Oakland – A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) study finds that average paid losses on California workers’ compensation lost-time claims fell immediately after legislative...
By Thomas A. Robinson, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis (LexisNexis) As we move through the third decade of the twenty-first century, the United States remains...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Industrially injured workers in California are entitled to receive...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 88, No. 9 September 2023 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It is well-settled law that federally recognized Indian Tribes have...
While the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act provides, under some circumstances, for the imposition of penalties for the delay in paying medical expenses and other benefits, there is no statutory authority for imposing penalties for an alleged delay in authorizing medical treatment, held a state appellate court. An arbitrator found that the employer’s initial refusal to authorize treatment (the decision was later reversed) had not been made in good faith and imposed a $6,900 penalty pursuant to 820 ILCS 305/19(l) “for without good and just cause failing, neglecting, refusing, and unreasonably delaying payments under section 8(a) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/8(a) (West 2016)), i.e., authorizing the surgery” [emphasis added]. In addition, the arbitrator found respondent liable for attorney fees in the amount of $1380 pursuant to section 820 ILCS 305/16. A divided Commission reversed. The appellate court stressed that the statute spoke to delays in payment of benefits, not the delay. The court added that it was “not unsympathetic” to claimant’s concerns, but added that it simply could not read into the statute any exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not intend.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See O'Neil v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 2020 IL App (2d) 190427WC (Feb. 4, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 135.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.