Workers' Compensation Law Newsletter Archive
Browse and search Workers' Compensation Law articles
A&R Janitorial v.Pepper Construction Company
Illinois Supreme Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Plaintiff was injured at work due to alleged negligence of third parties. Plaintiff filed a successful claim for workers' compensation benefits.Employer filed subrogation complaint. Plaintiff then filed personal injury complaint against third parties, which court dismissed with prejudice as untimely. Court properly denied Plaintiff's petition to intervene in employer's subrogation action, on grounds of res judicata, due to court's dismissal of Plaintiff's personal injury case. (KARMEIER, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, THEIS, and NEVILLE, concurring.)
Senate Bill 904
Topic:
Workers Compensation Act
(Hastings, D-Tinley Park; Hoffman, D-Belleville) amends the Workers' Compensation Act affecting fees and electronic claims. (1) Requires a provider to bill an employer or its designee directly. (2) Provides that the employer or the insurer must send to the provider an explanation of benefits. (3) Requires employers and insurers to pay interest to providers at the rate of 1% per month for services rendered on and after the effective date of this amendatory Act if the bill is not paid promptly.
(4) Authorizes providers to bring an action in circuit court to enforce the payment procedures with regard to services rendered on and after the effective date of this amendatory Act. (5) Requires the Director of Insurance to adopt rules to ensure that providers have the opportunity to comply with requests for records by employers and insurers. (6) Imposes penalties upon employers and insurers that fail to comply with the electronic claims process. This bill was amendatorily vetoed by the Governor, and the Senate overrode his veto last week. The House may consider it next week. If both chambers override the veto, it takes effect immediately.
House Bill 3452
Topic:
Workers Compensation Act
(Soto, D-Chicago; Hastings, D-Tinley Park) amends the Workers Compensation Act so that takes effect if and only if Senate Bill 904 of the 100th General Assembly becomes law in the form in which it passed both houses on May 31, 2018. In provisions concerning required interest payments to providers for unpaid bills, requires such payments to be made by the employer or its insurer to the provider within 30 days (rather than not later than 30 days) after payment of the bill. Provides that if the employer or its insurer fails to pay interest within 30 days after payment of the bill, the provider may bring an action in circuit court for the sole purpose of seeking payment of interest against the employer or its insurer. Provides that the circuit court's jurisdiction shall be limited to enforcing payment of interest as required under a specified provision of the Act. Effective upon becoming law or on the date Senate Bill 904 of the 100th General Assembly takes effect, whichever is later. It is on the House concurrence calendar after passing the Senate.
House Bill 200
Topic:
Workers Compensation Act
(Hoffman, D-Belleville; Hastings, D-Tinley Park) amends the Workers Compensation Act to require an employer or insurer to provide written notification to a provider and employee (or a designee) an explanation of benefits that explains the basis for the denial of a work-related illness or injury or the insufficiency of the required data necessary to adjudicate a medical bill. On the House concurrence calendar after passing the Senate last week.
Par Electric v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers’ Compensation Act
Claimant filed workers' compensation claim for June 2014 injury to his right arm while in the employ of electric company; and filed workers compensation claims for April 1, 2015 and April 3, 2015 injuries to his right shoulder while working for another company. Commission's conclusion, that the April 2015 accidents did not constitute intervening accidents sufficient to break the causal connection from the June 2014 accident, was not against manifest weight of evidence. Evidence supports finding that claimant had not completely recovered from his 1st surgery despite being released to return to work.(HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, CAVANAGH, and BARBERIS, concurring.)
Public Act 100-880
Topic:
Administrative Procedure Act
(Tracy, R-Quincy; Wheeler, R-North Aurora) creates authorization and requirements for using email as a method of service under this Act. Effective Jan. 1, 2019.
Marque Medicos Archer, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers’ Compensation Act
Court dismissed with prejudice claims of medical providers for breach of contract, violation of Section 8.2(d)(3) of Workers Compensation Act, and violation of Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. Dismissal was proper as providers have no direct cause of action against workers compensation insurer for its delay in paying medical bills. (PUCINSKI and HYMAN, concurring.)
Peng v. Nardi
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
(Court opinion corrected 6/26/18.) Plaintiff filed negligence suit against her coworker and 2 other drivers for injuries she sustained in a 3-car collision when coworker was driving restaurant employees to work in a van their employer provided for their commute. Workers' compensation system is exclusive source of compensation from Plaintiff's employer and coemployee for injury that occurred during course of her employment. As van in which Plaintiff was a passenger was employer-controlled, Plaintiff was injured in a work-related accident. Plaintiff relinquished control over conditions of transportation when she boarded vehicle owned by employer and driven under employer's direction. Coemployee driver is immune from common-law negligence claim as he was acting within scope of employment at time of collision. (GORDON and ELLIS, concurring.)
Cooley v. Power Construction Co., LLC
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Plaintiff was working as an employee of 3rd-party defendant on a construction project and was injured when he was unloading a window that his employer was going to install at the project. Plaintiff filed workers' compensation claim and received benefits. In negligence case Plaintiff filed against general contractor for project, 3rd-party defendant waived its limited liability status but not its statutory workers' compensation lien rights. Indemnification provision in subcontract agreement lacks any specific reference to lien or to any intention that lien be waived. A specific referent to the lien in a waiver provision is required before the lien can be deemed waived.(PIERCE and HARRIS, concurring.)