The amount of evidence required to rebut the statutory presumption in 6(f) of the ActBy Monica J. KiehlSeptember 2017In Johnston v. Illinois Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, et al., the Appellate Court considered the correct standard to be used when rebutting the statutory presumption contained in Section 6(f) of the Act, finding that it is an “ordinary rebuttable presumption,” which merely requires the employer to offer some evidence to show that a petitioner’s condition was caused by something other than his or her occupation.
Appellate Court establishes statutory guideline for wage differential benefit calculationBy Gerald W. NapletonSeptember 2017The issue in Crittenden v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission dealt specifically with Section 8(d)(1)’s language concerning “the average amount which a claimant is able to earn in some suitable employment or business after the accident.”
Appellate Court upholds dismissal of Marque Medicos class action suitBy Jim ByrnesSeptember 2017On June 30, 2017, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court issued a decision affirming an order by Judge Rita Novak of the Circuit Court of Cook County, dismissing with prejudice a class action suit filed by Marque Medicos Fullerton, LLC and other plaintiffs against various workers’ compensation carriers
Appellate court warns practitioners to comply with Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(3) or have their brief strickenBy Richard D. HanniganJanuary 2017The Appellate Court's decision in Dayton Freight Lines v. IWCC et al. contained an admonition: "In the past we have noted the deficiencies in the briefs which we have received but nevertheless addressed the issues raised and the resolve those appeals without striking the offending brief or appendix. In the future, however, this court may not be so inclined. Practitioners would be well advised to heed our warning."
Beware of rustlers (and rustlers beware)By Herbert FranksNovember 2017Rustlers employ various tactics to lure their quarry. Many will advertise that even if you are represented, they will evaluate your case and tell you its true value. Some advertise to other lawyers that they will pay 50% of the fee to any referring attorney. Others may also have bartenders and beauticians helping them to receive referrals of your cases.
Bringing the insurance carrier into the caseBy Martin J. HaxelMarch 2017An obscure provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act allows a claimant to bring the insurance carrier into the case and have an award entered against it and the employer.
Can CMS dictate to their attorney what defenses it must raise in the context of defending WC cases?By Richard D. HanniganSeptember 2017CMS argued that the Atty. Gen.’s refusal to raise the employer/employee defendants constituted a conflict of interest such that special counsel should be appointed. However, the Constitution of the State of Illinois gives the Atty. Gen. the authority to decide what arguments, strategies and litigation tactics to employee in defending claims.
Case analysis and commentsBy Robert M. HarrisSeptember 2017When do the facts draw an inference that an accident aggravated a pre-existing degenerative condition? A look at Nanette Schroeder v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (Swift Transportation).
Country Preferred Insurance Company v. Lori GroenBy Herbert FranksJune 2017A setoff provision in an employee’s uninsured motorist policy providing that payments made pursuant to the Worker’s Compensation Act will reduce the amount payable under the policy is enforceable and applicable to payments made by the employer to the employee’s medical providers.
Does Holocker v. IWCC take down Interstate Scaffolding?By Richard D. HanniganSeptember 2017The answer is that Holocker helps to clarify Interstate Scaffolding. The respondent’s attorney should use this case as a textbook outline on how to defeat a claim for temporary total disability benefits when the employee has been terminated by his employer prior to reaching maximum medical improvement.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganNovember 2017An introduction to this issue from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganSeptember 2017News and updates from editor Rich Hannigan.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganJune 2017A message and introduction to the issue from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganMarch 2017News and updates from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganJanuary 2017News and updates from Editor Rich Hannigan.
A fee for all or, How do I argue that my prior attorneys are entitled to twenty cents in attorney fees?By Richard D. HanniganNovember 2017Joiner v. IWCC is a must-read for attorneys representing injured workers before the Commission. It involves a case where the Claimant not only terminated one attorney but three attorneys. The last attorney was terminated nine days after she conveyed a $290,000 offer to Claimant.
How temporary partial disability came to be and its application since 2011By Joshua A. HumbrechtNovember 2017TPD marks an effort to balance the financial well-being of the injured worker and the employer’s ability to receive some gainful services of physically limited workers for the money extended in temporary benefits.
Intervening injuries and the chain of causationBy Herbert FranksMarch 2017The Third District Appellate Court recently issued an opinion limiting application of an employer’s intervening injury defense.
Pens vs. Bolts: What accidents are made ofBy Robert J. Finley & Gabriella BrunoMarch 2017In two recent decisions, the Appellate Court penned for practitioners the nuts and bolts of the “arising out of” component contributing to accident issues at the Commission.