<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Clayton v. Ingalls Clarifies $20 Medical Records Fee</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ilworkcomp.org/2010/07/06/clayton-v-ingalls-clarifies-20-medical-records-fee/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ilworkcomp.org/2010/07/06/clayton-v-ingalls-clarifies-20-medical-records-fee/</link>
	<description>A Resource for Workers&#039; Compensation Professionals in Illinois</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:18:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: CATHY NOVAKOWSKI</title>
		<link>http://www.ilworkcomp.org/2010/07/06/clayton-v-ingalls-clarifies-20-medical-records-fee/comment-page-1/#comment-205</link>
		<dc:creator>CATHY NOVAKOWSKI</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:18:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilworkcomp.org/?p=593#comment-205</guid>
		<description>We  are receiving PPo network reductions from selective insurance and they are taking what they call network deductions based on their association with Procura who is also affiliated with Multi Plan.  Our Doctors only participate in MultiPlan so therefore they feel they can take these deductions. We never signed up with Workers Compensation under MultiPlan. Would this be legitimate?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We  are receiving PPo network reductions from selective insurance and they are taking what they call network deductions based on their association with Procura who is also affiliated with Multi Plan.  Our Doctors only participate in MultiPlan so therefore they feel they can take these deductions. We never signed up with Workers Compensation under MultiPlan. Would this be legitimate?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CATHY NOVAKOWSKI</title>
		<link>http://www.ilworkcomp.org/2010/07/06/clayton-v-ingalls-clarifies-20-medical-records-fee/comment-page-1/#comment-176</link>
		<dc:creator>CATHY NOVAKOWSKI</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 17:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilworkcomp.org/?p=593#comment-176</guid>
		<description>Can I also have the weblink to these two rulings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can I also have the weblink to these two rulings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CATHY NOVAKOWSKI</title>
		<link>http://www.ilworkcomp.org/2010/07/06/clayton-v-ingalls-clarifies-20-medical-records-fee/comment-page-1/#comment-175</link>
		<dc:creator>CATHY NOVAKOWSKI</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:18:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilworkcomp.org/?p=593#comment-175</guid>
		<description>Can you send me the rule about mailing an Illinois workers comp. subpeona renders it defective.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you send me the rule about mailing an Illinois workers comp. subpeona renders it defective.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.ilworkcomp.org/2010/07/06/clayton-v-ingalls-clarifies-20-medical-records-fee/comment-page-1/#comment-118</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:32:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilworkcomp.org/?p=593#comment-118</guid>
		<description>Hi, do you have a link to the full opinion in Safeworks IL Occupational et al. v. Julia Wills, Gen No. 4-09-0827? Can&#039;t seem to find it....

Thank you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, do you have a link to the full opinion in Safeworks IL Occupational et al. v. Julia Wills, Gen No. 4-09-0827? Can&#8217;t seem to find it&#8230;.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CATHY NOVAKOWSKI</title>
		<link>http://www.ilworkcomp.org/2010/07/06/clayton-v-ingalls-clarifies-20-medical-records-fee/comment-page-1/#comment-92</link>
		<dc:creator>CATHY NOVAKOWSKI</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilworkcomp.org/?p=593#comment-92</guid>
		<description>PLEASE SEND ME UPDATES ON THIS ARTICLE, CLAYTON VS. INGALLS  CLARIFIES $20.00 MEDICAL RECORDS COPY FEES.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PLEASE SEND ME UPDATES ON THIS ARTICLE, CLAYTON VS. INGALLS  CLARIFIES $20.00 MEDICAL RECORDS COPY FEES.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

