Keefe, Campbell & Associates, LLC

Editor’s comment: Please remember we are licensed by and officers of the courts of this state. Our goal is to provide an academic review of the more controversial decisions we have seen come from the current WC reviewing court members. For representatives of Illinois business, please take a look and “draw your own contusions” from the actual rulings.

Our initial pick for judicial controversy is the ruling in Durand v. Workers’ Compensation Commission. In this decision, we feel our reviewing court stripped out the statute of limitations in Illinois WC claims.

Illinois law mandates an injured worker has to file an Application within three years of the accidental injury or onset of a work-related condition.
In this case, claimant made four admissions she was aware of a repetitive trauma condition and its relationship to her employment.

Claimant didn’t file the Application until four years later—the filing was clearly and unquestionably outside the rules under any reading of the Act.
Benefits were awarded.

The Court said: “[w]e decline to penalize an employee who diligently worked through progressive pain until it affected her ability to work and required medical treatment.”

We ask our readers what “penalty” has to do with workers’ compensation rules—you either follow them or you don’t.

When you follow the rules and enforce them, someone is always being arguably “penalized.”

We ask our readers and the law students we teach and all of the administrators who handle workers’ comp claims in this state the rhetorical question—isn’t every injured worker who waits more than three years to file a claim going to say—“I have been working in progressive pain and now it affects my ability to work”?

We ask anyone to tell us how the legislature’s determination to limit workers’ compensation claims to injured workers who file for benefits within three years can possibly survive and/or be enforced after this decision.

The next source of judicial controversy is the parallel rulings of Sisbro and Twice Over Clean.

In Sisbro, the Appellate Court ruled a guy with a deleterious and non-work-related bone condition who shattered his ankle simply stepping out of truck wasn’t entitled to benefits because an action of every day life wasn’t compensable under the WC Act.

In Twice Over Clean, the Appellate Court ruled a guy whose heart was so degenerated his own doctor said he could have had a heart attack brushing his teeth was not entitled to benefits.

The Supreme Court went back and forth on both cases and then ruled the decisions were based upon facts and the reviewing courts couldn’t deny benefits by reversing the Commission on the facts.

Our highest court basically indicated if any ruling of the Commission is “within the manifest weight of the evidence” it can’t be reversed by a reviewing court.

We just had a denial of benefits reversed by a reviewing court with a ruling the denial was not “within the manifest weight of the evidence.” That ruling was not certified by the lower court for further appeal so it is now final. As we have said in the past, the “manifest weight of the evidence” factual standard appears to be liberally focused to insure benefits are always awarded and never denied.

From a purely academic standpoint and with respect to our highest court, we don’t agree at all with their rulings above which outline their position the lower court decided the cases on the facts—many academicians feel the lower court relied on longstanding Illinois legal principles.

Another source of judicial controversy is Franklin v. Industrial Commission. In this ruling, the Supreme Court basically found “two left jabs don’t make a right.”

Two cosmetic salesladies got into a fight and struck each other at precisely the same time.

Following longstanding Illinois law, the Commission ruled they were both denied benefits, as they were both aggressors.

This silly and unusual case made it all the way to our Supreme Court.
As we have pointed out many times, no one commented about the fact both ladies were breaking the law when injured.

The Supreme Court found the Commission misconstrued the “aggressor defense” to find injuries sustained by an injured employee in an altercation over work-related issues was not compensable by finding both Petitioner and the person who may have injured her were “aggressors.”

In this supposedly “typical” fight, the Court found the Commission must determine someone has to get benefits and sent it back for such a ruling.
Lots of our readers feel both combatants should have been “punched out” of any claim for benefits.

The next source of judicial controversy is Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23. This rule was designed to allow routine or mundane decisions to be “non-published.”

Well, in one ruling during the last several years, all five members of the Appellate Court unanimously decided to simultaneously “non-publish” a decision as supposedly “routine” while certifying the same case as crucially important for review by the Supreme Court.

For those of you unfamiliar with Illinois unusual WC Rule 23 decisions, they are almost all very detailed, well-researched by the members of the Court and carefully thought out. We have never seen one that is short and arguably “routine.”

By issuing such rulings, an indefinable amount of the work of our WC Appellate Court is arguably secret.

While it is impossible to tell because the decisions can’t be readily located or researched, we assert more workers’ comp appellate rulings are “non-published” than published, keeping them hidden from the public.
When we hear about another Rule 23 decision in Illinois WC, we love to quote a guy you might remember named Barack Obama who, during his presidential campaign repeatedly quoted Justice Louis Brandeis by saying, “sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

We hope some day; sunshine or publication of all relevant WC appellate rulings will be a routine disinfectant in our WC legal arena.

We continue to laugh to see the Illinois State Bar Ass’n WC Section newsletter openly report the occasional Rule 23 decision thereby “publishing” rulings ordered “non-published” by the Illinois courts. This doesn’t mean the rulings are openly published—it means the members of the ISBA can be “in on” the secret rulings.

We truly don’t care if the rulings are good or bad or pro-labor or pro-business; our reviewing courts should publish everything of the slightest substance or impact.

More to follow next week. If you want the website of the above rulings, send a reply. Please do not hesitate to reply with your thoughts and comments or post them on our award-winning blog.

Editor’s comment: Hang on to your hats, readers. We feel a novice or outsider looking at the Illinois system of WC jurisprudence might consider some of what is done in this state to be unusual, to say the very least. We always find the rules to be fascinating and challenging for judges, lawyers, the parties and the public to truly understand and comprehend. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 allows our Illinois Appellate Court, at its sole discretion, to “non-publish” its orders disposing of cases. We have always been captivated to see how this Rule is employed by our higher court. “Non-publication” means the court’s ruling is not released for public consumption and is generally non-precedential. The parties alone are typically given a copy of the order and the case some times moves up to the Supreme Court or some times back to the Circuit Court or the litigation simply ends.

We note Rule 23 orders are issued in Illinois workers’ compensation rulings at least as much or perhaps even more than regular rulings. Your editor has handled several dozen Appellate Court cases before the five-member Workers’ Compensation Division of the Appellate Court—if you do the research, very, very few are actually published and out there for review. The vast majority of these carefully drafted rulings, some of them involving extraordinarily complex and intricate legal decisions, all remain “non-published” and are effectively kept secret from the public eye.

As you can tell from the tone of this Update, we prefer all legal and political rulings and decisions to always be made public. Good, bad, happy or sad, the public votes and pays the taxes that fund the courts and have a right to know what is going on and debate it in this free society. We particularly feel appellate court rulings with wild and mild impact should be out there for review and open for debate and comment from you and John Q. Public. We don’t like anything in the legal sphere to be intentionally or routinely kept from the public eye.

So, please understand our view is the “plain English” meaning of “non-publication” would indicate the members of the Court are affirmatively ruling the order isn’t to ever be published or generally disseminated. Not so fast, not so fast!! We always wonder why the Illinois Appellate Court would spend all the time and effort in carefully and thoroughly reviewing the facts and law and creating a serious dissertation on a specific matter and then “non-publish” it. Particularly in this day and age of super-fast communication and the worldwide web, one would think it is simple matter to publish even the simplest opinions. Every ruling of the august members of this Court is clean, clear and generally excellent—why hide them under a bushel basket? We assure all of you there are numerous legal services waiting to grab their orders and put them out there first.

What is even stranger is some of the “non-published” opinions are then occasionally leaked out and published!!! The editor of the quarterly Illinois State Bar Ass’n newsletter is a very solid and knowledgeable academician with whom we have debated this issue for some time. He feels there is nothing wrong with publishing or otherwise reporting “non-published” opinions of interest to the State Bar membership. The problem we have with that approach is John Q. Public and the business side of the WC industry can’t be ISBA members if they want to be—you have to be a lawyer to join. His newsletter is always well-thought out and contains excellent content that would be important for many of you to read. So, we guess it is up to us to re-publish his publication of the important non-published rulings for the greater good of everyone!

Accordingly, in the case of Carper v. CMT Enterprises, as affirmed in a Rule 23 decision by the Appellate Court of Illinois, Workers’ Compensation Commission Division, the Arbitrator awarded Petitioner, in an ex parte hearing, 21 2/7 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, $55,268.52 in medical expenses, Section 16 attorney fees in the amount of $12,302.47, Section 19(l) penalties in the amount of $1,490 and 19(k) penalties in the amount of $30,756.17. The Commission on review modified the order of the Arbitrator taking away the penalties/fees. It appears claimant’s counsel didn’t file a proper petition for them.

The critical concern you will see in this ruling is the problem with Illinois employers and adjusters hanging onto defense files until the last minute and beyond. We always caution adjusters, employers and claims managers to understand you make a massive mistake to hang onto a file until either just before or just after a hearing. While we trust many of our brethren on the other side, you also are taking a chance to rely on some members of the claimant bar. We actually had an adjuster hold a file until a deposition of claimant’s expert was taken on an ex parte basis pursuant to dedimus and then sent it to us for handling. It was technically impossible to then cross-examine the other side’s expert. When you do that, there isn’t much even the best defense lawyer can do to get a solid outcome.

When the adjuster holds the file after the litigation starts and motions are noticed and filed, the claim file may then be sent to the defense counsel. At that point, the defense attorney is then given the unhappy task of trying to straighten things out or reverse things in mid-stream. In the Carper case we cite above, Petitioner was injured and unquestionably gave notice to the employer and sought treatment in an emergency room. He was diagnosed as having fractures of the hand. He underwent surgery and was later scheduled for more surgery but it was cancelled due to non-authorization from the workers’ compensation carrier. Now, every veteran adjuster should know, at that point, you have a fight on your hands and truly need defense counsel.

Petitioner later developed an infection and osteomyelitis requiring further surgeries and treatment. He sought competent, veteran legal counsel who simultaneously filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim and a 19(b) petition. The claim was set on a notice of hearing and the Arbitrator assigned a trial date. Petitioner’s attorney notified the employer of the trial date—please note, under the Rules, the claimant attorney doesn’t have to send notice to the adjuster or insurance carrier/TPA; it only has to be sent to your account. No one appeared.

On the hearing date, Petitioner’s attorney asked the Arbitrator to enter an order specifically setting the matter for a second trial setting about one month later. The order was specific and noted, “Petitioner filed a petition for immediate hearing with the Application for Adjustment of Claim. The Commission issued notice…for the status call. Petitioner appeared and a trial date was set. Respondent [or its counsel] failed to appear. This matter is now set for [a second trial date]. No further continuances will be allowed. Respondent’s failure to appear for trial will result in a trial ex parte.” On the second setting of the hearing, the employer’s president and owner appeared before the Arbitrator, acknowledged he received a copy of the order setting the matter and he forwarded a copy of the order to his insurance carrier/TPA who acknowledged receipt. The respondent/owner declined to participate in the proceedings and left the hearing room before the hearing. Thereafter, the matter proceeded ex parte. After a hearing on the merits of the case the adjuster apparently sent his file to a defense attorney. The defense attorney then sought to set aside the evidence by filing a motion to strike the evidence presented during the hearing on the grounds of defective notice. The Arbitrator denied that motion and entered his decision as stated above. As we indicate, the matter went all the way to the Appellate Court who entered a very clear and well-researched ruling that we hate to say we have to agree with.

The message from this article is three-fold:

1. Don’t hang onto unquestionably disputed defense files to save a dollar or two—the cost can be perilously high if you get whacked as the result of an ex parte hearing. If you know you are in a fight, get someone to fight for you and protect you at the hearings. Illinois workers’ compensation claims are becoming increasingly expensive and rapidly moving into the six and seven-figure ranges.
2. Keefe, Campbell & Associates’ attorneys know we are sometimes like firefighters. If you need assistance at the last minute, send us an email or call the numbers at the bottom of these Updates. We have attorneys across the state who handle every status call in Illinois, every month. We are used to trying to catch up rapidly but please give us a fighting chance—the more time for preparation you can provide the better but, if things fall through the cracks, send us an email with the file, give us a shout and we will do our fighting best.
3. If this excellent and well-reasoned ruling was important enough for the Illinois State Bar Association to learn about it, it should be important enough for everyone in the industry to read. As court observers, we again ask the great and storied members of our Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division to put simple, moderate and critically important rulings out there for everyone to read.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please don’t hesitate to post them on our award-winning blog at: http://www.keefe-law.com/blog

Editor’s comment: In response to an email from a claimant lawyer in central Illinois commenting about his view there is a possible interpretation of the Workers’ Compensation Act of this state to allow the outcome rendered by the Illinois Supreme Court in this matter, we want to confirm we don’t think an employee should ever get more than lifetime weekly total and permanent disability benefits. When you start to spontaneously “re-interpret” the Act so as to add more weekly benefits to lifetime weekly benefits, you walk into a netherland where you are just abstractly giving away WC benefits beyond need and into wealth. We again assert the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association’s participation in Beelman Trucking was focused on making injured workers unnecessarily wealthy at the expense of Illinois employers. We think that is short-sighted, unnecessary and anti-competitive. We also feel it adds confusion and markedly higher costs to the biggest claims—this is an enormous concern to major Illinois’ businesses and government bodies who are struggling to stay afloat in this economy.

With deepest respect to severely injured workers, no one is supposed to get wealthy from WC—it is a backup system to avoid poverty or deprivation when something catastrophic happens. No matter how much money you give him, claimant in Beelman Trucking cannot be made scientifically or medically ‘whole’ based on current medical technology—some day, his employer or its insurance carrier may have to fund surgery if our physicians and scientists find another miracle to allow them to heal the spinal cord and fix amputations. Until then, we assert all of our readers, many of whom own small and mid-sized businesses would never want to pay any injured employee 100% on-demand medical benefits and lifetime weekly benefits with COLA increases for the rest of their lives and then pay them even more money.

And, until May 2009, our 100-year-old Workers’ Comp Act had never been interpreted to add PPD to T&P for one injury. That is one hundred years of the Supreme Court, Appellate Court and Workers’ Compensation Commission either implicitly or overtly telling all of us lifetime medical and weekly total and permanent disability benefits were plenty. However you recraft the Act, we assert more weekly benefits are not needed for such injuries—when an injured employee is being taken care of for life, they are taken care of. Why mess with something that wasn’t broken?

We also don’t think anyone needs to discuss “employability” for someone who is being paid on a weekly basis for the rest of their life due to a work injury. Again, we walk into the same legal fantasy world where Illinois’ moderately disabled police and firefighters get lifetime disability pensions and can also work; albeit not as police or firefighters. If you can work, why do you get a lifetime pension for disability? Some day, someone will start to see this is a cost to taxpayers similar to the millions of people on Social Security Disability benefits who can work but claim to be “disabled” under a weird version of the word. Experts now report such misguided government benefits will bankrupt that federal benefit system by 2037, if we don’t do something about it.

If you don’t think risk managers from Illinois employers are furious with this unprecedented abstract legal theory to give away their money, you are in the world we feel our courts and Commission are now in. No other state, province or country does this. With unemployment in this state at about 10%, we have got to start giving business the sense that we give a darn and want people to be taken care of without anyone getting rich from it. Everyone across the country thinks Illinois WC is as crooked as the rest of our state and the WC system is trying to steal money wherever and whenever possible. We urge our leaders on the union-side and business-side to start to think about turning that vision around.

On another note, we have learned the oral arguments in Beelman Trucking v. Workers’ Compensation Commission can be viewed on the internet where an audio recording is also available. The electronic recordings present an opportunity to see and learn how attorneys argue a case before our highest court and what may catch the justices’ interest. You may also note the camera shows a packed court room empty out before the workers’ compensation arguments start. Observers jammed the court room for a previous argument over water rights. Workers’ comp isn’t nearly as spicy.

Readers who are interested in learning more about how benefit entitlements get shaped may want to watch the arguments in the work comp case. The Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the trucking accident that happened over a decade ago is, of course, the second interesting aspect. As we have previously advised our readers, we hope the publication and dissemination of video of oral arguments may lead the Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division to stop “non-publishing” the vast majority of their rulings under their interpretation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23—the constant implementation of this Rule leads most of their rulings to be kept secret from the public and somehow “non-precedential.” With respect to this body, we think judicial secrecy is always a negative. Good, bad, happy or sad, publish, publish, publish and let the rest of us adjust to your wisdom. The audio and video recordings of the Beelman Trucking arguments can be found on the worldwide web at:

http://www.state.il.us/court/Media/On_Demand.asp.

Editor’s comment: We were fascinated to see a news report in the Chicago Tribune indicating Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan Attorney General Lisa Madigan blasted former “coo-coo” Gov. Rod Blagojevich for imposing a “culture of secrecy” on state agencies under his control and hampering release of public records. As part of this article we learned there is now an Illinois Reform Commission and they have their own new website at http://reformillinoisnow.org/mission.php. Most of you will be stunned to learn they are asking you and me and everyone reading this for comments, thoughts and questions on what to do to reform our nutty state government.

The Tribune article indicates Ms. Madigan told the Illinois Reform Commission the Blagojevich administration repeatedly refused to release information the public and the press were legally entitled to under the state’s Freedom of Information Act. She is quoted as saying: “Former Gov. Blagojevich made secrecy, not sunshine the default position of state government.”

The article further indicates new Gov. Pat Quinn created the Reform Commission to come up with ways to sanitize our smelly state government in the wake of the numerous Blagojevich scandals. The Commission includes many notables including the man who put former Gov. George Ryan in jail, Patrick Collins, Northwestern Head Football Coach Pat Fitzgerald, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, Pamela Davis, the CEO of Edward Hospital and Lawrence Oliver, Chief Counsel, Investigations for the Boeing Company among others. We wish them all the best. We will send relevant parts of this KC&A Update article to them for their consideration.

The Tribune quotes Madigan who said agencies under Blagojevich “arrogantly” refused to respond to information requests and she said agency officers told the attorney general’s office they were directed “from the top” to deny requests. While Madigan had created a position to help the public get access to information, there were limits on how much they could do because of the state’s weak Freedom of Information Act law. Madigan gave suggestions to Gov. Quinn about using an executive order to increase compliance with public records laws. For example, she said Quinn could designate an attorney within his office to serve as a senior public information officer to ensure that state agencies, boards and commissions comply with the law. Madigan has suggested a senior public information officer then review all the FOIA request denials during Blagojevich’s six years in office and determine whether that information can and should be made public.

Keefe, Campbell & Associates falls into the group of folks who were asking for information and getting stone-walled. In years past, we repeatedly wrote and made formal Freedom of Information Act requests seeking test results and the selection process for Illinois arbitrators. We have always considered it comical to see police and fire candidate testing results posted on the web but our arbitrator testing for jobs that are paid substantially more money are kept secret to the point of being similar to nuclear weaponry. After pushing, calling and writing over and over again, we were told they would never voluntarily respond and the only way to get such information was to file suit. We then made the clear decision not to waste the money litigating such a difficult and complex claim. We hope someone will start to open the door and let the light in.

What else is kept unnecessarily secret and not in the “sunshine” in our Illinois’ Workers’ Compensation system? Who are these folks who secretly run the place? Please note we are not suggesting anything is “illegal” in keeping things quiet. Some of the secret decisions are bad simply because they are kept from the public and the people and businesses that have a stake in the decision-making process. Please understand hundreds of businesses across Illinois are continuously considering Illinois as a location for more or less business and most important, jobs. They all ask us the same questions—is Illinois a good place for business? Is the workers’ compensation system open and fair? If you don’t know it, Illinois business spends between $3-6 billion every year on workers’ compensation costs. They need and must have a say in the process. We urge everyone to “let the sunshine in.”

So, for starters:

1. Judiciary–no one in the public eye has any idea how or why the justices who sit on the Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division are selected. The justices may have lengthy experience in the workers’ comp arena or they may know nothing about it at all. We have seen justices sit on the panel for two or three years until they ask a single question in oral arguments. In 29 years of practice, your editor has only seen one appellate justice who ever actually tried a workers’ compensation (he sits on the current panel). Other than that justice, we have never seen any member of the panel visit the IWCC or sit in on hearings or listen to orals at the Commission. We don’t think learning on the job is a great idea at that level. To our knowledge, this selection process may involve the inner workings of our Supreme Court and we elect those folks so it may be up to us to ask them to tell us how this panel is picked and what the candidates’ qualifications and proclivities may be.
2. Judicial rulings–No one knows how or why so many secret and non-precedential Rule 23 orders are issued by the Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division.. We truly feel it gives the whole WC appeal process a feeling of happening in a clandestine “star chamber.” In the last year and for the first and only time, we saw this honorable panel attack a law firm for filing a frivolous appeal and the Court hammered them with enormous fees and costs, causing a major rift between counsel and client. We agree strongly with the Court’s ruling but found out about it only because a reader sent it to us—every member of the practicing bar on both sides had a right to be forewarned of this new proclivity of the Court but the striking and detailed Rule 23 order remains hidden to this day. Every year, we attend a national roundtable for Illinois WC defense lawyers and all of them routinely talk about a ruling that helped them or a ruling that hurt their client or a legal nuance the practicing bar should be aware of. After telling the audience about it, the defense lawyer then shrugs and says—“well, it is Rule 23 decision so forget I just told you about it.” What is staggering about this whole concept is the members of the court never tell anyone why or how they make the determination to keep a vitally important ruling or possible precedent secret from the public. What is even more maddening is when we hear a number of claimant lawyers all talking about or citing a Rule 23 decision they consider favorable when the only way to learn about it is through their grapevine. We have been advised Petitioners’ lawyers actually send such rulings to uninformed adjusters and possibly mislead the adjuster into thinking such rulings bear on active claims when the Appellate Court says they have no precedential value. Rule 23 was supposed to allow mundane and routine orders to not reach the level needed for publication—it was not supposed to be a tool to hide crucial important rulings from the practicing bar and the public eye. In this day and age, it costs thousands of dollars and years of hard work for either side to take a WC case all the way to the Appellate Court. The parties have a right to demand publication of the outcome. Every appellate ruling of any possible merit should be published every time and all the time. We consider the non-publication of so many important legal rulings to be wholly unnecessary and a public disgrace—numerous secret rulings run completely contrary to what U.S. justice is supposed to be about—let the sunshine in.
3. Chairperson/Commissioners–the entire process for selecting and then confirming Chairpersons and Commissioners is kept completely out of the public eye. We still laugh about the politician who knew absolutely nothing about workers’ compensation and got the job solely to improve his pension. We understand such jobs are created and designed to be purely political appointments. ‘Political’ equals “secret” only in Illinois. In other states and the U.S. Government, they vet or display potential political appointees to the media and public, prior to their final selection and confirmation. The process subjects the candidates to being scrutinized from every quarter. Former Illinois citizen and current U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton wasn’t secretly selected by the President and her confirmation by Congress wasn’t done completely in secret. This firm closely watches the Illinois WC system for several thousand of our readers. For the last thirty years, we first learned the identity of every IWCC chairperson only after they were selected, appointed and confirmed by the legislature. For example, if we learned a candidate hadn’t paid his/her taxes for ten years, he/she would still have the post and the secret power-that-be would have to make quiet adjustments to quell any media outburst. This hidden selection process reeks like really new cheese or really old meat.
4. Arbitrators–the testing and selection of Arbitrators is clearly not a civil service process. Those secret powers-that-be are always manipulating it. There is no question Arbitrator selection and retention is purely political. As we have pointed out many times, the first Chairperson selected by Blago had the political power to insure all hearing officers in the arbitrator position were completely under his and only his thumb. He bragged at numerous presentations that he and only he “appointed” this Arbitrator or that Arbitrator. Civil service jobs are supposed to be earned by testing and other open selection criteria, like military preference. The Chairperson was very clear to indicate he considered military service in making decisions and we are sure he might have done so—however, what it meant to “consider military service” is known only to him, as his full selection standards, if there were any, have never been disclosed. We are confident future Arbitrator candidates will continue to be quietly hand-picked by the secret-powers-that-be and then told to take a test that isn’t openly publicized on the Commission’s website and then “appointed” solely for personal or political reasons in a clandestine process that is never, ever made available for public analysis or scrutiny. Thankfully, that is not how police and fire officers are selected but it will remain the way of our Workers’ Compensation Commission until it is changed and reformed.
5. Commission makeup/budget—as we have told our readers in the past, Illinois business pays every penny of the cost of the place. We truly feel everyone needs an open, honest and fair assessment of staffing needs and efficient use of resources. This has never, ever been done in the open. We question whether Illinois needs 35 Arbitrators—Indiana to our east has 5. Illinois has 9 Commissioners—each Commissioner has 2 full-time attorney assistants. For one clear example of budgetary indifference, the Commission’s 2007 Annual Report says the 9 Commissioners consider up to 1,500 administrative appeals each year. They settle as many as 600 of those cases. On an annual basis, they dismiss about 100 cases. They summarily affirm about ½ of the remaining Arbitrator decisions and don’t actually write an award other than to confirm they aren’t changing the Arbitrator awards. Worst case, that leaves about 400 contested decisions to consider each year and they have 27 lawyers working full-time to do so. If you do the math, that is 14 cases per lawyer per year or approximately one contested case to decide every month. With deference to our hearing officers, it is impossible to consider the Commission is working efficiently when one considers those numbers.
6. Legislation–the legislative process in Illinois WC has been done on an agreed bill process that is also kept a tight secret. How one gets to be on a legislative panel or seek any real say in the legislative process is similarly secret. We think they give out secret rings to the members, have a secret handshake and all of the participating organizations may have to all swear on their pinkies not to tell anyone about anything. That is how things in Illinois have been done in the past—we hope it stops in the future. If you think that Illinois business gets repeatedly slammed because the claimant bar has very strong veteran representation on legislative changes and the defense bar is left on the outside looking at a big wall, we agree with you. We have told you how business reps agreed in 2005 to legislative changes that sounded good but that had no legal value when the affected claims were considered by our hearing officers. We feel the secret process led directly to that outcome and will continue to cause similar dysfunction in a system that cries for reform. We hope the sunshine gets into future legislation from now on.

If you are with Illinois business or labor and think the code of secrecy in Illinois WC is good for Illinois, please tell us why. We think Illinois business gets their brains beat in every day at the IWCC and will continue to do so until these processes are opened up and someone can balance the system. We appreciate your thoughts and comments.