mahomet) provides a subcontractor under contract to a general contractor may elect to be covered under any policy of workers’ compensation insurance insuring the contractor upon written agreement of the contractor, by filing written notice of the election on a form prescribed by the Workers’ Compensation Commission. This is a simple and solid idea.

If we put you in charge, what would you change about Illinois work comp law? Please reply with your thoughts and comments.

Fall-down case results in initial denial by Arbitrator of knee injury due to questionable credibility; reversal by Commission and affirmance by reviewing courts.

February 22nd, 2010 Eugene Keefe No comments

Editor’s comment: While we hate to see this outcome, from a purely academic perspective, the Appellate Court got it right; you have to read the administrative ruling to make your own judgment on the Commission’s determination which related a condition not treated or reported for several weeks after the claimed event.

In R & D Thiel v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, (No. 1-08-3666WC February 9, 2010); the Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division ruled the Commission’s decision was not contrary to the manifest weight of evidence as to necessity and reasonableness of medical expenses and causal relationship, although their ruling was contrary to the Arbitrator’s findings, including credibility. The Court noted the Commission explained its reasons.

Claimant testified without rebuttal to a fall off a ladder. He saw a chiropractor the next day. He did not report any problems with his right leg for over two weeks. He went on to treat over 100 times with the chiropractor, primarily for his back. He later wanted and fought to get approval for surgery to his leg.

The Arbitrator concluded claimant suffered only a soft-tissue injury to the low back related to a fall at work. The Arbitrator further ruled Plaintiff failed to prove permanent injury and denied future medical treatment to his knee. In contrast, the Commission reversed and found Plaintiff proved a work-related disk protrusion with annular tear and fracture with possible meniscal tear of knee caused by the admitted work-related fall.

The Appellate Court followed the Commission’s ruling and re-affirmed the legal concept which holds the Commission’s ruling is not affected by the prior determination of the Arbitrator—the Commission rules on the facts and law in a de novo setting. Our only hope is the Appellate Court consistently adheres to this simple rule for both sides of the workers’ comp matrix.

Please do not hesitate to reply with your thoughts and comments or post them on our award-winning blog. If you want the link to the ruling, let us know.

In the latest benefit rates update, for the first time in Illinois history, rates did not decline even though the Statewide Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) declined. Should litigation follow?

February 8th, 2010 Shawn Biery No comments

Editor’s comment: The following debate is one reason we need watchdogs as solid as Keefe, Campbell & Associates partner Shawn Biery and George Picha of the Rockford firm of Picha and Salisbury in relation to our state officials. With all the other information posted on the excellent website of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, we have no idea why they wouldn’t fully disclose what they were doing with rates when the SAWW went down for the first time in recent memory. We don’t agree at all with the position they are taking and it is now incumbent on our readers to tell us your thoughts.

The Illinois Statewide Average Weekly Wage in Illinois went down from $932.25 to $922.45 in the January 15, 2010 changes. However, the calculated amount of the 133-1/3 of the SAWW remained at the previously level of $1,243.00 instead of lowering with the SAWW to the appropriate calculation of approximately $1,230.18. The IWCC website bluntly indicates “* As provided in Section 8(b)4, there is no increase in the benefit rates for 1/15/10 – 7/14/10 because the SAWW decreased.”

However, §8(b)6 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act indicates “(t)he Department of Employment Security of the State shall on or before the first day of December, 1977, and on or before the first day of June, 1978, and on the first day of each December and June of each year thereafter, publish the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission shall on the 15th day of January, 1978 and on the 15th day of July, 1978 and on the 15th day of each January and July of each year thereafter, post and publish the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act as last determined and published by the Department of Employment Security. The amount when so posted and published shall be conclusive and shall be applicable as the basis of computation of compensation rates until the next posting and publication as aforesaid” (emphasis added).

Based upon the SAWW declining to a point under the January 15, 2009 rates, it appears only appropriate Illinois employers would receive the relief of a rollback to those rate maximums.

To illustrate further—there are multiple rates affected and by plain reading of the Act, the rates posted and promulgated by the IWCC directly controvert the plain language of the Act. §8(b)4 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act says in relevant parts:

The maximum weekly compensation rate from July 1, 1975, except as hereinafter provided, shall be 100% of the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act, that being the wage that most closely approximates the State’s average weekly wage.

Effective July 1, 1987 and on July 1 of each year thereafter the maximum weekly compensation rate, except as hereinafter provided, shall be determined as follows: if during the preceding 12 month period there shall have been an increase in the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the weekly compensation rate shall be proportionately increased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase in the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act during such period.

The maximum weekly compensation rate, for the period January 1, 1981 through December 31, 1983, except as hereinafter provided, shall be 100% of the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act in effect on January 1, 1981. Effective January 1, 1984 and on January 1, of each year thereafter the maximum weekly compensation rate, except as hereinafter provided, shall be determined as follows: if during the preceding 12 month period there shall have been an increase in the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the weekly compensation rate shall be proportionately increased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase in the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act during such period.

From July 1, 1977 and thereafter such maximum weekly compensation rate in death cases under Section 7, and permanent total disability cases under paragraph (f) or subparagraph 18 of paragraph (3) of this Section and for temporary total disability under paragraph (b) of this Section and for amputation of a member or enucleation of an eye under paragraph (e) of this Section shall be increased to 133-1/3% of the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Wage Differential Maximum—For injuries occurring on or after February 1, 2006, the maximum weekly benefit under paragraph (d)1 of this Section shall be 100% of the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

4.1. Any provision herein to the contrary notwithstanding, the weekly compensation rate for compensation payments under subparagraph 18 of paragraph (e) of this Section and under paragraph (f) of this Section and under paragraph (a) of Section 7 and for amputation of a member or enucleation of an eye under paragraph (e) of this Section, shall in no event be less than 50% of the State’s average weekly wage in covered industries under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

While it may not affect the majority of cases as it deals with maximum levels of benefits, we feel it illustrates an example of the IWCC actively presenting information which ignores the plain language of the Act to the detriment of Illinois employers. Assume we will see a change without notice as we saw in the stealth increase in the PPD maximum within the prior year’s changes. It doesn’t take a degree in economics to know that increased business costs are inversely proportional to job creation. This article was researched and written by Shawn R. Biery J.D. Please reply to Shawn with your thoughts and comments.

Categories: Illinois, Workers Compensation Tags: ,

IWCC posts solid Medical Fee Schedule seminar questions-and-answers. We add comments from one of our knowledgeable readers in that part of the WC industry.

February 1st, 2010 Eugene Keefe No comments

Editor’s comment: Glen Boyle, Medical Fee Schedule project manager, held seven seminars around the state and one statewide webinar to explain the Illinois Medical Fee Schedule to payers and providers of workers’ compensation medical treatment. The Commission announced their appreciation to the industry for all the questions raised and the exchanges between payers and providers that occurred during the seminars and webinar.

The discussions prompted the Commission to issue guidelines on the three issues that came up the most. They also made a correction to their Instructions and Guidelines.

To read the new guidelines, and the questions and answers from the seminars, go to

http://www.iwcc.il.gov/fsq.pdf

We admit we aren’t Medical Fee Schedule specialists. Comments from one of our readers who is a specialist:

I especially liked the part that said to pay CRNAs at physician rates and to, how did they put it? “translate?” whether –AS represents a modifier -80 or a modifier -81.

I also liked their recommendation to just pay 100% to the physician anesthesiologist and let him/her and the facility hash out who pays the CRNA is going to be interesting in practice…

Since they have instructed us to pay ASTC’s at 76% of billed (except carve outs at 65%) if even one of the procedures falls into the POC76 category, it would have been particularly nice for them to have mentioned paying the subsequent/secondary procedures at 50% of 76% which would be reasonable in view of all other multiple procedure rules.

And after all this time they are still just “recommend[ing] reexamining the implant rule. Policy change is difficult and can take some time,” they said.

Other than these points, everything else makes sense in view of existing law, and it is obvious they really tried to be reasonable and direct in clarifying facility reimbursement problem areas. I do applaud their efforts. Communication has at least been established, and that is a very good thing.

We thank MP for her input and permission to publish her thoughts for your consideration.

Our Illinois WC defense community continues to reel following Interstate Scaffolding ruling. What do we do about it?

February 1st, 2010 Eugene Keefe No comments

Editor’s comment: If you closely follow developments in Illinois WC, you may have had time to read last week’s KC&A Update on this new unanimous ruling by our Illinois Supreme Court. We are completely baffled about most aspects of the decision. We want to assure our readers there are attorneys on both sides who are shaking the heads and wondering what to do now. Our readers have sent us other defense firms’ reviews of the ruling and we haven’t seen a single one that provides any real insight on what to do next.

Does TTD now equal MMI when it never did before?

What is so unusual about the ruling that our entire community is in shock? Well, there are two major issues. As we advised last week, for the first time in about 100 years of Illinois WC history, the Supreme Court created a completely new “rule” that possibly equates the period temporary total disability or TTD is potentially due to be the entire period of medical care. If that is what their ruling means, we truly feel this contradicts literally thousands of Workers’ Compensation Commission decisions/rulings over the ages. Everyone in the Illinois workers’ comp community on both sides along with Arbitrators and Commissioners has always viewed the period TTD is due to be all periods a doctor says you have to be off work. TTD has never been due the entire time you are under the care of a doctor when that doctor says you can work at either full or light work while treating.

Please also remember some folks never lose any time from work despite some times severe injuries—are they entitled to TTD? Can that make any sense? We knew a salesman who was hit by a car and severely injured with multiple surgeries and periods of recovery—he was still on his cell phone and selling widgets while in the intensive care unit and during all periods he was conscious. That same person is still under the active care of doctors to present and has never stopped working. The idea he would be owed TTD is blurring to most seasoned WC professionals. Trust us, he didn’t want it when he was first injured and doesn’t want it now.

In fact, one of the main reasons independent medical exams have been used in TTD disputes from time immemorial is to set up a legal dispute over the proper period a doctor on one side or the other says an injured worker can and should be off work and therefore entitled to TTD. Arbitrators have been taught to lean towards the treaters in resolving the dispute but their focus has never been on whether claimant is MMI or not—they always focus on what the competing medical opinions have been in analyzing what to do about cutting off or continuing TTD long prior to claimant being MMI. We think most Arbitrators will be somewhat baffled about what to do now in light of what may or may not be a new rule that may or may not “stick.”

This is a direct quote from the new ruling:

The Act provides incentive for the injured employee to strive toward recovery and the goal of returning to gainful employment by providing that TTD benefits may be suspended or terminated if the employee refuses to submit to medical, surgical, or hospital treatment essential to his recovery, or if the employee fails to cooperate in good faith with rehabilitation efforts. See 820 ILCS 305/19(d) (West 2004); R.D. Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 215 Ill. 2d 397 (2005). Benefits may also be suspended or terminated if the employee refuses work falling within the physical restrictions prescribed by his doctor. See 820 ILCS 305/8(d) (West 2004); Hartlein v. Illinois Power Co., 151 Ill. 2d 142, 166 (1992); Hayden v. Industrial Comm’n, 214 Ill. App. 3d 749 (1991) (TTD justifiably terminated by the employer, under the Act, when the injured employee was unwilling to cooperate with vocational placement efforts).

The court then goes on to say being terminated from light work while an injured worker is still treating does not end the right to TTD.

What is ‘foreign’ and what is ‘domestic’ in our statutory scheme?

The second and more baffling aspect of this Justice Burke’s new ruling is the word “foreign” that appears twice in the ruling. The Court first says:

A thorough examination of the Act reveals that it contains no provision for the denial, suspension, or termination of TTD benefits as a result of an employee’s discharge by his employer. Nor does the Act condition TTD benefits on whether there has been “cause” for the employee’s dismissal. Such an inquiry is foreign to the Illinois workers’ compensation system.

They later say:

Whether an employee has been discharged for a valid cause, or whether the discharge violates some public policy, are matters foreign to workers’ compensation cases. An injured employee’s entitlement to TTD benefits is a completely separate issue and may not be conditioned on the propriety of the discharge.

Well, now. When the injured employee is released to light work, thousands of prior Illinois WC decisions at every level indicate benefits may be suspended if the employee refuses work within the physical restrictions prescribed by a doctor. You may note that language is lifted from the first box quote above where the court cites both Hartlien and Hayden. We assure you the language in the second sentence of this paragraph is “foreign” to our Act because it comes solely from judicial rulings—the specific language is not contained in any provision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. It clearly isn’t contained in 820 ILCS 305/8(d) because TTD benefits are outlined in 820 ILCS 305/8(b).

Lots of legal concepts that we all debate every day at the IWCC are arguably “foreign” to the Act. For one simple example, you may note there is no provision of the Act which specifically allows Arbitrators to evaluate permanent disability and their actions to do so are arguably “foreign” to the Act; in most states evaluation of permanent disability is done only by doctors. We are fairly confident we aren’t going to see lots more decisions from reviewing courts that continue to debate what is “foreign” versus what is “domestic” or clearly outlined in Illinois workers’ compensation law.

Prior to the issuance of Interstate Scaffolding on January 22, 2010, most folks in our industry felt the worker was “refusing work” when he/she did something dopey and got fired for a bona fide reason while still being treated but on full or light work. We think the reason the issue never was litigated is the claimant side of the bar agreed with that approach.

So Waddawedonow?

Well, we sometimes feel you have to see what will ‘stick’ in this industry and what won’t. We want our readers to understand a couple of things. First, in our view, only the forces of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Ass’n have the pull to get the current Illinois Supreme Court to take on a workers’ comp dispute over a measly $5,000.00 and then obtain a majority decision that is completely galling to all employers across the country. That issue by itself is cause for concern; please remember the majority of the members of this Court are currently up for re-election. The Illinois citizenry and voters have to carefully weigh whether we want to continue to insult existing and potential employers when our state is struggling in the worst economy of our lifetimes.

Second, we have no idea if the Supreme Court has killed light duty—our concern is what to do if claimant’s counsels become wily and tell their clients to start pulling shenanigans to get fired while on light work to insure they get TTD and maybe qualify for very lucrative wage loss benefits. Our approach is to continue to follow the quote above that continues to be good law and solid advice for all risk, insurance, safety and benefits folks to remember: “Benefits may also be suspended or terminated if the employee refuses work falling within the physical restrictions prescribed by his doctor.” The question is will Arbitrators and the Commission truly view an employee’s actions in derogation of their right to work at full or light duty while still treating to be a refusal to work.

Third, if you have to fire an injured worker on light duty for even the most bona fide reason, immediately consider either an informal or formal labor market survey to document work available within their restrictions. An informal labor market survey is one you do on www.monster.com or another similar web site or three. A formal LMS is performed by a certified vocational counselor with concomitant expense. We hope either one may protect you from penalties or fees in any future dispute that becomes litigated in the fashion of Interstate Scaffolding. Please understand we are not confident about anything in the Illinois WC matrix right now and this is one approach—let us know if you have any others.

Fourth, whatever we do, start driving MMI to avoid this debate. How do you drive MMI? We still feel the best and cheapest way is UR or utilization review. Other tools are independent medical exams or setting up your own workers’ comp doctor’s network that can be done in a number of ways. If you have interest in these concepts, send a reply.

Finally, try like the dickens to avoid this whole mess by simply settling disputed claims and/or avoiding workers’ comp litigation to begin with—we hate to say it but the Commission and reviewing courts continue to be mildly to wildly unfriendly to the needs and concerns of Illinois business. We are certain you don’t want to fire an injured worker on light duty for committing a crime and then have to restart TTD. If your injured workers don’t come to the Commission and courts, they aren’t going to hear about these concepts from anyone. If you want our thoughts and ideas on how to minimize workers’ comp litigation, send a reply.

As always please send your thoughts and comments or post them on our award-winning blog.

Excellent ruling from the Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division. The Court also clarifies the Commission still rules on all evidence and applicable workers’ compensation law in a de novo setting—they do not have to follow or even consider the ruling of the Arbitrator.

January 25th, 2010 Eugene Keefe No comments

Editor’s comment: We have to give credit where credit is due. We also note there was some academic question among Illinois workers’ compensation practitioners as to whether the Commission had to provide deference to the ruling of the Arbitrator when they considered affirming or overruling it—the answer is no. The Appellate Court has clarified any concerns in a very detailed ruling. We point out the main issue was manifest weight and it is moderately unusual to see a 22-page ruling that affirms a claim on its facts.

We also caution all practitioners to be wary about filing appeals to the Circuit and Appellate Courts solely on the facts. Many observers now feel such appeals by either side may be viewed as frivolous and result in sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 745(b) against the appealing law firm. We want to clarify this Court did not award sanctions but we are seeing claim after claim come down with requests for sanctions where there are no true matters in dispute and facts are not supposed to be disputed unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary of the Commission’s ruling.

In Hosteny v. Workers’ Compensation Commission, (No. 1-08-3238WC 1st Dist. Dec. 29, 2009), the Court ruled that although an injured worker’s testimony alone might be sufficient to establish an injury arose out of and in course of employment, such testimony alone is not enough when the total circumstances show manifest weight of evidence is against it.

The Court expressly ruled it is within the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s sole purview to assess credibility and weigh and resolve conflicts in evidence. The Commission’s findings are to be accorded deference. The Appellate Court noted there was a delay in reporting the accident to both the employer and to his medical providers. The Court also noted claimant’s prior experience with workers’ compensation led to a reasonable inference claimant did not suffer compensable accidents on two of the three reported dates.

We point out to President Doug Whitley and the hard-working folks at the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce, this ruling highlights how important it is to get the right Commissioners in place if the defense side of the bar makes inroads in the fall elections. Please consider joining the State Chamber in their fight to make Illinois Workers’ Compensation more palatable for Illinois business.

Please don’t hesitate to reply with thoughts and comments or post them on the blog. If you need the website of this ruling, we are also happy to provide it.

What the….oh, it’s Illinois! Our Supreme Court issues new unanimous ruling we respectfully feel is a conundrum, wrapped in an enigma, surrounded by a puzzle; we feel there is no question this is a paradoxical decision on a major workers’ compensation issue Illinois employers may be reluctant to follow.

January 25th, 2010 Eugene Keefe No comments

Editor’s comment: From the perspective of Illinois employers, we don’t consider this just a problematic ruling from this Court; we consider it one of the most difficult and anti-business decisions in recent years to ingest as attorneys and counselors for Illinois employers; especially employers that have problematic employees. We are unsure why the Supreme Court chose to take on this case, as it is our impression our colleagues on the other side of the bar previously took no particular exception to termination of the worker and suspension of TTD when their clients engaged in such shenanigans. You may note the Supreme and Appellate Court agreed it was a matter of first impression or the first reported case on the issue—the reason may have been both sides supported the prior concept and didn’t want such issues litigated. We feel this ruling may be one of those “no bad deed goes unrewarded” outcomes.

In Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, (Docket No. 107852 January 22, 2010), our Supreme Court considered an appeal where claimant had an undisputed back problem and was working on light duty. He spray-painted graffiti on the employer’s shelving or equipment and was fired for it. He then made a claim for TTD after being fired. The Arbitrator denied it, the Commission awarded it and the Appellate Court issued a solid ruling confirming claimant wasn’t entitled to workers’ comp benefits after being fired for spraying graffiti and not due to his disability or medical care or anything related to the injury.

Difficult message we keep seeing sent from the highest court to the lower court that usually and capably handles WC appeals—don’t do anything that isn’t pro-labor.

Well, the Supreme Court took the case and reversed the Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division and awarded claimant about $5,000 in TTD. The first aspect of this ruling that we consider poorly reasoned and anti-business is the message sent back to the Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division. There has been one defense ruling in about a decade from the Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division; Airborne Express which took out non-mandatory overtime from the average weekly wage. Every other moderate or slightly pro-business ruling by our Appellate Court, Workers’ Comp Division has been accepted for appeal and then reversed by our Illinois Supreme to supplant reasonable or moderate rulings with concepts that wildly favor Illinois labor. In this continuing rotten economy with double-digit unemployment, we would prefer to see greater consideration for the interests of Illinois business to both lure new employers and jobs to our state along with keeping existing employers within our borders. This ruling sends the wrong message.

Don’t the members of our highest court understand Illinois employers don’t want to have to pay benefits when claimants commit crimes?

The second aspect of this ruling we consider unfavorable to business is our highest court looked at a situation where an individual had clearly and unequivocally broken the law—it is our understanding from the record this claimant spray-painted graffiti on his employer’s shelving or equipment. We caution our readers we are unaware of the worker actually being charged with a crime but we also have no concern that, if the employer decided to have him charged, he would have been convicted based upon the undisputed evidence in the record. We ask all the attorneys on both sides, along with risk, safety and health managers and claims adjusters who read this—if your worker spray-painted graffiti in your work-place, would that be a crime? Should the Commission and courts reward such behavior with additional statutory benefits?

So we can all read their ruling and understand our Illinois Supreme Court has arguably awarded over $5,000 to someone who violated Illinois law. This is the second such ruling from the Illinois reviewing courts this past year where benefits were awarded when crimes were committed. You may recall the Bassgar ruling from October 2009 where the employee was convicted of battery in a fight with his supervisor and still got full benefits for his “accidental injuries” from fighting with the supervisor. Being convicted of a crime doesn’t appear to bother some members of the Illinois workers’ compensation community—as lawyers and officers of the courts of this state, it truly bothers us.

We are confused–should all employers/carriers/TPA’s pay only TTD when workers are on light duty?

Is temporary partial disability or TPD ended as a legal concept as fast as labor got it enacted in 2006?

This decision has what appears to be an inherent contradiction or paradoxical inference when applied to the basic principles of workers’ compensation law and benefits. The court appears to seemingly skip the troublesome word “total” in temporary total disability. The claimant in Interstate Scaffolding returned to work—he wasn’t temporary totally disabled. Both sides agree he was partially disabled but there is no question he had recovered sufficiently to return to some sort of work before getting out his spray-can and getting “canned” himself. No one questions the fact he wasn’t getting TTD while working light duty prior to getting fired he received regular pay. We note he didn’t ask for TTD prior to being fired. After this ruling, should all claimant attorneys start to ask for TTD even though their clients are working; albeit at light work?

The Commission and courts got tied up in defining “maximum medical improvement” as their sole legal basis to terminate the right and duties involving temporary total disability. However, with respect to the Court, we do not feel this should be the measure for TTD entitlement, as it completely fails to consider light duty status as a basis to end TTD and pay regular pay. Therefore, if you apply the literal meaning of Interstate Scaffolding ruling; you would continue to owe any claimant temporary total disability after they were back to light duty work!

Who just discovered MMI and why/where/how did we recently uncover it in the same Act that has been around 100 years?

How does that happen? Well, our highest court has set down what we consider a new rule that TTD is always owed until claimant is at “maximum medical improvement” or MMI. As a preliminary matter, we want our readers to understand those three words do not appear in the Workers’ Compensation Act or Rules Governing Practice and appear to be another “new discovery” in an Act that is about 100 years old. It is our view these three words are being brought into Illinois workers’ comp law via judicial legislation without hearings or anyone in the legislature signing off on them after testimony in the Illinois House and Senate or after other investigation.

We point out there is no particular or reliable legal definition of MMI you can work off from Illinois legislative language, history or other resources. We ask the rhetorical question—what if a treating doctor says the worker is generally recovered and okay to work with some accommodation but come back in a year for a final check-up? When would MMI be reached? Do you owe another year of TTD?

We next point out every claimant on light work is arguably not at MMI—they are on medically modified duty as part of the recovery process. Anyone who understands basic principles of workers’ compensation understands workers can work at light or modified work long before they are fully recovered and continue to need medical care. In fact, part of most injured workers’ recovery is the period of light work where they are able to slowly and smoothly pick up their old tools and take their time but get back to a functional existence at their former job. No one in such a setting is at “maximum medical improvement” by definition—they are still under the active care and supervision of a doctor, physical or occupational therapist.

The question you have to ask after this unusual ruling—are all injured workers entitled to TTD only? By that we mean, if a worker returns to light or medically modified duty prior to MMI, it appears our highest court has now ruled they can only receive TTD. If so, what in tarnation is temporary partial disability or TPD and why did the legislature bother with it? Has our highest court stripped out or rendered useless that relatively new portion of the Act just four years after its enactment?

Please also remember Illinois municipal workers are allowed a year of regular pay while recovering from a work injury—what do they now get while off work; regular pay or TTD? Are they now entitled to both TTD and regular pay? If they don’t get both, do they get TTD as this court suggests when back to work on light duty?

We certainly don’t think our Commission and reviewing courts intended this bizarre and confusing outcome. We have never seen anyone working and being paid a regular wage at light duty that was also entitled to full TTD—we feel this ruling may either imply or require such an outcome. However, we do not recommend paying both TTD and wages at this time.

The Big Picture—Illinois courts keep inventing new stuff to trap and trip risk, safety and claims managers

The big picture on this mess is everyone on both sides was happy for about 100 years to see workers on light duty getting regular pay. If the worker on light duty did something egregious, illegal or inappropriate, our advice was to let them go and not pay any further benefits. There is now a very defined risk to doing so in this nutty state—we are confident folks who aren’t as informed as you are going to get caught in this new snare because it simply makes good common sense to fire and not pay someone who is illegally spray-painting their employer’s workplace. Our advice to everyone is contact us about firing anyone who has or might make a workers’ compensation or occupational disease claim.

If you are wondering how well-settled Illinois law has again wildly changed after about 100 years of implementation of our Act and Rules, we have to admit we are as confused as you. Please forward your thoughts and comments on this new ruling or post them on our award-winning blog.

Categories: Illinois, Workers Compensation Tags: ,

Getting the elderly back into the Illinois work force—the workers’ comp hurdle.

January 18th, 2010 Eugene Keefe No comments

We have been asked by a number of readers whether we can support bringing older workers back into our work force in this state. As the stock market has waffled and the economy continues to struggle, lots of folks are looking for ways to make ends meet, particularly among the elderly.

We are sad to advise all of you it is a very problematic—so please don’t shoot the messenger on this one. We truly feel this has to be taken up in the legislature if the Illinois legislature is lucky enough to get some folks willing to tackle the issue after the November elections. Right now, we hate to tell HR and risk managers hiring the elderly is asking for financial disaster in this state.

Why do we make that claim? Well, we looked at a study from the stat-rats, NCCI titled Age as a Driver of Frequency and Severity that examined how frequency and severity vary by age of worker, focusing on workers between ages 20 and 64. Events since that study was published, especially the plunge in the stock market and the decline in home prices have sparked interest in the implications for workers compensation claims of persons working beyond age 64.

The study indicates for many persons in their late 50s and early 60’s whose life savings have been depleted and whose homes are now worth far less than anticipated, the idea of a “normal” retirement is now more in the realm of wishful thinking than an achievable reality. Workers aged 65 and older comprise a small share of employment and injury and illness cases, which is why the previous study limited its analysis to persons aged 64 and younger, however, the labor force participation rate of older workers (those aged 65 and older) has increased by nearly 50% since the late 1980s, and the rate for workers aged 55 to 64 has also increased from 55% to 65%. Further increases are expected in coming years in light of recent financial and economic disruptions.

This NCCI study examines how workers aged 65 and older differ from all workers in terms of their share of claims; indemnity and medical payments; frequency; and indemnity and medical severity (i.e., cost per claim). It also explores the implications for workers compensation claims management and loss costs. Their key conclusions are:

  • Falls/slips/trips are by far the greatest cause of injury among older workers.
  • Indemnity severity is less for older workers, largely because of the lower average weekly wage of such workers. There is a distinct (downward) break in indemnity severity between ages 60–64 and 65 and older.
  • Medical severity is higher for older workers, although the differential between workers aged 65 and older and nearby age cohorts is small.
  • Shares of indemnity and medical payments of older workers have a close relationship to their share of claims.
  • Frequency is less for older workers, especially in the more hazardous manufacturing and construction-related industries and occupations.
  • In contrast, claim frequency is higher for older workers in the leisure and hospitality industry and food preparation and service occupations as well as in sales and related occupations.

How does all of this affect Illinois WC claims? Well, the current theories of compensability do nothing to motivate employers to hire older workers. First, Illinois continues to adhere to the theory the work only has to be “a” cause and not “the” cause of the injury. Therefore if Uncle Dave or Aunt Sally get a sore [insert body part] at work, it can be very simple to demonstrate the work was a cause of their age-related problem. So, for one simple example, if Uncle Dave is a part-time sales person and is on his feet some of the day but now needs total hip replacement, you can be on the hook for the surgery and 60% LOU of the leg, regardless of the fact Uncle Dave has had documented hip problems for three decades—you may be determined to have aggravated it.

Next, remember the rates have all jumped, making it much more difficult to save costs if an elderly worker is brought back on a part-time basis. For a part-time worker who suffers an injury, their TTD and PPD rates will typically equal their average weekly wage. Most galling, if you are paying a part-time elderly worker $100 a week and they die from an arguably work-related event, the minimum weekly death benefit is $466.13.

The legal issue of accidents being “a” cause versus “the” cause isn’t in the legislation and could be changed by administrators willing to make things better for hiring the elderly. High rates isn’t truly an issue our administrators can change. We suggest all of it should be considered by a new administration, if one should land this fall.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments or post them on our blog.

Categories: Workers Compensation Tags:

Thoughts for our WC insurance and claims industry on setting up and having the injured worker self-administer a Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (or WCMSA).

January 18th, 2010 Eugene Keefe No comments

What is happening out there in the real world is lots and lots of workers’ comp claims are being settled with WCMSA’s where the injured worker or their family are being given a sometimes large MSA trust account that has been approved by CMS for use to pay work-related medical expenses. Some claimant attorneys were advising their clients these funds are “part” of the settlement—that advice is sort of right and sort of misleading. It is misleading if the worker thinks they can take the money and casually use it for anything they want. Nothing can be farther from the truth. All monies in the WCMSA have to be used carefully and has to be reported annually to the Feds. Failure to do so may result in a claimant being audited and sued by them—and once John Q. Injured Worker gets into a problem with the Feds, they are certain to turn around and want to sue the attorney or insurance carrier/TPA if they can point liability at them. We recommend caution be used at every step of this path.

We have also heard of claimant attorneys who have sought to take a fee on the amount of the WCMSA—such a practice is specifically barred by U.S. law. For example, if the settling parties submit a WCMSA proposal to CMS which indicates claimant will need $100,000 worth of work-related medical expenses that would otherwise be reimbursable under Medicare and the settling parties assert it will cost $20,000 in administrative and attorney fees to establish and administer the Medicare set-aside arrangement proposal, CMS will only review the reasonableness of the $100,000 figure. CMS will not review whether or not the $20,000 in administrative and attorney fees are reasonable nor will CMS permit the settling parties to add $20,000 amount to the $100,000 WCMSA amount. Therefore, if CMS approves the proposal for a $100,000 WCMSA, the settling parties administrative and attorney fees cannot be charged to/against the WCMSA. We have also not heard of any rulings where an Arbitrator or the Illinois Commission has approved a settlement where the claimant attorney is seeking a fee on the future medical bills that have not yet been paid.

We caution our readers the injured worker has to be advised Medicare Set-Aside monies cannot be used until the worker is eligible for Medicare benefits. Once the worker is eligible to receive Medicare benefits, the monies supplant the federal benefit–the monies have to be used to pay Medicare-covered medical or other expenses related to the work injury or management of the MSA until they are used up. Most important, the injured worker has to annually report what they do with the money to CMS.

CMS recommends non-professional administrators look to Medicare’s publications, such as “Medicare and You,” for general guidance about Medicare issues. This document is available from their offices and on the web at http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/10050.pdf. You may note this lengthy document does not directly address the issue that is the subject of this article. This document and any of Medicare’s other publications, are available from local Social Security office; or from Medicare, by calling 1-800-633-4227 or by visiting Medicare’s web site on the Internet at www.medicare.gov.

We are advised the folks who set up the WCMSA generally provide pamphlets and forms for the injured worker or their families to understand the rights and responsibilities they face in this process. In pro se settlements, we recommend the WC claims person discuss the issues with claimant and document those discussions to protect yourself from future liability. For lawyers on both sides who are involved in a settlement with a self-administered MSA, we suggest you insure claimant has been fully advised about the requirements.

For the statutory outline of what is going on, Medicare regulations found in Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations §411.46 state Medicare will not pay for covered medical services related to the work-related injury until the WCMSA funds have been exhausted. All WCMSA funds must be used to pay for all Medicare-covered services and supplies related to the work injury. Examples of some items that Medicare does not pay for are: acupuncture, routine dental care, eyeglasses or hearing aids. Therefore, these items can not be paid from the WCMSA account. If payments from the WCMSA account are used to pay for services other than Medicare-allowable medical expenses related to medically necessary services or supplies, Medicare will not pay injury related claims until these funds are restored to the WCMSA account and then properly exhausted.

A CMS Medicare contractor will monitor all expenditures from the WCMSA account upon receipt of the annual self-attestation letter the injured worker is required to submit. Once the lead contractor has confirmed WCMSA funds have been exhausted appropriately, Medicare then begins paying for Medicare covered-services related to the work-related injury.

Establishing and Using a Medicare Set-Aside Account

As part of the workers’ comp settlement, WCMSA funds are placed in an interest-bearing account, separate from the worker’s personal savings or checking account. This is typically done by the Medicare Set-Aside provider who prices the trust and sets it up with funds or an annuity paid for by the insurance carrier/TPA. That provider should also outline what the injured worker is to do with the monies, along with when and how to spend them and how to report all of it to CMS on an annual basis.

Record Keeping

As an administrator of the self-administered WCMSA account, the injured worker is responsible for keeping accurate records of payments made from the account. These records may be requested by CMS’ lead Medicare contractor as proof of appropriate payments from the WCMSA account.

The injured worker may use the WCMSA account to pay for the following costs directly related to the account:

  • Photocopy charges
  • Mailing fees/postage
  • Any banking fees related to the account

Annually, the worker must sign and forward a copy of the form providing self-attestation that payment from the WCMSA account was made appropriately for word-related injuries that would otherwise be reimbursable by Medicare. The annual accounting has to be submitted no later than 30 days after the end of each year, beginning one year from the establishment of the WCMSA account. Annual self-attestation should continue through depletion of the WCMSA account to the CMS lead Medicare contractor.

CMS policies further restrict the use of MSA funds. Payment of fees for attorneys, trustees, custodians and administrators, as well as those of any other professionals engaged to assist in administration of the MSA, including any medical claims administrator or third party administrator, may not be made from the funds in the MSA. Separate arrangements must made for payment of those fees as part of the WC settlement.  Also, the funds in the MSA may not be used to pay premiums for Medicare supplemental (“Medigap”) insurance for the beneficiary.

In the case of non-professionals administering WCMSA’s, CMS will accept a completed annual self-attestation form in which the WCMSA administrator verifies all expenditures were for work-related medical expenses of the type normally covered by Medicare. CMS does reserve the right to demand and receive a complete accounting at its discretion. CMS policy requires the set-aside amount approved by CMS to fund a WCMSA must be placed in a separate interest bearing account.

State Law Requirements

CMS takes the position non-professionals administering WCMSA’s are subject to the same standards and duties as professional fiduciaries. Therefore, it is safe to say that anyone administering any type of MSA must comply with all applicable state trust and fiduciary laws.

Typical fiduciary powers include, but are not limited to:

  • The power to invest/reinvest in securities such as stocks, bonds, or other property, including purchase/sale of annuities, life estates, remainder interests, options on securities, insured money market funds;
  • The power to hold investments in the name of a nominee;
  • The power to make distributions of the assets of the trust or custodial arrangement in money or in kind, or partly in money and partly in kind;
  • The power to retain any property (whether or not income producing) that may be transferred to the trust or custodial arrangement;
  • The power to borrow money for any purpose connected with protection, preservation or improvement of the trust or custodial arrangement, or enhancement of the benefits to beneficiaries; and the power to create one or more mortgages on, or pledges of, any part or all of the property held in the trust or custodial arrangement;
  • The power to pay, compromise or adjust any claims by or against the trust or custodial arrangement;
  • The power to pay tax obligations of the trust, custodial arrangement or beneficiary from assets held by the trust or custodial arrangement;
  • The power to execute, acknowledge and deliver any and all instruments in writing that may be advisable or necessary to carry out any of the trustee’s or custodian’s powers and duties; and
  • Other powers that may be allowed or granted under state law or in the governing trust or custodial agreement itself.

In making investment decisions, an MSA fiduciary must consider that the funds in the MSA must be highly liquid; and that there is little, if any, risk tolerance. The set aside funds in the MSA must be available for predicted future injury-related medical expenses of the type normally covered by Medicare. In addition, unexpected and significant medical expenses can, and often do arise.

CMS only requires MSA assets be placed in an “interest bearing account.” However, state fiduciary and trust laws require administrators to exercise due diligence in deciding on any investment of MSA assets. This requires a careful investigation and comparison of available investments, including analysis of each investment’s individual characteristics and performance history. Non-professional administrators are strongly advised to seek the help of a professional, certified investment advisor in choosing an appropriate investment portfolio for MSA assets. CMS does not require that MSA’s be administered according to any formal written instrument, such as a trust or custodial agreement.  As a result, many non-professional SMSA administrators act with only CMS’ self-administration guidelines as a reference.

Tax Requirements

IRC §104(a)(2) provides damages received on account of a physical injury or illness, including WC settlement proceeds, are excluded from the taxpayer’s income. Placement of the award into an MSA should not alter that exclusion. Therefore, the receipt of WC settlement proceeds will not result in income tax liability to the claimant or the claimant’s MSA. If the settlement is structured to provide payments over a period of time through a qualified annuity under IRC §130, even the interest portion of the annuity payment is excluded from taxation under IRC §104(a)(2). However, if the settlement is paid in a lump sum, only the lump-sum portion is excluded from the taxpayer’s gross income; the claimant is taxed on any interest earned. If the claimant accepts a lump sum in settlement of a WC claim and subsequently purchases an annuity to fund the MSA, the interest portion of the annuity payments will likewise be taxable to the claimant.

Because the claimant is treated as the owner of the MSA for income tax purposes, and is taxed on the net earnings of the MSA, regardless of whether any of the income was actually distributed, the payment of the claimant’s income tax by the MSA should not constitute additional income to the beneficiary. Further, CMS does not currently prohibit the payment of taxes from WCMSA’s.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments or please feel free to post them on our award-winning blog.

Categories: Workers Compensation Tags: ,
LexisNexis Workers' Comp Law Center