Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, December 2018An introduction to the issue from the newsletter editor, Richard D. Hannigan.
Editor’s noteBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2018An introduction to the issue from the newsletter editor, Richard D. Hannigan.
Editor’s noteBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, July 2018An introduction to the issue from Rich Hannigan.
Commission interpretations of medical issues in the absence of an expert opinionBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, May 2018The appellate court on numerous occasions has indicated that it will rely on the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission’s expertise when it comes to medical issues. However, the Commission may not interpret an MRI when that interpretation is not supported by a medical expert's opinion.
Editor’s noteBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, May 2018
An introduction to the issue from Rich Hannigan.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, January 2018An introduction to the issue from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, November 2017An introduction to this issue from Editor Rich Hannigan.
A fee for all or, How do I argue that my prior attorneys are entitled to twenty cents in attorney fees?By Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, November 2017Joiner v. IWCC is a must-read for attorneys representing injured workers before the Commission. It involves a case where the Claimant not only terminated one attorney but three attorneys. The last attorney was terminated nine days after she conveyed a $290,000 offer to Claimant.
Can CMS dictate to their attorney what defenses it must raise in the context of defending WC cases?By Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2017CMS argued that the Atty. Gen.’s refusal to raise the employer/employee defendants constituted a conflict of interest such that special counsel should be appointed. However, the Constitution of the State of Illinois gives the Atty. Gen. the authority to decide what arguments, strategies and litigation tactics to employee in defending claims.
Does Holocker v. IWCC take down Interstate Scaffolding?By Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2017The answer is that Holocker helps to clarify Interstate Scaffolding. The respondent’s attorney should use this case as a textbook outline on how to defeat a claim for temporary total disability benefits when the employee has been terminated by his employer prior to reaching maximum medical improvement.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2017News and updates from editor Rich Hannigan.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, March 2017News and updates from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Appellate court warns practitioners to comply with Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(3) or have their brief strickenBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, January 2017The Appellate Court's decision in Dayton Freight Lines v. IWCC et al. contained an admonition: "In the past we have noted the deficiencies in the briefs which we have received but nevertheless addressed the issues raised and the resolve those appeals without striking the offending brief or appendix. In the future, however, this court may not be so inclined. Practitioners would be well advised to heed our warning."
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, January 2017News and updates from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2016News and recent updates from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Appellate court issues decision on June 28, 2016 regarding the failure of the parties to offer an AMA rating exam into evidenceBy Richard D. Hannigan & Cameron B. ClarkWorkers’ Compensation Law, July 2016With the decision in Corn Belt Energy Corp. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, the courts are one step closer to resolving the issue of whether the submission of a PPD rating report into evidence (also referred to as an AMA rating examination) is mandatory in order for the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission to award permanent partial disability benefits.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, July 2016An introduction to the issue from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Should you try a nature and extent case without a sixth edition AMA guideline rating?By Richard D. Hannigan & Cameron B. ClarkWorkers’ Compensation Law, July 2016If you are considering trying a case in the near future and permanent partial disability is an issue, the authors suggest you consider whether you wish to have an AMA rating submitted to the arbitrator for consideration.
When does the 19(h) review time limitation begin to run?By Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, July 2016Does it begin to run after the decision has been entered by the Commission? Does it begin to run once a Circuit Court decision becomes final? Alternatively, does it begin to run once an appellate court or Supreme Court decision becomes final? The answer is “it all depends.”
Are flight attendants always traveling employees?By Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, April 2016The appellate court answered this question earlier this year in United Airlines Inc. v. IWCC.
Editor’s note: Malpractice alertBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, April 2016The parties to a motion to reinstate would be best served if they make a record and offer a good reason as to why the claim should be reinstated.
Editor’s notesBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, April 2016A message from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Spot an error in your article? Contact Celeste Niemann at cniemann@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article, visit the ISBA Newsletters page.
