Articles Posted in Workers Compensation

In Illinois Worker’s Compensations victims are entitled to two doctors and their referral chains. When we get cases in, often workers have already used one of their choices. We have had many people come in who have been referred to a doctor of the employer’s choice. When the employer does this they often misrepresent or suggest to the worker that they are required to go to these particular doctors. The selected doctor is often pro insurance company and not very friendly to injury victims.

This selection can have a huge impact on a person’s case by the time the case is over. Selecting a good doctor, from the standpoint of medical ability, and the from the standpoint of insurance bias, is very important to a person’s case.

Illinois law protects injury victims by having the two-doctor rule. Even if an employer tells a worker to see the company doctor or an occupational doctor, the worker still has a right to another group of doctors.

In Chlada vs Illinois Workers Compensation Commission the Workers Compensation Commission ruled that a person can get a wage loss differential and a permanent total claim.  The case involved two injuries.  The first injury resulted in the person being paid less than before the injury. After the second injury the worker could not work at all.

In Chlada the injured worker had an injury to his low back first, lifting beer as a beer truck driver. The worker got hurt again on October 23, 2003, when he hurt his neck working in the warehouse.  The worker filed two claims, one for each injury. He worked light duty until January 12, 2003, when his doctor took him off work because of his second injury. The worker had neck surgery on June 17, 2003.  The worker’s doctor imposed permanent restriction of no lifting over 58 pounds and only occasional overhead reaching on January 14, 2004.  The employer refused to take the worker back after the doctor imposed the restrictions.  Petitioner did an extensive job search of over 1,000 contacts, but he did find a job and did not work since the January 13, 2003 date.

The Commission ruled that his right to wage loss differential benefits began January 13, 2003 and ended April 22, 2004, after a remand. The Commission found the worker was permanently totally unable to work after that date.  The circuit court found the Commissions denial of benefits after April 22, 2004 was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and set aside the order, ordering wage differential ending January 13, 2003, “at which time PTD [Permanent Total Disability] benefits began.”

In worker’s compensation claims employees and employers typically put medical records of the petitioner and evidence. The doctors are often not usually called as witnesses.  Recent changes to the Worker’s Compensation Act provided for a simple method of entering records into evidence. Medical records are typically allowed into evidence if they are subpoenaed by a party. However, doctors’ notes that are prepared for litigation purposes are typically hearsay and not allowed.

In that context, the case entitled RG Construction Services vs the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Commission came up.  In RG Construction the petitioner injured his knee at work when he fell off the stilts he was using.  His lawyer wanted to put the records of his treating physician into evidence. The defense objected claiming hearsay and due process violations under the 14^th amendment.

The court cited the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Act changes (820 ILCS 305/16) concerning medical reports.  Changes provide that reports and bills of medical providers are presumed true and correct. They are admissible “without further proof as evidence of the medical and surgical matters stated therein, but shall not be conclusive proof of such matters.” The act specifically says that “this provision does not apply reports prepared by treating providers use litigation.”

 
If the petitioner has two cases the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission can award both a permanent partial disability award and a wage loss differential award.

Go here to see a video of me discussing the case Deerfield case with TJ Hart on Let’s Talk Law.

In the case entitled Deerfield vs the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Commission the appellate court ruled that a petitioner who is injured twice at work can receive award for both permanent partial disability and wage loss. In Deerfield, both cases were consolidated because they both involve the same workplace and the same injured worker. The workplace (Respondent) tried to argue that Petitioner could only get either a wage loss differential or a permanent partial disability award. This is not a very well taken position in my opinion. The court rejected it completely.

In United Airlines, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission gave the petitioner weekly wage differential payment of $277.06. The Workers’ Compensation Commission indicated that the payments should continue the duration of the disability he suffered as a consequence of his employment. In this case the arbitrator had ruled that the wage differential benefit should end effective April13, 2018. The arbitrator had found that United Airlines had proved that the claimant will be earning more in a new job than if he had remained a ramp service worker (old job). The arbitrator concluded that he could fairly determine claimant’s pay without guessing or speculating based on the collective bargaining agreements between respondent and petitioner. The Commission adopted the ruling of arbitrator accept that it ordered the wage differential to continue during the duration of the disability. The trial court reversed this decision. It agreed with the arbitrator’s decision.

The Appellate Court in United Airlines concluded the Commission was right. The trial court had reversed the Commission and used the arbitrator’s decision.

The court indicated that, while the act may not be perfect, it does not provide many methods by which to correct errors in the earning capacity and earning proved by the employee. Instead, “the award must be calculated as of the date of the arbitration hearing.”

In Mlynarczyk v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission the petitioner was getting into her car after a break, when she slipped and fell. The arbitrator ruled that she was a traveling employee, and therefore entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Then Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed that finding and held that she was not entitled to compensation. The trial court confirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The Appellate Court the reversed the Workers’ Compensation Commission.

In this case the claimant and her husband, Edward, were hired by employer to clean houses, churches, and offices. They were paid by the job. They drove the workplace’s employees to and from job sites. Edward drove. He used a minivan provided by the employer.

On the date of the accident, the claimant had driven to clean a church. After cleaning it she cleaned 2 homes. Claimant took a 90 minute lunch break, which was significantly longer than was allowed. She did not make money while she was eating. Later that day, after the break, Edward and the claimant were going back to the minivan. Edward had warmed it up. The claimant left her house to return to work. She testified that the ground was covered with snow. As she walked around the rear-end of the minivan, she slipped and fell. She testified this happened on a public sidewalk leading from the house to the driveway.

A worker is entitled to all related medical in the future, so long as they do not close out medical. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (8A) says that an employer has to pay for “all the necessary first-aid, medical and surgical services, and all necessary medical, surgical and hospital services thereafter”. This was demonstrated in the recent case Dye v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission.

In Dye the petitioner had a non-contested injury. She bumped her head. As a result she had headaches for some time and a small bump on her forehead. There was no fracture, but she was diagnosed with closed head trauma, a concussion, and an abrasion to her forehead. She did not treat for two years. Then she went back to a doctor. The arbitrator concluded that this doctor was the third doctor. This would have been out of the two physician rule which limits a petitioner’s medical to two doctors and the referral chains.

The commission reversed that finding holding that doctor worked with the same group as the other doctor the petitioner had treated with. Accordingly, the treatment with that doctor did not violate the two physician rule. However, the commission ruled that it was not clear whether there was observable disfigurement.