Segal McCambridge Legal Blog

By Jenni Young

On June 28, 2011, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law House Bill 1698, which included some significant workers’ compensation reforms. The legislation follows after increasing criticism from Illinois businesses due to a recently enacted corporate income tax hike. Among the reforms are limitations on wage differentials , utilization of employer PPO preferred medical provider plans, usage of American Medical Association guides to evaluate impairment, utilization of medical fee schedules, reductions of medical fee rates, utilization of electronic billing, and caps and reductions on carpal tunnel recovery. Further, the legislature codified the causation requirement, amending Section 1 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act to state that “to obtain compensation under this Act, an employee bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she has sustained accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of the employment� and created a defense for employers if an employee’s intoxication is determined to be the proximate cause of the employee’s injury.

Significantly, the exclusive remedy provision of the Act, which prohibits employees from filing civil actions against their employers for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, remains unchanged.

On December 14, 2010, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an Occupational Disease Act (”ODA”) claim brought in an asbestos case where the Plaintiff’s counsel had filed a tort claim for asbestos injuries and received some settlements in that tort case.

The Indiana Court of Appeals wrote:

“Appellant/Petitioner Kathy Niegos appeals from the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board’s (“the Boardâ€�) dismissal of her claim, pursuant to the Occupational Disease Act (“the ODAâ€�), against ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC, her late husband’s former employer. Niegos contends that the Board erroneously concluded that the “absolute barâ€� provision of ODA should apply when she has resolved some, but not all, claims against third-party defendants. ArcelorMittal counters that receipt of any third-party settlement relieves it of any liability under the ODA and that Niegos’s failure to notify it before accepting third-party settlements forfeits her rights under ODA. Concluding that Niegos’s failure to notify ArcelorMittal before entering into third-party settlements is fatal to her ODA claim, we affirm.
…
It is undisputed that Niegos failed to notify ArcelorMittal of any of the settlements she entered into with third-party defendants. (Appellant’s App. 25). In so doing, Niegos signed away ArcelorMittal’s rights without its consent or notice, preventing it from protecting its interests during settlement negotiations. As such, Niegos has forfeited her right to proceed against ArcelorMittal under the ODA, and the Board properly dismissed her claim. We affirm the judgment of the Board.”

The Indiana Court of Appeals decision can be found here