Calculation of AWW when considering future earning per a union contractBy Megan Kivisto & Peter CortiAugust 2013In addition to setting forth a clear rule regarding calculation of wage differential benefits, the case of United Airlines, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reminds us that speculative evidence has no place in our practice.
Diaz: Something old, something new in mental-mental casesBy Robert J. FinleyOctober 2013Diaz v. Ill. Workers Compensation Comm’n gives practitioners a chance to revisit the necessary proofs in “mental-mental” injury cases, i.e., psychological disability without physical injury.
Early lessons from a post-AMA worldBy Robert J. FinleyJune 2013With several Commission decisions on the horizon, what impact might these early post-reform AMA decisions have on practitioners?
Editor’s commentsBy Richard D. HanniganAugust 2013Updates of interest to Workers' Compensation Law practitioners from newsletter editor Rich Hannigan.
Editor’s commentsBy Richard D. HanniganJanuary 2013An introduction the issue from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganOctober 2013An introduction to the issue from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganJune 2013A message and introduction to the issue from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Intervening accident does not preclude permanency award on first accidentBy Stephen G. BaimeAugust 2013The case of National Freight Industries v. IWCC et al 2013 IL app. (5th) 120043WC stands for the proposition that an intervening accident does not preclude a permanency award for injuries sustained in the first accident. This is a most interesting case, and complicated, but the ruling of the Illinois Appellate Court is just.
The mailbox rule and Section 19(f)(1)By Richard D. HanniganAugust 2013On August 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois issued its decision in Gruszeczka v. IWCC. The issue in this case was whether a proceeding for judicial review of a Commission decision under section 19(f)(1) begins or is started when the Request for Summons and the proof of payment of the probable cost of the record are placed in a mailbox or when they are file stamped by the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
Person as a whole vs. 8(d)(1) wage differential, a Rule 23 decisionBy Richard D. HanniganJanuary 2013In Illinois Tool Works v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, filed January 3, 2012, the claimant injured his low back on March 21, 2003 and underwent a lumbar diskectomy at L4-5 on March 22, 2004.
Prior stipulation by employer dooms its jurisdictional argumentBy Cameron B. ClarkJanuary 2013In Ingrassia Interior Elements v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, the claimant filed a Petition for Review of the Arbitrator’s decision denying his claim pursuant to the Act.
QBE Insurance: A cautionary taleBy Kenneth F. WertsOctober 2013In this recent case, QBE filed a motion with the Commission requesting that it be named a party to the case citing Section 4(g) of the Act.
A remembrance to Justice John T. McCulloughBy Hon. William E. HoldridgeJanuary 2013Justice John T. McCullough, Justice of the Illinois Appellate Court, and the Presiding Justice of the Workers’ Compensation Commission Division of the Appellate Court, passed away at his home in Lincoln, IL on October 30th, 2012.
Risk arising out of the employmentBy Gary PeterlinOctober 2013A summary of Autumn Accolade v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission.
Stipulation binding when signedBy Shuaib AhmedJune 2013In Ingrassia Interior Elements v. IWCC, the Appellate Court held that when a transcript is not filed within the time period specified by section 19(b) of the Act, the Commission is not deprived of its jurisdiction to review the Arbitrator’s Decision.
There is little interest in interest under the present WC ActBy Christine M. OryAugust 2013If P.A. 83-1051 went into effect in July 1984, interest payments on an arbitrator’s award would have accrued at the rate of 9% per annum under §19(n). As of December 2008, the prime rate dropped to 3.25% where it remains. Therefore, if P.A. 83-1051 had gone into effect, the present interest rate on the arbitrator’s award would be at 4.25% per annum. This is nowhere near as good as it was in July 1984 and not as good as the 6% flat rate, but it certainly is better than what we have today.
TTD not available to workers subsequent to expiration of 19(h)By Boyd O. RobertsOctober 2013The recent decision of Tony L. Curtis v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, et al. (The Village of Lansing) may have the effect of eliminating TTD benefits for workers who have surgery or seek medical treatment after the expiration of the statutory Section 19(h) time period.
A view from the benchBy William R. GallagherOctober 2013Arbitrator William Gallagher shares his insights.