The word on the street is that in exchange for Republicans voting to raise our taxes, Democrats are going to gut the Illinois Workers' Compensation system. Should that matter to you?
Well, imagine if you are at work and you lift a box and hear a pop in your back. 10 years ago you saw a doctor once after a car accident, but never since. Your best friend is a doctor and he tells you the top back guy you should see.
Problem is you can't see that doctor. You have to go the physician your insurance company tells you to see. Of course that guy is a hired gun. He finds out that you had a car accident 10 years ago and even though your back never hurt you until you lifted that box at work, he says all of your problems are pre-existing and there is nothing wrong with you.
So out of your own pocket you see the doctor your friend recommended. The one who is not a hired gun and is giving you an honest opinion. He does an MRI which reveals a herniated disc in your back and tells you after physical therapy doesn't work that you need surgery. You can't work now because of this and have no income coming in.
Someone tells you to hire a lawyer, but you can't find one because the attorneys that used to handle these cases have all gotten out of the business. Why? Because as part of this raise your taxes and screw the worker deal, they also want to have pre-set values for what a case is worth rather than looking at your unique situation and figuring out what your case is worth, up to 80% less than what cases are currently worth. As a result, lawyers will only be able to take on cases where they have to go to trial. Given that attorneys would have to go to trial on almost any case they want to get paid on combined with the fact that fees are only 20% of what is recovered, most attorneys chose to just get out of the business and do something else.
Think this couldn't happen? Google "Gary Workers' Compensation Lawyers" and see if you can find an attorney for a job injury that happened in Indiana. I've looked and I can't find any. I did find three firms in Indianapolis that do this, but they all just dabble in it when their clients have other cases.
This already happens in Illinois when someone gets in to a car accident but has no injury. They can't find a lawyer to take their case and it ends up being them versus the insurance company. In the last month I've had four calls where drivers have been rear-ended at a red light and been told by the other parties insurance that they were somehow at fault. You either sue on your own or take your medicine by going along with it.
I certainly don't claim that the Illinois workers' compensation system is perfect and do suggest they roll it back to how it worked in 2005 before they "reformed" it then at the request of insurance companies and big business. But if you are a worker in Illinois you better not get hurt. You are about to get screwed by these changes and your job is going to become very dangerous if you have an injury.
Filed under: Uncategorized
I don't know if it is fair to Google Gary anything, given that just about everything economic moved out to Merrilville and Munster 30 years ago. Give us the numbers on how many WC lawyers have offices in Englewood or Grand Blvd. in Chicago.
Also, you didn't post a link to the current proposal so we can evaluate it independently. However, given the Illinois General Assembly's pattern of when they get close on a bill, they don't amend it, but strip another bill to insert its content there, it probably can't be tracked.
One thing that is also probably sure is that any real reform won't be, after someone annexes conditions to it, such as to the recall amendment.
Great suggestion. I added the link to the bill as it stands of this a.m. Enjoy the reading.
And if you don't like the Gary suggestion, look for Munster, Hammond, etc.
It
Following the posted link, that is not in the bill. The bill says that the employer has the first choice, but the employee has the absolute right to select a second physician at the employer's expense (page 23).
As far as other highlights, this seems to provide that:
* labor referral agencies prove insurance and more teeth to insurance enforcement
* establishment of new medical fee schedules by the Commission
* adding to utilization review
* limiting the wage differential to 5 years or to age 67.5, and periodic review
* streamlining the payment process
* no compensation for intoxication, imposing the same 0.08 standard as DUI
* arbitrators must be lawyers
* certification of claim; not much different than Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 137
* existing Fraud Prevention Bureau use analytics
* workers' comp oversight board is created
* premiums are to be recalculated
* assignees from health care providers can't profit
* Ins. Dept. reports to the gov. and legislature
Thanks for providing the link, which I said, does allow for independent analysis. My two questions are:
(1) I don't see what is so onerous to the claimant here, especially if day labor agencies have to assure that there is insurance. Unless you are assuming that the Commission is going to establish an inadequate fee schedule, or the limits on the wage differential are unfair, what is the problem?
(2) A couple of days ago, you lit into the Tribune editorial page about saying that drunks can get workers' comp. If that definitely isn't the case, what's the reason for Section 11? Is it just that the former standard for intoxication as a proximate cause of the injury was too vague? If they can't drive, why should they show up drunk to work?
Spoken like a trial lawyer...Watching our jobs move to Indiana and Wisconsin
Easy to blurt something inflamatory like that without actual proof. How about telling me how it's fair or just in any way for an insurance company to mandate the one doctor you see no matter where you live or who you want to see? More on this on Thursday.
Mike what have you heard is ama guidelines a serious possibility?
Two nights ago I saw an Illinois Chamber Memo that said they were back on the table and allegedly Madigan told a petitioner's attorney I know that it was a done deal. Who knows what is true as it appears fluid and the latest draft of the bill doesn't really have much teeth to it, but we'll see.