5-29-2023; Gender-Based Violence Will Soon Be a Challenge for All IL Employers; Struggling to make sense of what is called "Long Covid;" Happy Memorial Day and more

Synopsis: Gender-Based Violence Protections Expanded and May Now Bring the Focus of New IGVA Claims on IL Employers.

Editor’s comment: As I have advised my readers for some time, Illinois is a One-Party State and will remain so for a generation or more. This concept means the IL business community has little say on what is being done in the IL legislature and administrative agencies. Our goal is sending this to you is to insure you are aware of and prepared for these new amendments. I also want our readers to understand the importance of stopping/ending gender-based violence whenever and wherever possible.

The Gender Violence Act was first started in Illinois in 2003. The Act was focused on protecting people in intimate situations when violence became part of the relationship for whatever reason. What has just changed and what is important to Illinois business and local communities is when/how IL and U.S. employers with Illinois operations might get pulled into these challenging situations.

These recent changes have been passed by both houses of the IL General Assembly and Governor Pritzker is expected to sign off on the amendments shortly. The aim of the new amendments are to enhance protections for employees who have experienced gender-based violence, ensuring a safe and friendly work environment.

The Amendments also mean a “deep pocket” is being brought into this malaise of litigation. When two simple folks might bring IGVA claims against one another, it would be pricey to start and maintain the litigation.

When all IL employers are now part of the matrix, they have money to pay judgments, encouraging more attorney involvement and expensive, protracted claims. We are not sure how the insurance companies are going to handle IGVA coverage, as some of the asserted gender violence actions have to be arguably intentional and to some extent uninsurable. I am also confident an IGVA claim brought against a small business could easily bankrupt a company due to the high costs.

1.     Expanded Definitions

The revised IGVA broadens the scope of what constitutes gender-based violence. It now includes not only physical acts but also psychological, emotional, and economic abuse. I assure you this will mean the cost of prosecuting or defending such claims is going to be moderately to very expensive, as psych experts are very, very pricey.

This expansion recognizes that gender violence can take many forms and ensures that victims are “protected” regardless of the type of abuse they have arguably endured.

2.     Protections for All Employees, including Those Working in Small Businesses.

Previously, the IGVA only applied to employees who worked for an employer with 15 or more employees. However, the recent changes eliminated this threshold, extending protections to all Illinois workers, regardless of the size of the employer. This means that even those working for small businesses can seek redress under the IGVA if they experience gender-based violence. It also means if you have a “mom and pop” shop, Mom and Pop can bring claims against each other.

3.     Reasonable Accommodations

One of the significant additions to the IGVA is the requirement for employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” to employees who are victims of gender-based violence.

Reasonable accommodations may include changes to work schedules, relocation of the employee’s workspace, or implementing additional security measures.

These accommodations aim to ensure that employees can continue their work without fear of retaliation or further harm.

Please also note this concept is going to be truly challenging for a small company where it could be difficult, if not impossible to change work schedules or relocate work spaces.

4.     Confidentiality and Privacy

To protect the privacy and confidentiality of victims, the IGVA now prohibits employers from disclosing information related to an employee’s status as a victim of gender-based violence, unless required by law or with the employee’s consent.

This provision is designed to encourage victims to come forward and seek help without the fear of their private information being exposed.

From the employer’s perspective, all information on gender-based violence has to be kept secret and provided to managers/supervisors on a “need to know” basis.

5.     Training and Awareness

The amendments to the IGVA emphasize the importance of education and awareness in preventing and addressing gender-based violence in the workplace.

IL Employers are now required to provide training to their employees on recognizing and responding to gender-based violence.

By fostering a culture of understanding and support, workplaces can become safer and more inclusive environments.

The recent changes to the Illinois Gender Violence Act represent a significant change in blocking gender-based violence. These amendments expand the scope of the law, ensure equal protection for all employees, mandate reasonable accommodations, safeguard confidentiality, and promote education and awareness.

At KCB&A, we are dedicated to helping employees understand their rights and navigate the complexities of employment law. If you have questions about the Illinois Gender Violence Act or need assistance in addressing gender-based violence in your workplace, our experienced attorneys are here to provide guidance and support. Please send a reply.

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

Synopsis: JAMA Study Outlines the Struggle With What Is Called “Long COVID.”

Editor’s comment: Sorry, folks I don’t believe in this concept, at all and the sooner the U.S. WC and medical industries starts to block it, the faster it will disappear.

Initial findings from a study of nearly 10,000 Americans, many of whom had COVID-19, have uncovered new details about what some doctors call “long COVID.” This is defined as a post-infection set of conditions that some doctors and scientists feel can magically affect nearly every tissue and organ in the body. I find that concept to be completely baffling.

Clinical symptoms are truly questionable, in my opinion. Symptoms can vary wildly. They are supposed to include fatigue, brain fog (whatever that is), and dizziness. Some people feel the difficult to verify symptoms may last for months or years after a person has COVID-19. The research team, funded by the National Institutes of Health, also found that what is called “long COVID” was more common and severe in study participants infected before the 2021 Omicron variant.

The study, published in JAMA is coordinated through the NIH’s initiative, a nationwide effort dedicated to understanding why some people develop long-term symptoms somehow related to COVID-19, and most important, how to detect, treat, and prevent long COVID. The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which they assert affects the health of millions of Americans.

Researchers examined data from 9,764 adults, including 8,646 who had COVID-19 and 1,118 who did not have COVID-19. They assessed more than 30 symptoms across multiple body areas and organs and applied statistical analyses that identified 12 symptoms that set apart those with and without long COVID: post-exertional malaise, fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, gastrointestinal symptoms, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic cough, chest pain, and abnormal movements.

Again, from my view, everything bad that goes wrong with a human can qualify to be a “symptom” of what is being called “long Covid.” Why not include thinning hair, beer bellies and bad breath?

Then the researchers established a scoring system based on patient-reported symptoms. By assigning points to each of the 12 symptoms, the team gave each patient a score based on symptom combinations. With these scores in hand, researchers identified a meaningful threshold for identifying participants with long COVID. They also found that certain symptoms occurred together and defined four subgroups or “clusters” with a range of impacts on health.

Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection on or after Dec. 1, 2021, when the Omicron variant was circulating, about 10% experienced long-term symptoms or long COVID after six months. The results are based on a survey of a highly diverse set of patients and are not final. Survey results may next be compared for accuracy against an array of lab tests and imaging.

There are Supposedly 200+ Symptoms of Long Covid!!!

To date, more than 100 million Americans have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In my view, the vast majority of those folks have completely and fully recovered following a short bout with the virus. The Great Pandemic of the 2020’s is over.

As of April, the federal government’s survey estimates about 6% of those infected with the virus claim they continue to experience and suffer from hundreds of different symptoms termed together as long COVID. Patients and researchers have identified more than 200 symptoms associated with long COVID. Almost all of the symptoms are subjective and unverifiable. There are no lab tests for this condition.

One can only speculate if folks that didn’t suffer from “short Covid” could make the same claims?

How Does This Impact Workers’ Comp?

It is my hope the WC hearing officers across the U.S. start to take a tough view on dealing with the “long Covid” concept. In short, we all suffered from this Great Pandemic. We all recovered after a short period of illness. It is my strongest hope we don’t let folks come to our hearing sites to complain of whatever they will claim “brain fog” might be to seek benefits.

Please also note almost none of the alleged symptoms of this condition change one’s ability to work in any way. And almost all of the asserted symptoms are impossible to objectively verify and/or treat. That said, I am sure there are “pain doctors” and others that want to create giant medical bills for American employers to deal with.

I remember when everyone in IL WC was getting cubital tunnel surgeries—we had to be the number one State in the Union for that condition because we were giving folks who got the surgery lots of money. When the Arbitrators stopped awarding benefits, the money stopped.

In my view, the “long Covid” concept should also go the way of the dodo bird. The faster the U.S. WC matrix kicks this concept to the curb, the better—in my view.

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

Synopsis: Happy Memorial Day!!

Editor’s comment: God Bless the men and women who made the necessary sacrifices to keep us safe. We salute them.

5-9-2023; What You Need to Do When a Machine or Device Causes a WC claim in IL; Important Ruling on Medical Rights and the Right to Maintenance Benefits in IL WC and more

Synopsis: What you need to do when a machine/device causes a work comp claim in Illinois

Editor’s comment: When a worker is involved in a work-related accident, especially one involving a machine or other mechanical device owned by the employer, companies can be confronted with challenging questions regarding preservation of the device causing or contributing to the accident/injury.

Risk, safety and claims managers should know the issues caused by Illinois law with an understanding of the importance of preserving the contrivance/mechanical device with a plan in place to ensure proper action is taken when an accident happens.

Please note this concept is similar but not identical to the OSHA concept of "lock out/tag out (LOTO)." If you have concerns about the technical difference between this advice and what LOTO means, send a reply.

An employer’s preservation of evidence causing injury serves dual purposes.

• First, it protects the employer from potential liability for spoliation of evidence. This includes third-party actions against the employer as well as a potential direct action by an employee against the employer. In Schusse v. Pace Suburban Bus, the IL Appellate Court held an injured worker's claim for negligent spoliation against an employer was not barred by the Section 5, the exclusive remedy provision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.

This appellate decision means the failure of an employer to take a device causing injury out of the work place and then possibly changing, fixing or losing it can make the employer a litigation target with unlimited civil damages over and above the WC claim.

• Second, preserving evidence protects the employer’s ability to pursue third-party subrogation against other potential at-fault parties, such as product manufacturers, installers, maintenance providers and other vendors.

When does an employer need to preserve evidence? In order for a duty to preserve evidence to exist, the Illinois Supreme Court set forth a two-prong test.

• First, there must be an agreement, contract, statute, special circumstance, or voluntary undertaking which gives rise to a duty to preserve evidence of a device that caused or contributed to injury.

• Second, there must be a showing that a reasonable person in the employer’s position should have foreseen evidence was material to a potential civil action.

Illinois courts have not clearly defined what constitutes a “special circumstance” giving rise to a duty to preserve evidence. In Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Inc., the Illinois Supreme Court, noting the lack of a precise definition, suggested a request to preserve evidence is sufficient to create a “special circumstance,” although our highest court also held an employer-employee relationship alone is not. Given the relative ambiguity and uncertainty of what may or may not be a “special circumstance,” ignoring this rule and not preserving evidence can be a risky proposition in Illinois.

Where a duty to preserve evidence exists, failure to observe it subjects an employer to potential liability for spoliation of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is a form of negligence and is a recognized cause of action in Illinois. In order to prove up a spoliation claim, a plaintiff must prove:

1. Defendant breached the duty to preserve evidence by losing or destroying evidence;

2. Loss or destruction of evidence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s inability to prove an underlying lawsuit; and

3. As a result the plaintiff sustained civil damages. Martin, 2012 IL 113270.

If you have a worker injured because of a machine/device, you have to take it out of service and remember/track what you did with it until you are sure there isn't going to be litigation involving that machine/device.

If you aren't sure, contact the defense team at KCB&A or simply send a reply.

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

Synopsis: Illinois Appellate Court affirms denial of prospective fourth surgery or maintenance benefits for worker injured in attack. Please see highlighted text below.

Editor’s comment: In Currey v. IWCC, Claimant Currey worked for New Ashley Stewart Inc., a retail clothing store. Her job duties included making daily bank deposits. On June 29, 2012, Currey left her employer’s premises to make a bank deposit. On her way out the door, an assailant attacked her from behind and snatched her purse from her right shoulder, running off with the store's money.

Later, Currey noticed her arm was starting to hurt. She went to the hospital, was assessed with a shoulder strain and released with restrictions of no use of the right arm. After this, Currey continued to complain of pain.

In September 2012, Dr. Joseph Schwartz determined Currey had supraspinatus tendinosis with a possible partial-thickness tear, as well as disk herniation and thecal compression at C5-C6. Dr. Shaun Kondamuri later diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, a left-center cervical disk herniation at C5-C6 and "right upper extremity pain presumably related to the above."

In November 2012, Dr. Zeshan Hydar performed a cervical discectomy and fusion at C5-C6.

In March 2013, Dr. Schwartz opined Currey had rotator cuff tendinosis with partial-thickness tearing of the supraspinatus. Thereafter, Claimant Currey underwent a right shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and subacromial decompression in April 2013. During the procedure, Schwartz observed a small tear in the anterior portion of the supraspinatus tendon, as well as a crescent-shaped tear in the subacromial space, both of which he sutured.

In October 2013, Currey saw Dr. Mark Cohen. She complained of constant tingling and numbness in her pinky and ring finger. Dr. Cohen opined this condition was causally related to her work accident.

Currey returned to Dr. Schwartz again in January 2014. She complained of right shoulder pain and occasional spasms. Dr. Schwartz recommended a cubital tunnel release, and Currey underwent this procedure. Please note a cubital tunnel release is for the elbow, not the shoulder.

In June 2014, Currey underwent a functional capacity evaluation or FCE. She was assessed as capable of light-duty work and given permanent restrictions.

Please note I don’t feel there is any defense value in authorizing/obtaining an FCE—this claim is another example of how worthless these tests are. If you aren’t sure of my recommendation, please send a reply.

One week later, Dr. Schwartz concluded Claimant Currey had reached MMI and discharged her from care.

In August 2014, Currey began seeing Dr. Howard Freedberg. The next month, Currey underwent a magnetic resonance imaging arthrogram of the right shoulder that disclosed undersurface thinning of the supraspinatus involving up to 50% of the tendon thickness, without a full-thickness tear.

In November 2014, Dr. Freedberg recommended a second right shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression, biceps "tenotomy vs. tenodesis" and possible distal clavicle excision.

In January 2015, Claimant Currey saw Dr. Lawrence Lieber. He noted decreased strength in Currey's right shoulder, tenderness to palpation in the right shoulder and range of motion decreased secondary to pain, among other symptoms.

Dr. Lieber opined Claimant Currey’s treatment up until this point appeared reasonable and necessary, but he said her current complaints did not require any further treatment and that she had reached MMI from the work accident as of June 18, 2014.

In February 2016, Currey returned to see Dr. Freedberg reporting neck achiness and constant, severe pain in her right shoulder and arm. Dr. Freedberg recommended right shoulder arthroscopic surgery.

Dr. Freedberg also issued a report stating he "absolutely disagree(d)" with Lieber’s conclusions. He said he believed Currey’s condition was causally connected to the June 2012 work incident, and he said he was not surprised that “(Dr.) Lieber denied the causation as in all my years and having read many reports from this doctor he has NEVER agreed with causation in any patient according to my experience."

Claimant Currey filed an IL workers’ compensation claim seeking benefits for injuries that she sustained to her spine, right arm and shoulder.

The parties stipulated Currey suffered a work-related accident but disputed the amount of temporary total disability benefits owed, whether Currey’s current condition was causally related to the accident and whether she was entitled to prospective medical care in the form of another surgical procedure recommended by her treating physician.

An IL WC Arbitrator awarded Currey TTD benefits from July 2, 2012, until the date she began working part time for another employer, and maintenance benefits from that date through January 2015.

The Arbitrator found Currey had reached MMI on Jan. 8, 2015, and that she had failed to prove that her condition after that date was causally connected to her work accident. The arbitrator, therefore, denied prospective medical care and related expenses incurred after that date.

The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission three-person panel modified the arbitrator's decision to find Currey’s current condition was causally related to her work accident, but the surgery recommended by her treating physician was neither reasonable nor necessary. The commission denied medical treatment and related expenses after Jan. 12, 2015, which was the date it found Currey had reached MMI.

The Commission panel also vacated the Arbitrator's award of maintenance benefits and awarded temporary partial benefits from Jan. 2, 2012, through Jan. 12, 2015.

An IL circuit court judge affirmed the Commission’s decision.

The Illinois Appellate Court, WC Division ruled the Commission's refusal to award the arthroscopic shoulder surgery recommended by Dr. Freedberg was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

“Although Dr. Freedberg strenuously disagreed with each of Dr. Lieber's opinions, it is the Commission's province to judge the credibility of witnesses, to weigh the evidence and to resolve conflicts among expert medical opinions,” the court said.

The Appellate Court also ruled the Commission did not err in denying maintenance benefits to Currey. The Court explained “if the claimant is not engaged in some type of physical rehabilitation program, formal job training or a self-directed job search, the employer is not obligated to provide maintenance.”

I wish every adjuster, risk manager and defense lawyer in this state would read and memorize the paragraph immediately above this one. It is my opinion, very few folks know of this rule or follow it.

Here, the Court noted, Claimant Currey did not explicitly testify that she continued looking for jobs after she began receiving Social Security benefits, nor did she produce any logs, other documents, testimony or other evidence detailing her efforts to find work. Without such evidence, the Court said, the commission’s decision to vacate the arbitrator's award of maintenance benefits was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

To read the court’s decision, click here.

2-20-2023; New IL WC Ruling in Allen v. Hot Spot Affirms Idiopathic Defense to Fall Downs (and others); "Firefighter" with Kidney Disease Related It to His Job Title; Rich Hannigan RIP

Synopsis: New IL WC Ruling in Allen v. Hot Spot Affirms Idiopathic Defense to Fall Downs (and others??).

Editor’s comment: The IL WC Appellate Ruling in McAlister caused much commotion when a worker injured himself merely standing up at work. Lots of folks worried this ruling indicated similar defenses were at an end with our current Commission and reviewing courts.

Not so fast! Now the IL WC Bar is talking about Allen v. Hot Spot, 30 ILWCLB 210 (Ill. W.C. Comm. 2022).

This claim involved a worker who was opening a gambling room as part of her work. The claimant worked for Hot Spot as an attendant in a gambling room. Her job involved opening the business, setting up for the customers, cleaning, sweeping, carrying cases of soda and stocking coolers. What was moderately unusual is she testified she had preexisting health problems, including chronic kidney disease and a foot injury that caused her to walk with a cane.

On April 27, 2021, the claimant arrived at work. She testified that she entered the business, put her break­fast on the table, and walked over to the property alarm to turn it off. She further testified she was walking fast but was not in a hurry. She had 60 seconds from the time she entered to turn off the alarm. The claimant fell while walking to the alarm. She did not testify so as to identify a specific cause that led to the fall-down.

The IL Arbitrator denied benefits, finding Claimant failed to prove her fall at work arose out of and in the course of her employment. In so ruling, the Arbitrator ex­plained that walking is a personal risk. Further, the claim­ant could not explain her fall or identify a cause. The Arbitrator ruled Claimant’s fall consti­tuted an “idiopathic accident,” that could only be caused by something internal or inherent to the claimant. An idiopathic accident is only related to employment if she can show her work created a hazard.

Here, the claimant did not testify to any defect or that she was carrying any objects or unusually hurrying. Moreover, she clearly explained that she was not rushing, as she had enough time to calmly put her breakfast down and walk to the alarm. The claimant was walking and, for a reason unrelated to her employ­ment or otherwise unknown, she fell. Accordingly, her fall was not compensable under the WCA.

Upon review, the IL WC Commission panel affirmed and adopted the decision of the Arbitrator. Regardless of the ruling in McAlister, we feel Illinois will not turn into a “positional risk” state—if you aren’t sure what that means, send a reply.

We are not aware if the matter is pending on further appeal. If we get further news, we will report.

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

Synopsis: Firefighter With Rare Kidney Cancer Establishes Condition as Occupational Disease That I Feel is Causally Related to His Job Title and Not His Actual Work.

Editor’s comment: The Illinois Appellate Court, WC Division upheld an award of benefits to a firefighter for kidney cancer, finding he established an occupational disease by a preponderance of the evidence. Please note this ruling has a WC reserve value well into the millions.

Claimant Wood worked as a firefighter for a city in Missouri before moving to Illinois and becoming a firefighter for the City of Springfield. In July 2013, Wood sought medical treatment for abdominal pain and fever. He was diagnosed with diverticulitis.

After undergoing a computed tomography scan, Wood saw a Dr. Sandercock. The scan revealed kidney cancer. A Dr. Lieber performed surgery to remove the upper portion of the kidney in September 2013. Wood was released to full duty the next month.

Wood filed a workers’ compensation claim, and an Arbitrator found that his cancer was compensable. The arbitrator noted that Wood was a firefighter for about 16 years and was entitled to a statutory presumption that his cancer had been caused by his employment. The Arbitrator didn’t make any findings as to how many fires Claimant Wood fought.

Please note my respectful opinion that all “firefighters” don’t typically or routinely fight fires. I would say, statistically, a very small part of any firefighter’s work involves dealing with live fires. And to some extent, the term “firefighter” is therefore misleading. However, when such workers go to the IWCC, everyone focuses on the word ‘firefighting,’ as if they are involved in heavy smoke and exposure to carcinogens all day, every day. Please also remember firefighters don’t typically encounter heavy smoke—they wear breathers. I have yet to see any defense attorney actually check records to confirm how many live fires a given firefighter dealt with in a year or five years or their entire career.

In this claim, while the Arbitrator acknowledged testimony from a Dr. Eggener that the type of cancer Wood had was rare and had a completely different etiology compared to more common types, the arbitrator said Dr. Eggener’s opinion that there was no evidence in the medical literature or elsewhere to suggest that the development of this kind of kidney cancer is associated with being a firefighter was unsupported by the credible evidence.

On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Commission agreed with the Arbitrator’s ultimate determination but differed in analysis. The Commission panel found that the city successfully rebutted the presumption by submitting evidence of an alternative cause of Wood’s kidney cancer in form of Eggener’s opinion, but that Wood still proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered an occupational disease based on a Dr. Orris’ testimony that it was more likely than not that Wood’s years of “firefighting” contributed to the development of cancer. Again, please note my view the Commission panel appears to assume anyone with the title “firefighter” has to fight fires.

A circuit court judge affirmed the Commission’s decision.

The Illinois Appellate Court said the Commission’s finding of compensability was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. They noted while Wood offered no evidence to causally connect his specific form of kidney cancer to his work as a firefighter, the reviewing court said neither Drs. Eggener and Orris were provided with the medical records pertaining to the specific form of kidney cancer that Wood had, and neither made any distinction among different forms of kidney cancer.

The experts agreed smoking, obesity, dietary habits and hypertension are risk factors for the development of kidney cancer, and none of these applied to Wood, the court added.

“The biggest issue with Dr. Eggener’s report is that he sought to find an absolute causation explanation where none was required,” the court said. “Orris reviewed the same literature and concluded that the studies established a connection between firefighting and the development of kidney cancer.”

With respect to our Appellate Court’s august members, that sentence indicates to me they found causation related to Claimant’s job title without any real indication of what he was exposed to in his actual work. To read the court’s decision in City of Springfield v. IWCC, No. 4-21-0604WC, 09/15/2022, unpublished, click here.

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

Synopsis: Rich Hannigan, RIP.

Editor’s comment: The IL WC Industry is saddened to hear of the passing of Richard “Rich” Hannigan. I am fairly sure Attorney Hannigan dates back to the days of working with the venerable Jack Cunningham and Arbitrator Angelo Caliendo. Rich practiced workers' compensation law since 1973. From 1973 to 1991, he represented both employers and injured employees before the good ole Illinois Industrial Commission. After 1991, his practice was limited to serving the injured worker. Mr. Hannigan received his Bachelor's from the University of Dayton in 1970, and his Juris Doctor from what used to be known as the John Marshall Law School in 1973.

Rich was a member of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, the Illinois State Bar Association, the Workers Compensation Lawyers Association, Chicago Bar Association and Lake County Bar Association. He was also a member of the Arizona State Bar since 1975 and was a member of the Arizona Bar Association's Workers' Compensation Section.

Rich was a member of the Illinois State Bar Association's Workers' Compensation Section Council from 1992 through 2001 and 2002 to date. In 1998 he was appointed Vice-Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Section. In 1999 he was appointed Chairman of the Illinois State Bar Association Workers' Compensation Section Council. Richard Hannigan served as president of the Workers' Compensation Lawyers Association in 1992, vice president in 1991, and secretary from 1989 to 1990 and on the Workers' Compensation Lawyers Association Board of Managers from 1984 to 1988 and 1983 to 1985.

Rich Hannigan was editor of the Illinois Bar Association Workers' Compensation Newsletter since 1998. As editor of the newsletter, he was responsible for a minimum of four newsletters per year. I considered him a “competitor” with the highest and greatest respect. His newsletter was used as a teaching tool for attorneys, risk managers and adjusters handling workers compensation. He was honored by the Illinois Bar Association with an award for his commitment to the Workers' Compensation Newsletter.

I believe I speak on behalf of the entire IL WC industry to confirm he was a great and wonderful man and strong advocate for his many clients. Speaking for myself, I will always miss this great man and remain sad about his passing.

Synopsis: Governor Pritzker Appoints Ms. Efi James as IL WC Arbitrator.

Editor’s comment: Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker appointed Efi James to serve as an arbitrator on the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission starting March 1, 2023. Ms. James was with the Chicago area law firm of Karchmar & Stone.

She has appeared and argued cases at arbitration before the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, in circuit court and at the appellate court level.

James received her bachelor’s degree from De Paul University and her law degree from what used to be called the John Marshall Law School. Upon admission to the bar, she worked in the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office until 2007. During her time there, Efi worked in Appeals, Traffic Court, Misdemeanor Court, Domestic Violence Court, Preliminary Hearings, Felony Review and was assigned to the Jury Room.

She has participated in more than 500 bench trials and has seen 18 jury trials to verdict. She has been honored for her advocacy work on behalf of victims of Domestic Violence and has worked as an adjunct professor at Moraine Valley Community College and Kaplan University. Since then, Efi has concentrated her practice in the area of worker’s compensation and Personal Injury.

She has appeared and tried numerous cases at the Arbitration level before the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission and argued in Circuit Court and at the Appellate Court levels on behalf of her clients. In the Appellate Court, Efi successfully argued the case of Cox. V. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 406 Ill. App. 3d 541 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) which was instrumental in changing the law applicable to traveling employees.

Ms. James is a past chair of the Chicago Bar Association Workers’ Compensation Committee, has acted as moderator for the Workers’ Compensation Lawyers Association Seminar on Current Issues in Illinois Workers’ Compensation and is a member of the Illinois State Bar Association.

New Arbitrator James is bi-lingual and fluent in Greek.