Business groups line up to oppose workers' comp measure in Senate

May 14, 2013.  By Andrew Maloney.   Chicago Daily Law Bulletin staff writer

SPRINGFIELD — What do the American Medical Association, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and a statute clarifying that the shoulder is part of a person's arm have in common?

They're all components of the latest workers' compensation bill in the Illinois Senate, a follow-up to business-backed changes made two years ago that cut payments to doctors and tightened restrictions on employee claims.

The bill winding its way through the legislative process this year, however, is almost universally opposed by business groups.

It would eliminate the need for a claimant to meet American Medical Association guidelines for an injury in order to be given a permanent partial disability award; increase the cost for an employer to appeal an arbitrator's decision; and potentially make some companies that perform safety inspections liable for civil action.

Although the bill also redefines the shoulder as being part of the arm — which could reduce awards given to injured employees — and contains a handful of provisions seen favorably by employers, some business lobbyists derided the proposal as the "Rick Perry Jobs Plan."

The Republican governor of Texas made a much ballyhooed attempt to lure Illinois industries to the Lone Star State, citing that state's workers' compensation laws as more conducive to a productive business climate.

"When Gov. Perry visited Illinois, one of the things that he touted as an advantage was the workers' compensation system," said Jay Shattuck, who opposed the bill on behalf of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week. "This bill makes his case even more so."

Sen. John G. Mulroe, D-Chicago, the bill's sponsor, said the measure is not about scaling back reform efforts made two years ago, but making tweaks to the system that are meant to codify how the law is being applied.

There were 11 people representing myriad business and trade groups who indicated their opposition to the measure — House Bill 3390 — at the committee hearing, and Mulroe said he'll try to address their problems with it tonight.

"I'm going to meet with petitioners' attorneys, respondents' attorneys, the workers' compensation commission … I'm going to say, 'Hey, does this make sense?'" Mulroe said. "There's a provision in there too about an interpreter making sure a claimant, or petitioner, actually understands the agreement. I think that's a pretty minor issue, but that's one thing we've gotta iron out."

One group, the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, was the only one that officially backed the bill during its committee hearing.  "Many of the provisions just clarify what's already there," said Gregory L. Shevlin, ITLA president and a partner at Cook, Ysursa, Bartholomew, Brauer & Shevlin Ltd. in Belleville.

"For example, there is a section that talks about the AMA guidelines, which were introduced to our workers' compensation system as a result of the last time the law was amended. All it does is it says, it clarifies the fact that they're optional. That is already something that is in practice."

Although her group opposes the legislation in its current form, Kim Maisch, Illinois state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, summarized the stakes for groups on both sides of the issue.

"You have attorneys and business and labor on both sides, and workers' comp is a very, very contentious issue on both sides because people are making a lot of money off it," Maisch said. "So it takes a long time to put … what I'd call, a workers' comp package, together."

©2013 by Law Bulletin Publishing Company.