11-14-16; Breathe and Keep Breathing--Trump Isn't Leaving; Budget Gridlock Again Arises in Springfield; Voluntary Recreational Injuries Aren't Supposed to Be Compensable, Right? and more

Synopsis: Breathe and Keep Taking Deep Breaths, Everyone. President Donald Trump Is Here to Stay.

Editor's comment: The election is finally over and no one will miss the 2106 presidential campaign that was packed with controversy. We have literally thousands of disbelieving folks across the country who can't countenance the outcome. In my view, this is the first time we have elected someone who is less-than-universally-sensitive to the White House in any number of presidential terms. For the many people who simply don't believe what happened, we assure you Donald John Trump won and will be inaugurated. There is literally nothing you or I can do about it other than to take a deep breath, put on our grown-up pants and adjust.

Please remember one important thing that may be getting lost in all the silliness--Donald Trump isn't an emperor or king. He doesn't have plenary power to do almost anything. He is the President of the United States and there are lots and lots of limits on the power of that office. The reasons for all the limits and counterbalances are clear--lots of nutty folks have become President and tried to do stuff either secretly or otherwise to force their will upon the electorate. I assure you that hasn't worked very well. Trump’s power will come primarily from deal-making, if he and his team can make deals.

I also think Donald Trump ran for President, not so much because he truly wanted to be President but because he might perceive he is now sort-of like king or emperor and has sort-of unlimited powers. He will find out very quickly he has to build coalitions and sell lots and lots of legislators and administrators on his policies and programs. Outside looking in, I didn't see him doing that very often during his wildly litigious career in business where he used his money and power to sue and be sued to get his way--I assure all of our readers that approach isn't going to work at all from the Oval Office.

So What Will the Trump-ster Do in Office to Effect Change in Your Life in the Claims and Work Comp Industry?

First, our new and fearless leader has vowed to end or greatly change Obamacare--the Affordable Care Act or ACA. Work comp was in existence long before that concept was put into law and we are sure work comp and our jobs will survive the end of ACA. In my view, the end of Obamacare may create pressure on the work comp system across the United States as medical care continues to rise in cost and scope making group insurance more difficult to maintain with reasonable costs to business and government. We are almost certainly going to see a rise in the number of future work comp claims and assume liberal hearing officers in this state and others may open the door to more of what we call "repetitive working" claims.

If you are new to this column, we use the term "repetitive working" to denote a work comp claim where the worker asserts they have pain in their [insert body part] without the need of an accident, trauma or safety failure on the part of the employer. We remain devoted to fighting such claims when and where we can because they are almost indefensible--our bodies break down as part of the normal aging process. Work comp doesn’t work well to cover aging and its pitfalls. Work comp is supposed to be coverage for the unexpected and untoward event where there is some safety issue that an employer can adjust to. We are going to have to watch and see if the end of Obamacare will cause a rise in this sort of questionable claim.

Trump Will Select and Hire Federal Government Agency Leaders—Such Change is Certain

Next, the quiet change coming to a government office near you will be President Trump's ability to select the federal government heads and control the budgets of the major government agencies that hover around the work comp system. The major government agencies that regularly impact work comp are:

      Our Social Security system that has opened up SSDI benefits and then Medicare to over 1,5 million new claimants under Barack Obama's presidency. When he got the job as President, there were about 7.4 million people on SSDI. In 2015, the last reporting period, there were 8.9 people living off of SSDI. Why work when the government will pay your bills, right? Please remember, after one year on SSDI, you are then eligible for Medicare that we also consider expensive for taxpayers. If you are unhappy with the wacky level of U.S. government debt that is soon to exceed $20 trillion dollars, we feel under the new regime you may be happy to see folks being pushed to stay at work or return to work and get off the dole. We will have to wait and see.

      "Normal" Medicare that is the government's senior citizen healthcare plan that also operates at a giant cost to taxpayers. We can’t tell whether Trump and Pence and their minions may want to tighten Medicare coverage to save dollars. We are sure lots of Americans will beef if that happens. We will see if that battle begins.

      OSHA has been an amazing and growing thorn in the side of U.S. business with their reporting requirements and then hefty, unpredictable and unappealable fines. We feel OSHA’s rabid approach has raised the stakes on safety across the country. We look to see a lessened impact by OSHA under the new administration. You have to decide whether OSHA can only work in an environment where the government is felt to be on the attack and not working for cooperation.

      We are certain the EEOC saw lots of growth under the outbound administration in creating lots of challenging rules and anti-business litigation.

o   If you know of their forced work-comp-related settlements with Sears and other major companies about ADA and reasonable accommodation before implementing auto-termination of injured workers, you would understand how upset some HR folks can be about the federal government. As Trump wants less government regulation, we feel the role and sweep of the EEOC is certain to diminish under the new administration.

 

o   I still feel the Americans with Disabilities Act is not properly enforced in this country because the EEOC has never forced governments to put injured police, fire, prison guards and other government workers back to work with reasonable accommodation when they can be trained to do the thousands of sedentary jobs regularly available in government. The refusal of the EEOC to do so costs Illinois taxpayers billions in fake government "line-of-duty-disability" pensions. I don't see that changing under the coming administration either but we will have to see.

 

      ICE or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement may soon grow dramatically and get very aggressive under DJT. I feel we can expect a velvet hammer to be used to insure Americans are working in American jobs and not undocumented immigrants. We always consider it weird to ask/demand the Federal Government enforce their immigration laws as written. We also consider it weird to hear politicians like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel pledge his city may be a haven for folks that flout federal immigration laws.

 

KCB&A is now dealing with a challenging IL work comp claim from an undocumented immigrant--does anyone feel an undocumented immigrant who files a claim for work comp could or should be sued in Circuit Court for fraud in the hiring process? Am I the only one who considers it odd to sometimes reward undocumented immigrants in the work comp process?

 

In Summary, Please Keep Breathing!

I feel we are going to have to take a wait and see approach to our mercurial new leader. We are sure millions and millions of voters decided to reject Hillary Clinton whose lengthy political career was at least as odd as Donald Trump's when one considers she was fired/forced out as Secretary of State to then have our President indicate she would be a solid commander-in-chief when he didn’t want her working with and for him. One has to wonder if she will again run for the same office in 2020 and then 2024 and beyond.

I am absolutely sure, we are sure to get a much less genteel and somewhat less sensitive approach from our new federal government. We hope our country, the voters and your business or local government survives and thrives as we do so.

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

 

 

Synopsis: Moving from the Federal Government to Illinois State Government, We Still Have Budget Deadlock in Springfield That Threatens Basically Everything in Nutty State Government.

If you don't remember, Governor Rauner approved what was called a "stop-gap" budget plan to get through the election and to the end of the calendar year. Everyone in IL state government is back on tenterhooks worry about how State government may continue to operate without a budget. We note former Comptroller Leslie Munger lost in her re-election run and was replaced by a new comptroller completely loyal to our reigning IL megalomaniac, House Speaker Mike Madigan.

All of the uncertainty and battling renders Illinois government even more precarious. Our State government has about $163B in debt and something like $10B in pending/unpaid bills. Both amounts continue to spiral every minute of every day. With respect to Governor Rauner and all the members of the General Assembly, we hope they can figure out a plan to make across the board budget cuts and start to make sense of government in this state before it collapses under its own weight.

Chicagobusiness.com says Illinois government is nearing $14 million in unpaid bills along with $163B in debt. State government is relying on the short-term stopgap measures to fund essential services because our General Assembly and Governor have not approved a spending plan in two years.

Gov. Rauner continues to insist he will agree and sign off to raise taxes to “sort-of” balance the budget only if Madigan supports his “Turnaround Agenda,” which includes a few workers’ compensation reforms and limits on unions and collective bargaining. As I have told our readers repeatedly, the proposed WC reforms aren’t going to change much, if anything.

Bruce Rauner personally donated or gave from his political fund at least $41.4 million to unseat Democratic legislators, the news website reported. In response, five Democrats in the Illinois House lost their re-election bids, while the Democrat party recorded one pickup seat. The overall election ended cutting Speaker Madigan’s majority from eleven to seven lawmakers, ending the supermajority previously in place.

Madigan appears to have forgotten the fact he “cooked the books” by unquestionably gerrymandering many districts. Lots of his returning legislators ran unopposed because there was literally no chance for anyone, even with an unlimited budget to unseat them. Speaker Madigan blocked any chance at fair districting when he used his favorite lawyer to appear before his favorite judges/justices to toss out the signatures of about 550,000 signers wanting to take away Madigan’s power to set and reset districts until many of our votes become meaningless. Speaker Madigan ignored the challenged districting to claim the arguably rigged election was a referendum in favor of both him and a Democratic-controlled House. In response, Governor Rauner said taxpayers deserve a balanced budget and job growth.

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

 

Synopsis: Injuries from Voluntary Recreational Activities Aren’t Compensable In IL WC But It Isn’t a Rule If We Don’t Enforce it.

Editor’s comment: Former Calumet Middle School Teacher was just awarded IL Workers’ Comp benefits for broken arm during an after-school basketball game. The Illinois Appellate Court, WC Division ruled a middle school science teacher was entitled to workers' compensation benefits for his injuries from participating in a recreational game against a group of students in an after-school basketball program.

In Calumet School District #132 v. IWCC No. 1-15-3034WC, issued 11/10/2016, Claimant Jordan worked as a science teacher at Calumet Middle School. He testified the school principal asked him to participate in an after-school basketball program for the students. The program had students play against the teachers, and Jordan suffered a broken arm during his first game.

The Arbitrator found Claimant Jordan was entitled to benefits for his injury. The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission upheld this decision, but the Circuit Court judge reversed. The judge found Jordan was injured while participating in a "voluntary recreational program," and the injury was therefore not compensable.

Section 11 of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act is one of the few statutory defenses in the IL WC legislation. In our view, it is regularly circumvented at the IWCC and reviewing courts. The provision provides "injuries incurred while participating in voluntary recreational programs … do not arise out of and in the course of the employment," unless the injured employee "was ordered or assigned by his employer to participate in the program." We feel that rule is fairly clear—if you are ordered or assigned to attend and get injured, you are covered under WC if injured. If you aren’t ordered or assigned, you aren’t covered.

We tell our law students and readers rulings like this indicate how hard it is to “reform” the IL WC system because crafty litigators and willing claimants know how to easily circumvent any defense if the hearing officers don’t stick to the simple wording of the legislation.

In this claim, it appears clear there was no documentation of Claimant being ordered or assigned to play basketball. There is no dispute Claimant Jordan "was not a basketball player and did not want to participate in the student/teacher basketball games." These parties also agree Claimant Jordan "repeatedly tried to avoid having to participate in the games."

To create compensability, Claimant asserted the school principal "repeatedly pressured him to participate in the games," and he “gave in” because "he was concerned that if he again declined to participate, it might reflect badly in his performance review, and he might not be offered a position for the next school year," the appellate ruling said. The Court concluded this evidence "is sufficient to support a finding that the claimant did not participate in the basketball game for his own 'diversion' or to 'refresh' or 'strengthen' his spirits after toil and that he, therefore, was not engaged in a 'recreational' activity under Section 11 of the act at the time of his injury."

In our respectful view, we hate to see the Appellate Court say “might” over and over again. To our chagrin, there is no mention of Claimant being a union member and he is made to appear as a defenseless waif. It appears this claim is compensable as Claimant “might” have had a problem with his supervisor that his union couldn’t have remedied. Further, Claimant “might” have not been rehired, as his union “might” have cast him adrift. In a similar vein, Claimant “might” be the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus but the taxpayers in Calumet City are now going to have to pay him about $25,000 for his injured arm. We are sure that money could have been put to better use in this financially strapped school district.

From our perspective, Claimant’s state of mind shouldn’t be allowed as evidence to circumvent a clear and simple rule. There is literally no evidence of Claimant being ordered or assigned to participate in what was unquestionably a recreational activity. When Claimant whined about being “repeatedly pressured” to participate, he could have “repeatedly refused” or sought assistance/representation from his union reps to insure the pressure stopped.

For the school districts and other risk managers who read this KCB&A Update, please note the sad outcome of such rulings is to greatly limit recreational activities by your staff to avoid facing the suppositions, possibilities and “mights” from future IL WC decisions. We have a form for your consideration to have participants sign to affirm their participation is voluntary and then are not required to partake—if you want the form, send a reply.

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

11-7-2016; Addressing Problems with PTSD/Psych Claims in WC/Employment Law; Jim Egan on New LHWCA Penalties; Matt Ignoffo on Anti-Fraud Efforts in Cheeseland and more

Synopsis: Major Problems with Defending PTSD in Your Work Comp Claims in Illinois and Across the U.S.

 

Editor’s comment: Earlier this year, I wrote a rather controversial article about the IL Appellate Court’s unprecedented ruling in Moran v. IWCC where Claimant was a firefighting official who became upset and was diagnosed with PTSD for his role in managing a live fire where an officer under his direction died in an unfortunate “blow-over” during the blaze. My main concern is PTSD may be very difficult to verify, diagnose and treat. I also feel literally every single firefighter, EMT and police officer for the Village of Homewood—or your home town—could make a difficult to defend PTSD claim any time a different officer is seriously injured or killed in the line of duty. I can foresee entire departments walking off the job and seeking expensive taxpayer paid disability benefits. If you need help with a difficult/demanding PTSD or psych claim, send a reply—I am happy to assist, as needed.

 

Please also note Fire Lieutenant Moran would be entitled to about $400,000-500,000 in TTD for the periods he was off all work litigating the claim—the event occurred in year 2010 and TTD would be owed for those six years and continuing. We aren’t aware the Village brought him back to work in any other capacity. Without being certain, we also assume former Officer Moran would be claiming an inability to work in any capacity due to PTSD.

 

Police/Fire Disability Pensions In Illinois Reek of Politics and Abuse

 

If you think I am kidding about the battle going on between government and hapless taxpayers in this nutty state about abuse of disability pensions, take a look at this wonderful article from the Chicago Sun-Times where they report how the City of Chicago has finally started to fight back to get their police and firefighters off of disability, then back to some kind of work and off our dole:

 

Sun-Times Watchdogs 11-4-16

 

If you read the article, you will also note there is litigation moving to the very liberal IL Appellate Court that may issue “activist” rulings to allow police and firefighters to remain on the dole, living off our tax dollars when they clearly can and should be working at some sort of government job. The Appellate Courts in this state already provided such largesse for a police officer who felt threatened and may have what he claims is a lifetime of psych issues from feeling threatened by a troubled individual holding an orange-tipped toy gun!

 

Please also note if a police officer or firefighter in other states is caught working while on disability, it is considered a crime and they are prosecuted. In this nutty state and our biggest city, no one but the taxpayers care if a police officer/firefighter is working while on disability. In our view, our politicians could care less because a police officer or firefighter on disability becomes a loyal precinct worker to insure they keep getting benefits for NOT working.

 

What Is Another Major Issue for the Work Comp Defense Industry in Managing PTSD Claims?

 

In our view, we are going to start to see and have to defend more and more work comp PTSD and other psych claims. I am certain some Claimant attorneys and friendly psychiatrists may start coaching claimants to make such claims or add these issues to existing claims due to the potential for income and the difficulty of defending them.

 

What is the preliminary problem with defending a PTSD claim—we can’t use a typical HIPAA-GINA compliant release to get PTSD treatment records and bills. In Illinois and most states, there are psych confidentiality laws. In Illinois the applicable legislation is called the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act

 

The Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or IMHDDCA outlines methods for handling mental health information and records. The IMHDDCA defines confidential communications, provides directions for access to and disclosure of mental health information, creates privileges, and provides for civil and criminal penalties for breach of its provisions. The underlying basis for the provisions of the IMHDDCA is found in the general statement: “All records and communications shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed except as provided in this Act.”

 

In short, a typical IWCC or Commission subpoena isn’t going to work. Even with a HIPAA-GINA compliant release, you aren’t going to get records and bills from a psych provider. In our view, if you are an adjuster or attorney defending a PTSD claim, make sure to tell Claimant’s counsel if they are making a PTSD or psych claim, you can’t address or pay any benefits, indemnity, medical or otherwise unless and until Counsel or claimant brings you the certified records of psych care.

 

Understanding/Defending PTSD and Other Psych Claims

 

PTSD is a serious disorder that results from the experience of a traumatic, life-threatening event, such as war-time combat or other extreme trauma. Those afflicted with PTSD may experience potentially debilitating long-term suffering as a result. However, the diagnosis is increasingly invoked by Plaintiffs/Petitioners who allege PTSD caused by even relatively mild alleged workplace discrimination or retaliation. While attorneys who specialize in representing employers in work comp and employment litigation are well-accustomed to defending generalized claims of emotional distress, a PTSD diagnosis poses unique litigation risks. By following practical strategies geared specifically to defending PTSD claims, defense counsel can help manage those risks.

 

The Criteria For a Bona Fide PTSD Diagnosis

 

There is a high threshold for a bona fide PTSD diagnosis. The authoritative reference on psychiatric disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”), provides a specific set of diagnostic criteria for PTSD that includes, for example,“[e]xposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence.” The DSM describes the “essential feature” of PTSD as “the development of characteristic symptoms following exposure to one or more traumatic events.” The DSM provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of traumatic events that includes exposure to war, threatened or actual physical assault or intimate violence, being kidnapped or taken hostage, terrorist attack, torture, incarceration as a prisoner of war, natural or human-made disasters and severe car accidents.

 

The Prevalence of PTSD Claims in Work Comp and Employment Cases

 

Despite the specific, rigorous diagnostic criteria for PTSD, it has now become common for Plaintiffs/Petitioners to claim PTSD in work comp and employment litigation with little regard for whether these criteria are legitimately met. In some cases, a treating mental health professional makes the diagnosis, sometimes with little or no true expertise in the area of PTSD.

 

Alternatively, a plaintiff may self-diagnose — perhaps with prompting by counsel — and then find an expert who will support the diagnosis in the litigation. In any and every work comp claim there is almost always a psych stressor—the work accident. Even plaintiffs with admittedly mild symptoms, or who attend no more than a few therapy sessions, may nevertheless claim to have suffered PTSD. As risk managers, adjusters and defense counsel, it is critical to learn to distinguish the genuine PTSD claims, such as those that might result from serious bodily injury or intimate/personal violence in the workplace for example, from those that simply do not meet the diagnostic criteria.

 

Risks Posed by PTSD Claims

 

A PTSD diagnosis can significantly increase the exposure presented by a work comp claim. Plaintiff’s counsel may try to use the PTSD diagnosis to extend Petitioner’s emotional distress indefinitely into the future, and thereby to increase benefits. For example, Petitioner’s counsel may argue as a result of PTSD, Petitioner will now experience a lifetime of “triggers,” or experiences that remind the plaintiff of the alleged discrimination, and cause him or her to re-experience symptoms.

 

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

 

 

Synopsis: For Longshore Claims Folks--U.S. Department of Labor Increases Penalties to Catch Up to Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Act of 1990, analysis by James Egan, J.D.

 

Editor’s comment: The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act) requires agencies to adjust the levels of existing civil monetary penalties with an initial catchup adjustment, followed by annual adjustments for inflation. To implement the Inflation Adjustment Act, the Department of Labor published a department-wide interim final rule (IFR) adjusting its penalties for inflation for all civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016.

 

The Inflation Adjustment Act affects penalties as outlined below:

 

Section 14(g) of the LHWCA: Failure to Report Termination of Payments—the penalty has increased from $110 to $275. Section 14(g) now states as follows:

 

Any employer failing to notify the district director that the final payment of compensation has been made as required by § 702.235 shall be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $275 for any violation for which penalties are assessed after August 1, 2016. The district director has the authority and responsibility for assessing a civil penalty under this section.

 

Section 30(e) of the LHWCA: Penalty for Late Report of Injury or Death—the maximum penalty amount has increased from $11,000 to $22,587. Section 30 (e) now states as follows:

 

Any employer, insurance carrier, or self-insured employer who knowingly and willfully fails or refuses to send any report required by § 702.201, or who knowingly or willfully makes a false statement or misrepresentation in any report, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $22,587 for each such failure, refusal, false statement, or misrepresentation for which penalties are assessed after August 1, 2016. The district director has the authority and responsibility for assessing a civil penalty under this section.

When assessing this penalty, the District Director considers how many penalties, if any, have been assessed against the employer in the previous two years. A graduated penalty schedule is then consulted as outlined below. However, the District Director has broad discretion to increase or decrease the amount of the penalty assessed based on aggravating or mitigating factors. The District Director also considers whether the employer is considered to be a small business as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act when determining the penalty amount.

 

Graduated penalty schedule as of August 1, 2016:

 

1.         •   1st late report: $500

2.         •   2nd late report: $1,000

3.         •   3rd late report: $2,000

4.         •   4th late report: $4,000

5.         •   5th late report: $8,000

6.         •   6th late report: $16,000

7.         •   7th late report (& above): $22,587 (statutory maximum)

 

Section 49 of the LHWCA: Discrimination Against Employees Who Bring Proceedings—the penalty amount has increased from a $1,000 minimum and a $5,000 maximum to a new minimum of $2,259 and a maximum up to $11,293. Section 49 now states as follows:

 

Any employer who violates this section, and has penalties assessed for such violation after August 1, 2016, shall be liable for a penalty of not less than $2,259 or more than $11,293 to be paid (by the employer alone, and not by a carrier) to the district director for deposit in the special fund described in section 44 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 944; and shall restore the employee to his or her employment along with all wages lost due to the discrimination unless the employee has ceased to be qualified to perform the duties of employment.

 

The penalties are outlined in detail in Industry Notice 158, which is available on the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWCP), Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation (DLHWC) website.

 

This article was researched and written by Jim Egan, J.D. our Longshore and Jones Act guru. If you need help with any Longshore or Jones Act claim, reach out to Jim at jegan@keefe-law.com.

 

 

Synopsis: The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development strengthens and streamlines the ability to report WC fraud!!! News and analysis by Matt Ignoffo, J.D., MSCC.

Editor’s Comment: The generally excellent DWD website was made even better recently as it now includes the ability to fill out an email web form when WC fraud is suspected.

The new anti-fraud form can be viewed here. Our research finds the suspects for the reported fraud may be employers, insurers, providers, or workers.

The DWD indicates, generally, it will refer the matter to an insurance carrier for investigation. See Section 102.125 of the Wisconsin statutes.

The carrier will be required to report back to the Department the results of its investigation. However, an insurer is not required to report back until it is satisfied that making the results of investigation known to the Department will not hurt its ability to handle the workers’ compensation claim.

It appears the individual reporting the possible fraud can remain anonymous, but providing contact information may be “very helpful.” If contact information is provided it will not be public, but may be available to the parties involved in the alleged workers’ compensation claim.

Based on the results of the insurer's investigation, the Department will make a decision about whether there is a reasonable basis to believe fraud has occurred. If so, the Department will refer the case to the Wisconsin Department of Justice or local District Attorney for prosecution. An assistant attorney general or the local District Attorney must then decide whether to start criminal proceedings.

It would appear that this updated process is in line with Governor Scott Walker's signing of legislation authorizing a special prosecutor for WC fraud.

Governor Walker signed 2015 Wisconsin Act 180, which includes funds to support a position at the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute WC fraud.

This article was researched and written by Matthew Ignoffo, J.D., M.S.C.C. (Medicare Set-Aside Consultant Certified) licensed in IL and WI who can be reached at mignoffo@keefe-law.com.

10-31-2016; Falling from Office Chair Isn't Accident in WC by John Campbell; Shawn Biery/Matt Ignoffo on WC Medicare Development/Enforcement; Digi-Transformation at IWCC Doesn't Cure DWP Problem

Synopsis:  IL Appellate Court, Workers’ Comp Division Rules A Fall From a Standard Office Chair Not Compensable. Thoughts and analysis by John P. Campbell, Jr., J.D.

 

Editor’s Comment: From the perspective of our clients on the defense side of this IL WC, Claims and Risk industry, we are happy to see reasonable interpretation of facts and denial of benefits where there is truly no increased risk at work which led to the injury. The recent decision in Noonan v. IWCC 152300WC (Oct. 21, 2016) is notable not just for the central ruling and sound legal analysis, but also for the IL Appellate Court’s reprimand to the Commission who, on initial remand, decided to side-step the Circuit Court’s order for reversal.

 

Claimant Noonan was working in an office setting as a clerk for a trucking company. While working in routine fashion handling everyday paper work, he knocked a pen off his desk. While reaching to retrieve the pen from the floor, his rolling chair slid out from beneath him and he injured his right wrist when he put his hand out to break his fall. Respondent challenged the compensability of this injury. The Arbitrator and Commission on review denied benefits, explaining that Noonan “failed to prove that the simple act of sitting in a rolling chair and reaching for a pen exposed him to an increased risk of injury that was beyond what members of the general public are regularly exposed to.” There were no flaws in the floor or chair to be identified which would have otherwise contributed to the incident.

 

Upon further appeal, the Circuit Court initially issued a reversal and remand to the Commission with direction to award benefits.  On remand, the Commission more-or-less refused to follow the direction of the Circuit Court and instead affirmed their own prior ruling. No doubt perplexed, Claimant appealed again to the Circuit Court. Then, rather surprisingly, the Circuit Court on its second judicial review actually ruled that their own first Circuit Court ruling was in error and that the original Commission decision was affirmed.

 

Asyou may have guessed, the IL Appellate Court was apparently not thrilled with any of this.

 

The Appellate Court made clear that the Commission, or any lower ruling court for that matter, cannot simply ignore direction on remand from a higher court. Ample case-law was cited to explain “where a cause is remanded by a court of review to a lower court with directions to enter a certain order or decree, the latter court has no discretion but to enter the decree as directed.” Moreover, the Circuit Court’s ruling upon the second appeal was criticized for failing to follow the procedural process and failing to address the appeal placed before them.

 

Rather than address the issues raised upon the second appeal from the Commission, the Circuit Court (on the second review) went on to address its own prior ruling. The Appellate Court explained that the Circuit Court has limited statutory jurisdiction on review to either affirm or set-aside a decision of the Commission. The Circuit Court has no latitude to “take a mulligan” on a prior ruling of its own or to “undo” a prior ruling which was not on appeal.  Of course, the Appellate Court was entirely correct to insist the Commission follow orders on remand. Without such adherence to higher court rulings, we would have no reliance on legal precedent at all and chaos would ensue.

 

Upon addressing the merits of the case, a majority of the divided IL Appellate Court, WC Division ultimately affirmed the denial of benefits here, finding that the risk of injury at issue was simply not one distinctlyassociated with Claimant’s employment. The Court explained reaching for a pen on the floor was not a required job duty and was not incidental to his assigned job duties. This was deemed a “neutral risk” and the majority ruled such injury would only be compensable if Claimant was “qualitatively or quantitatively exposed to the risk to a greater degree than the general public. Claimant’s risk of falling from a chair while reaching to the floor is one which claimant would be equally exposed to apart from his work with the employer.

 

We agree with this ruling, to be sure. However, as evidenced by the dissenting opinions in this 3-2 majority ruling, we note the definition of a “neutral risk” at work and what activities are “incidental to employment” can be slippery concepts to grasp on a case-by-case basis. Whether reaching for a pen on the floor as an office clerk is “incidental to employment” can be argued either way, especially by crafty lawyers on either side of the isle. This ruling does demonstrate a more recent trend to deny claims where there is no clearly evident work related risk to the injury. To this extent, we find this to be a favorable ruling for the defense industry and the clients we represent.

 

Editor’s comment: It is important to consult with John Campbell, your editor or any member of the KCB&A defense team before accepting liability on a questionable WC claim. Such inquiries are free and the response is fast. This important compensability ruling should go into the list of claims where a worker is clearly “in the course of” employment but due to the lack of proof on an increased risk, benefits are denied. It is crucial to try to “lock in the facts” to avoid having them change due to denial.

 

A few examples:

 

      Stepping off a typical city curb was denied in the Caterpillar Tractor ruling.

      A worker who fell down in a bathroom but couldn’t attribute her fall to anything at the workplace was denied benefits in First Cash Financial v. IWCC.

      Taking off one’s coat at work doesn’t comprise an accidental injury when a herniated disc occurred in Branch v. Industrial Commission.

 

There are many more such claims—send an email if you have questions or need research into challenging fact situations. We assure our readers we win such fights at the IWCC with regularity.

 

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

 

 

Synopsis: Changes Afoot with Medicare--Recent Startling Decisions May Set Disputed Claims with Potential Medicare Secondary Payment Recovery Issues On Their Collective Heels. Analysis and Reporting by Shawn R. Biery, J.D., MSCC and Matt Ignoffo, J.D., MSCC.

 

Editor’s comment: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services seem to be stepping up their game for seeking reimbursement in cases where they believe someone else has primary responsibility for medical bills, and some say the agency’s new strategy will be wreaking havoc in workers’ comp. The following are not intended to be in order of importance:

 

First,

It was recently noted changes are being made to the requirements for CMS to approve zero allocations based upon denial of the workers’ compensation claim. The change in requirements for approval of zero allocations has been touted on many industry websites and blogs—first notice to us came from Sharpline Allocations. The WCRC has indicated CMS will now be requiring these guidelines to be published and the following will be necessary to approve a zero allocation:

 

1.               A court ruling related to the claim, including but not limited to, issues of compensability. (Obviously, denying compensability since a finding of compensability would lead to liability for payment)

 

2.               If no court rulings exist for the claim regarding compensability, you will need to provide treatment records that demonstrate no further treatment for the argued related injury

 

The WCRC release date for this policy is unknown, but it appears these practices are currently being implemented. As any of our clients involved in claims seeking $0 MSA with our assistance, #2 may seem familiar because we have been making attempts at verification of no further treatment in applicable claims since 2009. Our recommendation has been to seek a verification of no further treatment as a best practice in anticipation of CMS becoming more aggressive in any review of prior settlements. It now appears they will be doing so.

 

Our best practice and recommendation remains that compromise settlements in which nothing is being allocated for future medical should include an attempt to determine an MMI and no further treatment from the MD unless such a release already exists in records prior to settlement. It also remains our position that in fully compromised claims, that settlement language which addresses that Medicare’s future interest be included to confirm the rationale for no allocation for future medical care. In some cases, the change in policy may lead to the need for a full Arbitration of the claim if you cannot determine a written confirmation of no further treatment.

 

Second,

As required by section 202 of The SMART Act, CMS is required to annually review its costs relating to recovering conditional payments as compared to recovery amounts. For the past three (3) years, the liability TPOC threshold has been maintained at settlements of $1000 or less. CMS has announced via alert that the TPOC threshold for liability claims will remain $1000 for the rest of 2016. CMS has also released a TPOC threshold for workers’ compensation settlements of $750 or less, wherein the settlement would not need to be reported and conditional payments would not need to be reimbursed. However, this TPOC reporting threshold only impacts claims wherein the no-fault insurer or workers’ compensation entity does not have ongoing responsibility for medicals (ORM), otherwise the claim would still be reportable under ORM reporting requirements. (IN ESSENCE, IF THERE IS A CHANCE FOR FUTURE MEDICAL, YOU ARE STILL ON THE HOOK). CMS has indicated that both thresholds are only in place through the rest of 2016 however it is unclear that they would not be extended to 2017. From a reporting aspect, the workers’ compensation and no-fault threshold will impact very few claims as most of these claims have ongoing responsibility for medical. However, the more obvious benefit is that no recovery for conditional payments should be pursued on these claims following settlement where no ORM is established.

 

Third,

Under a change that took effect last Oct. 5, CMS is no longer waiting for a settlement of future medical costs to pursue reimbursement in a claim. Instead, the agency is going after payers as soon as someone accepts ongoing responsibility for medical payments. The change is intended to help CMS collect more of the money it is owed because some claims aren’t settled, or there’s a settlement on the indemnity portion but not future medical. This may be an even bigger impact in stateswhich don’t allow settlement of future medical expenses where they may now be facing Medicare reimbursement for hundreds or thousands of cases. From our research, the relatively new contractor who now handles the pre-settlement reimbursement process (known as the Commercial Repayment Center, or CRC) has issued more than 36,000 Conditional Payment Letters (CPLs) and Conditional Payment Notices (CPNs) and CMS is using CRC to improve responsiveness to requests for conditional payment information. Once the CRC starts reviewing the claim, they almost immediately can issue a conditional payment notice that might catch some off-guard so you need to develop a plan for handling the notices in general.

 

There are several cases which are showing how serious the collection activity has become. In one (Hull v. The Home Depot) as far as we can tell, there was a written ruling on a motion for Summary Judgment on a MSP complaint for double damages.  In essence, a disputed worker’s compensation claim was found compensable and was appealed. Prior to appeal, The Home Depot was made aware of two conditional payment claims: one owed to Medicare and other to a private Medicare plan. The Home Depot dismissed its appeal and when the dismissal was final, the conditional payments were reimbursed within 13 days.  Despite the Home Depot’s reimbursement to both Medicare and the private Medicare plan, The Home Depot was found to be strictly liable for double damages under the MSP PCOA and ordered to pay an additional $42,233.16, which was the amount already paid to Medicare ($6,813.83) and Medicare Advantage ($35,419.33) as a penalty to be paid again due to the lack of “immediate payment” upon receiving the notice letters. This seems to be a major flaw in application of the “demonstrated responsibility” portion of MSP. A settlement, judgment or award is the trigger for responsibility to reimburse and it even effectively states if responsibility by “other means” were involved there is liability to pay. Basically this portion of the law was included so responsibility to pay could be triggered by a statute or by contract—or simply by payment which fits no -fault or worker’s compensation claims which routinely pay out medical benefits without any judicial determination. 

 

Arguably reimbursement should not be required to be immediate however technically reimbursement must occur in accordance with Medicare policies and procedures which not only apply to Medicare, but also the private Medicare plans. It also appears conditional payment letters were issued and then not acted upon because of the dispute on compensability. The concern obviously is that penalties which will double the cost of any Medicare related conditional payments would have a significant impact on reserves and the bottom line of employers and insurers in an already sometimes burdensome system.

 

In another case (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, opinion on Humana Insurance Co. v. Paris Blank LLP and Keith Marcus) they follow up on yet another case (In re Avandia) finding that based on the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, its private cause of action provision, CMS’ regulations and policy memos, and In re Avandia’s analysis allowing Medicare Advantage Organizations to seek double damages just like government, Humana is allowed to seek reimbursement of any conditional payments it paid regarding treatment related to the settled motor vehicle claim. The court makes it clear that since the plain language of the MSP Act fails to limit the parties against whom suit may be maintained, and CMS has previously promulgated regulations specifically allowing recovery of conditional payments from attorneys, Humana may maintain its suit against the law firm and attorney for recovery of conditional payments it made related to the claim.

 

Although not binding precedent, the Court found persuasive the Third Circuit's determination that a MAO may pursue recovery pursuant to the private right of action in §1395y(b)(3)(A). “Section 1395y(b)(3)(A)'s plain language establishes a private right of action to recover double damages where a primary plan fails to pay. Absent from the plain language of the statute is any restriction upon who may utilize that private right of action.” The Court further indicates that “even if the Court were to find the language ambiguous, CMS regulations afford MAOs the same rights to recover from a primary plan, entity or individual that the Secretary exercises under the MSP regulations."

 

Much like US v. Harris in 2009 in which a West Virginia federal district court found plaintiff’s attorney responsible for reimbursement of conditional payments made by Medicare, seven years later, this Virginia federal district court similarly finds that plaintiff’s attorney and law firm are responsible for reimbursing conditional payments made by a Medicare Advantage Plan. This time however because the claim was brought under the MSP’s private cause of action provision, plaintiff’s attorney and law firm are looking at double damages, close to $400,000.

 

If there are any doubts that reimbursement of conditional payments is a big deal, this case should be a reminder to everyone involved in a settlement, judgment, award, or payment, (whether a Medicare beneficiary, attorney, law firm, insurer, self-insured, or TPA) reimbursement of conditional payments to Medicare or a Medicare Advantage Plan cannot be ignored.

 

The takeaway—make sure you have all documents from Medicare reviewed immediately by someone with the appropriate background to ensure you don’t miss something and leave yourself open to some future review or impact—and not doing so may double your future exposure.  Shawn Biery and Matt Ignoffo are the resident MSA certification holders at KCBA and available for your questions via email at sbiery@keefe-law.com  or mignoffo@keefe-law.com  or via phone at 312-756-3701 (Shawn) or 312-756-3729 (Matt). They jointly researched and wrote this article and continue to follow MSA & Medicare compliance trends.

 

 

Synopsis: Part II of Last Week’s Article--Has One of the United States Slowest WC Systems Gotten Even Slower? New IWCC “Transformation” Will Happen When?

 

Editor's comment: We were thrilled to read the news flash about the IL Workers' Comp Commission’s plans to update their technology at no cost to IL business taxpayers. Last week, the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission announced the launch of its Digital Transformation Project, which will modernize all agency systems, including their outdated paper-based filing system. This improvement is another step in the Rauner Administration’s initiative to cut red tape and modernize technology within IL State government to make it more efficient while deriving more value for taxpayers. The new IWCC e-filing system will redevelop systems that are up to 40 years old, and it will be paid for entirely out of the IWCC settlement fund at no costs to taxpayers.

 

However, the news also indicated this project must be fully implemented within five years. Digital upgrade benefits will include easy online filing, standardized electronic data submissions, efficient workflows, reduced paper processing and storage, decreased mailing costs, and improved data analytics and metrics. Once completed, the new Illinois Department of Innovation & Technology will maintain the IWCC e-filing system.
 
While that news above sounds great, as we told our readers last week, we were surprised to hear “real-time” news the IWCC may not have been issuing notices of dismissal or DWP’s because the machine that creates such notices supposedly was broken for an extended time. No one from the IWCC appears willing to officially confirm or deny this report which may be all the more maddening. We have no idea when the transformation to all digital claims handling will rectify this crisis that involves literally thousands of claims.

 

Our major concern is there is no filing fee to file IWCC claims in this State. Therefore, attorneys and some “pro se” claimants can and do file claims that aren’t strongly supported by the law or facts. When employers receive the claims and report them to their insurance carriers/TPA’s, monies have to be set aside in reserve to insure the claims can be defended and managed, if there is a basis to do so. If the claims are meritless or the claimants and/or attorneys lose interest in prosecuting them, it is crucial to get the claims dismissed and then have the dismissals become final. Only when there is finality to a DWP or dismissal can the reserves be freed up and used for other important reasons.

 

What is the scope of this issue? Well, the IWCC’s 2015 Annual Report that is online for everyone to see indicates there is just under 50,000 new IL WC claims filed every year. The 2015 Report confirms about 5,100 claims or more than 10% of all IL WC claims are dismissed for want of prosecution at arbitration or before the Commission panel on review.  

 

That means if IL Business has to put $2,500 in reserve for all those claims, something like $12,750,000 is being tied up in reserves for filed WC claims that are going nowhere. When they are dismissed by the Arbs or Commissioners, it is important for the dismissals to become final to free up reserves.

 

What Can Your Defense Team Do About This In The Short Term?

 

Don’t wait for digital transformation! In our respectful view, you shouldn’t have to wait for a notice of DWP that may be delayed or never come, as we recently learned. We recommend you have your defense lawyer draft and file a motion for an order from the Arbitrator or Commissioner to sign and then enter. It is our reasoned legal opinion a signed order of DWP will become final thirty days after entry. At that point, you should be able to safely close the file. As part of the file closing procedure, you can also free up the reserves on that claim and put them to better use.

 

Finally, as we told you last week, if you are on the defense side of the IL WC matrix, you are paying 100% of the cost of the IWCC. If you care about this sort of issue, please send an email to IWCC Chair Fratianni or the IWCC’s counsel, Ron Rascia and let them know how you feel about it. If you need their contact information, send a reply.

 

 

Synopsis: You might note we have gone to a two-tone KCB&A Update!

 

Editor's comment: We had any number of our readers blocked by spam-blockers last week. One reason was the use of various colors in fonts and the web links. We are trying to get through to you so we are going to only two colors and smaller pictures and better “hyper-linking.”

 

If you want to review last week’s important Update, send a reply and we will again send it.

 

Synopsis: The KCB&A Monday law updates are archived on the KCB&A blog!

Editor’s comment: If you are looking for any article previously written in this update, or just want to browse through a host of insightful articles dealing with our Illinois Comp system, stop on over to KCBA Blog and take a look. The blog currently includes archived articles dating back to August 2008.

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

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

  1. Send us a lead, any lead—we are always looking for new clients and contacts in Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan or Iowa. If you send a us contact information about a risk manager looking for defense counsel in any of those states, we will send a $50 gift card.
  2. Happy to help you on a 24/7/365 basis--send your claims inquiries and toughest questions to ekeefe@keefe-law.com for 24/7/365 answers to your toughest Illinois claims questions. Give us 24 hours and we will get back to you with reasoned thoughts and suggestions, recommendations on pro se settlements and best practices in handling difficult and complex claims concerns.
  3. We may be the most ethical firm in the U.S.—if you need a presentation on Ethics with CLE’s, we will come to your office, cater lunch and present an interesting and information program on Ethics.
  4. Next, take a look at actual winning results from the top defense firm in Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana or Iowa by going to this link: KCBA Successful Outcomes
  5. Shawn R. Biery does a continuously updated and very handy Illinois Workers Compensation Rate Sheet. It is available to anyone upon request. If you want it, send a reply or email Shawn directly at sbiery@keefe-law.com.
  6. We have a one-page document free to the industry called Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Associates Rules of Thumb that provides a quick reference for adjusters and risk managers with Illinois claims. Again, if you have interest, send a reply.
  7. We have a free presentation on the 2011 Amendments to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. It is also available in a condensed form. If you would like a copy, send a reply.
  8. We also have a free book on all aspects of Illinois Workers’ Compensation Law and Practice. If you are unfamiliar with the Act and Rules and want a resource book, please send a reply.
  9. We provide answers to questions adjusters have about appropriate reserves on your claims, usually within 24 hours. We employ WestLaw© research in rendering our evaluation for your complete file. If you have interest in a legal opinion to support your reserve calculations, email ekeefe@keefe-law.com.
  10. We obtain rapid approval of pro se settlements in Chicago for the low price of $300.00 and outside the Chicagoland area at $400.00. If you have interest in such services, again, email ekeefe@keefe-law.com. We can turn such approvals around in days with cooperation from claimant.
  11. We are happy to provide a free legal audit of up to ten of your worst litigated claims. Our goal is to advise how to best bring such claims to rapid closure within authority. We have had solid outcomes from such reviews. All of our handling is attorney-client privileged. If you have interest in a legal audit, send a reply to ekeefe@keefe-law.com.
  12. We have a strong list of medical, diagnostic, pharmacological, vocational, utilization review, nurse case managers, surveillance, accident reconstruction, ergonomics, safety and other top-notch experts for your consideration to use in Illinois workers compensation, general liability and employment law defense litigation. Such recommendations are free. We update such lists continuously. We can also provide research backing up the credentials of such experts. If you have a need for an expert, send a reply.
  13. We are the only defense firm that has several workers compensation law professors on staff—we have read and analyzed every single IL WC appellate ruling for over three and one-half decades. For any of our readers, if you have a complex (or even a simple) question about any aspect of Illinois workers compensation law and practice, please send a reply and we will advise within 24 hours. If you have interest in attending or auditing the best workers compensation course in Illinois at one of our top law schools, let us know and we will provide details.
  14. Need a calculator for your desk? Send a reply and we are happy to send a free one that works!