The difference between average compensation levels for the two groups was approximately $6,000.

The researchers cross-referenced medical records from the Illinois Department of Public Health and data from the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. They evaluated 1,039 cases occurring between 2000 and 2005.

In order to accurately compare settlements with respect to a single variable—race—researchers had to control for other variables that are known to influence the amount awarded in workers’ compensation claims. These include wage rates, the severity and type of injuries, length of disability, percentage of partial permanent disability, and whether the claimant was represented by an attorney. After adjusting data to account for these factors, researchers found a significantly higher average settlement amount for white workers.

The study was purely statistical, and an examination of possible causes of the disparity was outside its scope. Still, the lead author offered two possible explanations.

“It’s really not clear why this is happening. One explanation is that there is some systemic bias or prejudices occurring within the system,” said Lee Friedman, assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at UIC. “Or, it could be that the level of information and knowledge about how the system works — and what can actually be litigated, disputed, or requested for compensation — might vary by ethnic group.”

Friedman also speculated that the average white worker may tend to take more time off for a given injury than the average black or Hispanic worker with a similar injury, which would result in greater compensation for lost wages.

Friedman also commented on the 2011 overhaul to the state’s workers’ compensation laws.

“With the new law… there was a lot of house cleaning that occurred within the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission,” he said. “They’ve hired a whole new staff. It might have a very important effect on the potential disparities that are occurring between workers based on ethnicity.”

The study was published in the October issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights, based in Silver Spring, Md., in cooperation with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, funded the study through a grant to the UIC School of Public Health.

Robert Briskman is a Chicago workers’ compensation attorney and Chicago workers compensation lawyer with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit http://www.briskmanandbriskman.com/.

New England Compounding Center (NECC), the drug compounding pharmacy that produced and sold the tainted shots, already faces numerous lawsuits. But the company is fairly small, and those infected with meningitis are now suing larger targets.

In New Jersey, two doctors and orthopedic clinics that provided the steroid injections have been sued. Legal experts predict more cases will follow in that state and others.

If courts define the injections as products, doctors and clinics could be sued for product liability. But if the administration of the injections is deemed to be a service, plaintiffs would likely have to prove negligence under medical malpractice laws—a much more difficult task.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers may look to clients’ medical bills to determine whether they have a case under strict product liability laws. If a bill lists the steroid and its administration as separate line items, an argument can be made that the drug was a product sold. This argument would be less sound if patients were billed only for the injection.

In some states, doctors cannot be sued under strict liability standards. In others, caps are imposed on damages for such claims. NECC’s tainted injections have infected patients in 19 states. Because laws vary across those states, the outcomes of lawsuits against doctors and clinics are likely to vary as well. Some plaintiffs may even file claims both for malpractice and for product liability in the hopes that at least one holds up.

Distributors of NECC’s products may also find themselves named in lawsuits.

Another possible target is the State of Massachusetts, which regulates drug compounders like NECC within the state, but legal experts say the legal standards necessary to sue the state are difficult to meet.

The federal government will likely not face any lawsuits. The agency is under scrutiny because it had cited NECC for regulatory violations as recently as 2006, but the FDA’s authority to regulate drug compounders is quite limited.

Paul Greenberg is a Chicago medical malpractice lawyer and Chicago medical malpractice attorney with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit http://www.briskmanandbriskman.com/.