The Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund (UEGF) was established by the legislature in 2006 to provide compensation for individuals injured while working for employers who failed to maintain workers’ compensation insurance. An injured worker can seek recovery from the UEGF once he or she has learned that the employer does not have insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Act provides that the injured worker must furnish the UEGF with notice of a claim “within 45 days after the worker knew that the employer was uninsured.” The UEGF must then determine whether to begin making payments to an injured employee within 10 days of receiving the notice of a claim. One of the factors in this determination is whether the employer can show proof of insurance. If the employer is unable to provide that proof within 14 days, then a rebuttable presumption is created that the employer is not insured. After the UEGF receives this notice of a claim, it retains the right to voluntarily accept it within 21 days, or afford the injured worker an opportunity to file a claim petition against the UEGF.
In practice, every case is litigated. It is no secret that the UEGF is not well funded, which is presumably why a voluntary payment is almost unheard of. While not germane to this article, the legislature’s funding scheme was deficient from the inception of the fund. Therefore, the UEGF had to devise various ways to preclude a claim ab initio. A primary means to that end has been the aforementioned “45-day rule.” A source of significant contention, the parties have often had to suggest to a workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) what rights and remedies extend to the parties once there is a failure by the claimant to comply with the 45-day rule. Predictably, the UEGF has taken the position that it bars a claim against the UEGF entirely. Claimants’ counsel obviously do not agree.
