The case involved the Bolingbook Police Department and the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. One of the plaintiff’s job duties as a police officer included the safekeeping of his duty bag. The bag contained items such as his helmet, service weapon and ammunition.

The Commission claimed the responsibility for the duty bag’s safekeeping was a job-related task. The police officer’s employer required the duty bag to be kept “with his person.” At the end of his shift, he was allowed to either store the bag in his locker at the police station, or secure it at home. The employer accepted both options as there were no rules prohibiting the storing of duty bags at officers’ personal residences.

The plaintiff chose to take his duty bag home. He suffered a lower back injury while loading the bag into the trunk of his personal vehicle in preparation for reporting to the police station for work. The accident aggravated his existing back condition and led to a subsequent back surgery.

The court found the officer’s injury was compensable even though it occurred at home and before the start of his work shift. It ruled that he was carrying out an activity that benefited the employer by helping to keep the community safe from the duty bag’s contents.

Paul Greenberg is a Chicago workers’ compensation lawyer with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit www.briskmanandbriskman.com.

The case involved the Bolingbook Police Department and the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. One of the plaintiff’s job duties as a police officer included the safekeeping of his duty bag. The bag contained items such as his helmet, service weapon and ammunition.

The Commission claimed the responsibility for the duty bag’s safekeeping was a job-related task. The police officer’s employer required the duty bag to be kept “with his person.” At the end of his shift, he was allowed to either store the bag in his locker at the police station, or secure it at home. The employer accepted both options as there were no rules prohibiting the storing of duty bags at officers’ personal residences.

The plaintiff chose to take his duty bag home. He suffered a lower back injury while loading the bag into the trunk of his personal vehicle in preparation for reporting to the police station for work. The accident aggravated his existing back condition and led to a subsequent back surgery.

The court found the officer’s injury was compensable even though it occurred at home and before the start of his work shift. It ruled that he was carrying out an activity that benefited the employer by helping to keep the community safe from the duty bag’s contents.

Paul Greenberg is a Chicago workers’ compensation lawyer with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit www.briskmanandbriskman.com.

Joseph Kehrer and two companies affiliated with him, D7 Roofing and Kehrer Brothers, violated numerous health and safety standards, according to an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), part of the U.S. Department of Labor.

Joseph Kehrer and Kehrer Brothers face fines of $1,792,000 for willful exposure of workers to asbestos after inspectors found that Kehrer and company supervisors ordered employees to remove materials that contained asbestos during the renovation of a school.

Many of the workers were foreign workers hired temporarily by Kehrer under the H-2B visa program. According to OSHA investigators, Kehrer knowingly exposed non-English-speaking workers to asbestos and threatened to fire them if they spoke to investigators.

Kehrer and Kehrer Brothers were cited for 16 egregious violations, nine willful violations and six serious violations. The investigation found that in addition to knowingly exposing workers to asbestos, the companies and Kehrer failed to provide proper equipment and training for asbestos removal. OSHA found that the companies also failed to create a required decontamination area and failed to use appropriate methods to minimize asbestos exposure. Kehrer Brothers was also placed in OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program. The companies were given 15 days to contest the findings.

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

In the case, Lenhart v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, the claimant worked for USF Holland as a truck driver and dockworker. He injured his back in a workplace accident, and filed for workers’ compensation benefits.

At an arbitration hearing, the claimant argued that he was permanently and totally disabled. The employer stipulated that the claimant was not able to perform his previous duties, but argued that he was not totally and permanently disabled. The claimant engaged in vocational rehabilitation, and there was evidence that he was still employable, but at a diminished earning capacity.

The arbitrator found the claimant permanently and totally disabled, but after the employer appealed, the Commission found that he was not totally disabled, but entitled to permanent partial disability benefits representing a 75 percent loss of abilities.

The Appellate Court overturned the Commission’s decision and ruled that the Commission should have decided whether the claimant’s benefits should be calculated based on a wage differential rather than a percentage of the person as a whole.

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

The case, Pryor v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, concerned a worker who was injured while moving a suitcase into his personal car while still at his home in preparation for a work trip. The appellate court found that while there is a lower threshold of reasonableness concerning the actions of a traveling employee, in this case, the worker was not a traveling employee until he reached the premises of his employer.

The claimant in the case was employed by a transport company as a truck driver, delivering new automobiles to car dealerships. His work responsibilities included loading cars onto a semitrailer at a terminal in Belvidere, Illinois, driving the truck to various dealerships and unloading the vehicles. The worker would usually drive his personal car to the terminal, and would bring a suitcase when he anticipated an overnight stay while on the road to the dealerships.

The claimant injured his back while loading the suitcase into his personal vehicle. The appellate court found that the truck driver’s injury did not “arise out of” or occur “in the course of” his employment, and he was therefore not eligible for workers’ compensation benefits.

Each case is different, and injured workers should never assume that they do not have a case. Instead, contact an experienced workers’ compensation attorney for a free consultation.

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

In the case of Estate of Burns v. Consolidation Coal Company, the deceased worker had worked as a coal miner for 38 years. His death was attributed to pneumoconiosis, pneumonia and severe chronic pulmonary disease. His widow filed state and federal claims related to his death, but she passed away before the claims were resolved. An arbitrator eventually found that the total benefits payable to the estate under the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act were $97,845.45. During the pendency of that state claim, the employer conceded liability in a federal claim and paid $23,386.30 under the federal Black Lung Benefits Act.

After the state occupational disease benefits claim was upheld on appeal, the employer paid $89,865.30 to the wife’s estate, subtracting amounts paid under the federal claim, and adding interest. In its ruling, the Illinois Appellate Court held that the employer was not entitled to offset the amount of the federal claim against the workers’ compensation benefits.

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

In 2011, a series of changes were made to Illinois’ workers’ compensation program. In mid-June, the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission released a report that showed that since the changes were made, there has been a 19 percent decrease in benefit payments to injured workers, the largest such decrease in the country. The report also revealed that from 2010 to 2012, the average medical payment per workers’ compensation case decreased 16 percent, moving Illinois from the state with the highest such cost to near the median.

Illinois state Rep. Jay Hoffman said that the report shows that the 2011 changes had the desired effect, and further changes are unnecessary. Gov. Rauner is seeking stricter standards that injured workers must follow to prove their injury happened in the workplace. He also seeks changes to the rules for workers traveling to their place of employment, and lower reimbursement rates for medical providers. Democrats, who control both houses of the state legislature, have resisted the changes, saying that they would hurt middle-class workers.

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

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/.

The logistics company was in violation for improperly training workers who drive forklifts and not having adequate eyewash stations for employees who could be exposed to chemicals, according to an OSHA press release.

“Deficient forklifts and improperly handled chemicals can lead to serious injuries or death,” said Diane Turek, director of OSHA’s Chicago North office, in the press release.

CTI was cited for four repeat violations totaling fines of $132,000. The company was found to have allowed forklift operators to use equipment that stayed in service even though they had been noted to be deficient.

The company was cited for eight other serious violations with fines of $30,800. Those violations included illegible forklift name plates, unlabeled hazardous materials, and improper training on handling chemicals. A serious violation is one where there is a probability of physical harm or death because of the hazard.

Central Transport also was cited for five violations deemed “other than serious” that totaled fines of another $2,000.

Illinois’ Legislature passed a bill last year that changed the way the state handles workers’ compensation claims. One of the biggest changes has to do with which doctors can be used to determine the nature and severity of an injury. The new law may require an injured worker to pick a doctor from within a preferred provider network.

The state’s new law slices medical fees to hospitals and doctors by 30 percent in hopes of saving about $700 million a year, according to the Insurance Information Institute. Other cost-saving measures include reducing the number of weeks a worker with carpel tunnel syndrome can receive benefits from 40 down to 28.5. Carpel tunnel is a repetitive stress injury that can limit the use of one or both hands. Benefits also are capped at a 15 percent loss for carpel tunnel cases.

The new law also cuts off wage differential, which used to be available over your lifetime. Wage differential is the difference between what you could make before the injury and what you can make after the injury. This is now cut off at 67 years old or five years after the injury, whichever comes later.

The new law does not address causation, or the degree to which an injury was caused by working for the employer. The law did, however, adopt AMA guidelines for determining the degree of injury.

A qualified workers’ compensation attorney can help injured workers understand the complexities of the new law and how to make sure they are compensated for their injuries.

Paul Greenberg 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/.