1. WCLA MCLE 8-12-15 Return To Work Programs Wednesday August 12, 2015 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm James R. Thompson Center, Chicago, IL 1 Hour General MCLE Credit

2. Legislative Update SB0162 Passed Senate 8-4-15, vote 36-19-1 Defines “arising out of and in the course of” (Sisbro?) Defines “traveling employee” (Venture Newberg?) Section 8.1b: Allows Sec.12 exam to be considered; no AMA necessary for award or settlement Electronic billing Repeals 2 year Arbitrator rotation Ombudsman: “attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois…demonstrated experience” WEAR Commission: “Nothing in this Section shall be construed to allow or authorize the WEAR Commission to seek to or to diminish, restrict, limit, expand abrogate, alter or change in any way the current interpretation of any substantive or procedural provision of this Act by the Commission or any Court.” Computer System Fraud Unit to IWCC

3. Some Background Richard Lee v. Fluid Management, 11WC048656, 9-6-13, final: “There is no statutory authority in the State of Illinois for Temporary Transitional Employment and the Act does not refer to Temporary Transitional Employment.” Anthony Berndt v. Hibar, 12WC010057, 14IWCC0152, 2-27-14: “(E)ntity called ReEmployability sent a letter …referencing Petitioner’s work restrictions and indicating a transitional full-time job as thrift store sales assistant…extension of Petitioner’s employment with Respondent.” Petitioner presents and advises thrift store of restrictions. “(A)cted in good faith” TTD awarded for time after offer. Robert Przanowski v. Des Plaines, 11WC035540, 14IWCC1122, 12-22-14: “temporary” is not “bona fide” offer of employment. Eric Alvarez v. Foodliner, 13WC020686, 15IWCC0443, 6-10-15: “temporary transitional employment…YMCA…Toys for Kids…senior center” Petitioner followed up in each case. Testimony of TTE vendor found to be “less than credible.” “The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act no mention of TTE.” TTD & penalties awarded.

4. Arbitration & Commission Decisions Section 19(b): “Unless a petition for review is filed by either party within 30 days after the receipt by such party of the copy of the decision and notification of time when filed, and unless such party petitioning for a review shall within 35 days after the receipt by him of the copy of the decision, file with the Commission either an agreed statement of the facts appearing upon the hearing before the Arbitrator, or if such party shall so elect a correct transcript of evidence of the proceedings at such hearings, then the decision shall become the decision of the Commission and in the absence of fraud shall be conclusive.” Section 19(e): “Decisions rendered by the Commission and dissents, if any, shall be published together by the Commission. The conclusions of law set out in such decisions shall be regarded as precedents by arbitrators for the purpose of achieving a more uniform administration of this Act.”

5. Dan Perkins v. Turner Industries 09WC044791, 15IWCC0468 PTD & penalties awarded and affirmed & adopted FCE medium physical demand level Coventry vocational services from April 2011 to January 2013 Close to 1000 jobs Catalyst RTW offering home based employment through company called AllFacilities Testimony of vocational experts Testimony of Catalyst RTW (objection as to expertise) Testimony of AllFacilities

6. Dan Perkins v. Turner Industries 09WC044791, 15IWCC0468 The only vocational opinions offered in this case by either party were the opinions of Susan Entenberg and Lisa Helma, each of whom testified at trial. Both Ms. Entenberg and Ms. Helma opined that no stable labor market exists for Petitioner. Respondent has offered no vocational opinion to dispute Ms. Entenberg or Ms. Helma. A review of the testimony and evidence in this case reveals that the system of referrals from a workers' compensation insurance company to Catalyst RTW and from Catalyst RTW to AllFacilities is suspect. As detailed below, the at-home work positions with AllFacilities are not competitive employment. It is clear that a referral to AllFacilities through Catalyst RTW has a nearly non- existent chance of turning into long term employment. Less than 1/2 of 1% of the individuals referred to AllFacilities from Catalyst in the last 3 years continue their employment with AllFacilities after their subsidized work period has ended. Catalyst's purpose in cases such as the one at bar is to assist companies in saving money on workers' compensation claims and even markets itself as providing lower workers' compensation settlements when they have been involved in a case. Catalyst specifically markets that if an individual is non-cooperative, declines the offer of work or is terminated for cause they will document those facts and be available to testify for Respondent. Ms. Wallace testifies about 25 to 30 times per year, or more than twice every month.

7. Dan Perkins v. Turner Industries 09WC044791, 15IWCC0468 A review of the testimony of Ms. Wallace and Ms. Koelling leads the Arbitrator to the conclusion that the system in place between Catalyst and AllFacilities is not a legitimate attempt to return the injured worker into the job market. Ms. Entenberg explained in her testimony that Petitioner was doomed to fail. It is clear from the record that Petitioner did not apply to work for AllFacilities but rather was given a position at AllFacilities, through Catalyst, at the request of the Jaynee Stump, the workers' compensation insurance adjuster. Had the insurance company not requested and fully paid for Petitioner to be retained by AllFacilities through Catalyst, it is clear that he would never have been placed in that position. There was no competition for this position as the insurance company paid Catalyst to arrange the interview, paid AllFacilities to hold the interview, paid Petitioner's wages while at AllFacilities, paid an administration fee to AllFacilities to allow Petitioner to perform this activity, and would have gotten a refund of their initial costs if AllFacilities had not offered Petitioner work. The position with AllFacilities was wholly subsidized by the workers' compensation insurance company and was clearly not found in a competitive job market. This is not competitive or real employment.