Multi-Jurisdictional Workers' Compensation Claims Selecting the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
multi jurisdictional workers compensation claims
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Multi-Jurisdictional Workers' Compensation Claims Selecting the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 06, 2023 37 likes •418 views

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Multi-Jurisdictional Workers' Compensation Claims Selecting the Jurisdiction and Navigating Conflicting State Laws Regarding Benefits, Rights and Responsibilities TUES DAY, FEBRUARY

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Multi-Jurisdictional Workers' Compensation Claims

Selecting the Jurisdiction and Navigating Conflicting State Laws Regarding Benefits, Rights and Responsibilities

Today’s faculty features:

1pm East ern | 12pm Cent ral | 11am Mount ain | 10am Pacific

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

  • speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

TUES DAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2012

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A

Thomas O. S ippel, Partner, Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, Roswell, Ga. S ean W. Martin, Member, Leitner Williams Dooley & Napolitan, Chattanooga, Tenn. Michael C. Milstein, Bryce Downey & Lenkov, Chicago

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Conference Materials

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps:

  • Click on the + sign next to “ Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen.

  • Click on the tab labeled “ Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a

PDF of the slides for today's program.

  • Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
  • Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Continuing Education Credits

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps:

  • Close the notification box
  • In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of

attendees at your location

  • Click the S

END button beside the box

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Tips for Optimal Quality

S

  • und Qualit y

If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory and you are listening via your computer speakers, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-258-2056 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@ straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Qualit y To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Presented to Strafford CLE by Michael C. Milstein BRYCE DOWNEY & LENKOV LLC

February 14, 2012

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

 Jurisdiction-

  • The legal power, right, or authority of a

particular court to hear and determine causes

 Subject Matter Jurisdiction

  • The authority of a court to hear cases of a

particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter

 Rare issue in practice

 Illinois: liberal state= Petitioner’s want to file here

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

 Each state has its own statute which codifies

jurisdiction under its own system of Workers’ Compensation laws

 What are the factors for determining if a

State has jurisdiction?

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8
  • Place where injury occurs
  • Place of employment contract
  • Place where the employment relationship is

carried out

  • Place where the employment is localized
  • Place where the employee resides
  • Place whose statutes the parties have adopted

by contract

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • All states apply jurisdiction if the injury occurs within

that state

  • 43 states apply jurisdiction if the contract for

employment was made within that state

  • 40 states apply jurisdiction if the employment is

principally located in that state

  • However, 15 states will not apply their law to out-of-

state employers with insurance in another state

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10
  • Cowger v. Industrial Commission (2000 Illinois Appellate

Court)

 Petitioner was a truck driver injured in Texas  Petitioner resided in Illinois  Respondent was domiciled in Indiana  When Petitioner called to inquire about the job, he was told his “job

hunting days were over”

 Petitioner thought this meant he was hired, but he had to complete

a drug test and fill out paperwork

 Petitioner also had to pick up his tractor in Indiana  Petitioner received instructions from Indiana 10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

 Cowger v. Industrial Commission (Illinois Appellate Court)

Court held that for there to be a contract of hire, there needs to be mutual consent

Respondent needed the paperwork and drug test before they could accept the Petitioner as an employee

No contract for hire in Illinois

Injury not in Illinois

Employment not localized in Illinois (even though he frequently traveled in Illinois)

Illinois does not have jurisdiction

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

 The Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc. v. Michael Haynes et

al (Northern District of Illinois)

Players filed for WC benefits in California

Players were part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement

An Arbitrator held that CBA clearly stated that all WC claims should be brought before the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission

Players appealed stating that the agreement violates California public policy

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

 The Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc. v. Michael Haynes et

al (Northern District of Illinois)

  • Court held that there is no reason that the agreement needs to

conform to California law

  • The agreement doesn’t discuss using California law only Illinois

law

  • Court did not look at where injury took place, state of hire, or

where most of the work was performed

  • Unclear whether employers can force employees to accept WC

benefits from a different state if injured in that state

 Seems unlikely an employee can sign away those rights 13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

 Mahoney v. Industrial Commission (2006 Illinois

Supreme Court)- each state is very different

  • 1969: Petitioner hired to work at O’Hare Airport
  • 1993: Transferred to Orlando
  • 1999: Injured
  • Petitioner lived in Ohio
  • Petitioner paid Florida taxes
  • Petitioner had Florida drivers license

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

 Mahoney v. Industrial Commission (2006 Illinois

Supreme Court)

  • Court held that the situs of the contract of employment

is the sole and “exclusive” determinate of jurisdiction when injury is outside Illinois but contract for hire inside Illinois

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

 Step 1: get ALL necessary information (location

  • f injury, contract for hire, location of

employment etc…)

 Step 2: Review state law where injury occurred

and potential other states

  • Numerous reasons, not just jurisdiction. Will be

discussed soon

 Step 3: Check for employment contracts  Step 4: Get a lawyer!

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Michael C. Milstein mmilstein@brycedowney.com – 312-327-0042

200 North LaSalle Street Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60601 www.brycedowney.com

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS

Michael C. Milstein BRYCE DOWNEY & LENKOV LLC, Chicago IL Sean W. Martin LEITNER, WILLIAMS, DOOLEY & NAPOLITAN PLLC, Chattanooga, TN Thomas O. Sippel LEITNER, WILLIAMS, DOOLEY & NAPOLITAN PLLC, Atlanta, GA

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

 Subject Matter Jurisdiction

  • The authority of a court to hear cases of a

particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter

 Rare issue in practice  Illinois: liberal state= Petitioners want to file

here

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

 Each state has its own statute which codifies

jurisdiction under its own system of Workers’ Compensation laws

 What are the factors for determining if a

State has jurisdiction?

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21
  • Place where injury occurs
  • Place of employment contract
  • Place where the employment relationship is

carried out

  • Place where the employment is localized
  • Place where the employee resides
  • Place whose statutes the parties have adopted

by contract

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22
  • All states apply jurisdiction if the injury occurs within

that state

  • 43 states apply jurisdiction if the contract for

employment was made within that state

  • 40 states apply jurisdiction if the employment is

principally located in that state

  • However, 15 states will not apply their law to out-of-

state employers with insurance in another state

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • Cowger v. Industrial Commission (2000 Illinois Appellate

Court)

 Petitioner was a truck driver injured in Texas  Petitioner resided in Illinois  Respondent was domiciled in Indiana  When Petitioner called to inquire about the job, he was told his “job

hunting days were over”

 Petitioner thought this meant he was hired, but he had to complete

a drug test and fill out paperwork

 Petitioner also had to pick up his tractor in Indiana  Petitioner received instructions from Indiana 23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

 Cowger v. Industrial Commission (Illinois Appellate Court)

Court held that for there to be a contract of hire, there needs to be mutual consent

Respondent needed the paperwork and drug test before they could accept the Petitioner as an employee

No contract for hire in Illinois

Injury not in Illinois

Employment not localized in Illinois (even though he frequently traveled in Illinois)

Illinois does not have jurisdiction

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

 The Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc. v. Michael Haynes et

al (Northern District of Illinois)

Players filed for WC benefits in California

Players were part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement

An Arbitrator held that CBA clearly stated that all WC claims should be brought before the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission

Players appealed stating that the agreement violates California public policy

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

 The Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc. v. Michael Haynes et

al (Northern District of Illinois)

  • Court held that there is no reason that the agreement needs to

conform to California law

  • The agreement doesn’t discuss using California law only Illinois

law

  • Court did not look at where injury took place, state of hire, or

where most of the work was performed

  • Unclear whether employers can force employees to accept WC

benefits from a different state if injured in that state

 Seems unlikely an employee can sign away those rights 26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

 Mahoney v. Industrial Commission (2006 Illinois

Supreme Court)- each state is very different

  • 1969: Petitioner hired to work at O’Hare Airport
  • 1993: Transferred to Orlando
  • 1999: Injured
  • Petitioner lived in Ohio
  • Petitioner paid Florida taxes
  • Petitioner had Florida drivers license

27

slide-28
SLIDE 28

 Mahoney v. Industrial Commission (2006 Illinois

Supreme Court)

  • Court held that the situs of the contract of employment

is the sole and “exclusive” determinate of jurisdiction when injury is outside Illinois but contract for hire inside Illinois

28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

 Step 1: get ALL necessary information (location

  • f injury, contract for hire, location of

employment etc…)

 Step 2: Review state law where injury occurred

and potential other states

  • Numerous reasons, not just jurisdiction. Will be

discussed soon

 Step 3: Check for employment contracts  Step 4: Get a lawyer!

29

slide-30
SLIDE 30

 Georgia:

  • O.C.G.A. §34-9-2 (exceptions)
  • O.C.G.A. §34-9-242 (injuries outside of state)
  • Effect of receiving benefits under another

state’s system

30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

MULTI JURISDICTIONAL CLAIMS

 Jumping States  Knowing election of remedies:

  • Requirement: “A knowledgeable and informed

choice”

  • Receiving medical treatment?
  • Receiving income benefits?

31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

MULTI JURISDICTIONAL CLAIMS

Jumping States (cont’d):

  • Has employee retained counsel?
  • Has a claim been filed?
  • Has employee signed jurisdiction agreement?

32

slide-33
SLIDE 33

MULTI JURISDICTIONAL CLAIMS

Other Factors to Weigh in Considering Jurisdiction:

 Income benefits  comp rates  Medical fee schedules  treatment limitations  Medical guidelines

33

slide-34
SLIDE 34

MULTI JURISDICTIONAL CLAIMS

Other Factors to Weigh in Considering Jurisdiction

 Impairment rating guides (4th, 5th, and 6th

Edition all used)

 Vocational disability

34

slide-35
SLIDE 35

MULTI JURISDICTIONAL CLAIMS

Other Factors to Weigh in Considering Jurisdiction

 Panels  Suspension of benefits  Controverting Claim- which state is better

for litigating claim/issues

35

slide-36
SLIDE 36

MULTI JURISDICTIONAL CLAIMS

 Subrogation Conflicts of Laws

  • O.C.G.A. §34-9-11.1
  • T.C.A. §50-6-112

 Employer’s right to initiate action (50-6-112(d)(2),

(3)[longer statute of limitations])

36

slide-37
SLIDE 37

MULTI JURISDICTIONAL CLAIMS

Subrogation (Cont’d):

 Lex Loci Delecti (Georgia)  Most Substantial Contacts Test (Tenn.)  Modern Trend

37

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Sean W. Martin sean.martin@leitnerfirm.com Thomas O. Sippel tom.sippel@leitnerfirm.com Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC 800-421-0979 Offices across the Southeastern United States

38