HR Tip: Court ruling does not affect ACA obligations

The recent court ruling by a federal judge in Texas that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional, does not affect the coverage and reporting obligations for employers. The ruling is a declaratory judgment and not an injunction to freeze the ACA and most expect the case will make its way to the Supreme Court.

Similar to the past two years, the IRS has extended the original Jan. 31, 2019, deadline for employers to distribute 2018 Forms 1095-C or 1095-B to employees to March 4, 2019. The critical 2019 filing deadlines for forms that detail 2018 coverage are now as follows:

ACA Requirement Deadline
Paper filing with IRS Feb. 28
1095 forms delivered to employees March 4 (extended from Jan. 31)
Electronic filing with IRS April 1

Employers that file 250 or more information returns with the IRS must file the returns electronically. Because of the extension, the 30-day extension that would normally be available on a showing of good cause is not available – March 4 is a hard deadline.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA alert: Injury reporting records take on increased importance and upcoming deadlines

Form 300A posting deadline: February 1, 2019
Electronic rule making update
Form 300A electronic submission deadline: March 2, 2019
How the data is being used: Site-Specific Targeting Initiative

This month, all employers required to keep Form 300, the Injury and Illness Log, should be reviewing the Log to verify that entries are complete and accurate and correcting any deficiencies. Two important dates are approaching. The annual summary of injuries and illnesses recorded on OSHA Form 300A, Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, must be posted where notices are customarily located in workplaces, no later than February 1, 2019 and kept in place until April 30.

Under the electronic record-keeping rule, certain employers must submit the form electronically to OSHA by March 2, 2019. And there is now an inspection targeting plan based on the data submitted under this rule, subjecting employers to further scrutiny of their injury and illness rates. Given the potential impact for inspections, employers should carefully ensure they submit accurate records. They should also proactively monitor and address patterns in their injury and illness rates to lower recordable injuries.

Form 300A posting deadline February 1, 2019

When an accident occurs, an employer must document a recordable injury or illness on the OSHA Form 300 log within seven days. Employers should pay careful attention to their logs and the work relatedness of safety incidents, particularly in light of the electronic submission rule. Some employers tend to focus on medical treatment or days away from work, rather than beginning with – was this work-related? The OSHA Regulation 29 C.F.R. §1904.7 contains an in-depth overview of recordable injuries and illnesses. Additional information on determining medical treatment and first aid can be located at 29 C.F.R. §1904.7(b)(5).

Standard interpretations on recordkeeping issued in 2018 include:

  • Prescription medications, such as an Epi-Pen considered medical treatment beyond first-aid. – [1904.7]
  • Clarification on the use of a cold therapy only setting on a therapeutic device is first-aid – [1904.7(b)(5)(ii)]

A Form 300 log is required for each physical establishment location that is expected to be in operation for at least one year. Form 300A summarizes the total number of fatalities, missed workdays, job transfers or restrictions, and injuries and illnesses as recorded on Form 300. Even if there were no recordable incidents in 2018, companies required to maintain records still must post the summary with zeros on the total lines. Copies should be made available to any employee who might not see the summary (such as a remote employee who works from home).

A company executive, as defined by OSHA, must certify the summary. Employers must keep the records for five years following the calendar year covered by them, and if the employer sells the business, he or she must transfer the records to the new owner.

Electronic rule-making update

Last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss litigation challenging OSHA’s decision to suspend parts of its electronic record-keeping rule. Initiated by three public health advocacy groups, Public Citizen Health Research Group, the American Public Health Association and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the lawsuit argued that OSHA’s action was not simply an exercise of enforcement discretion, but rather a complete suspension of a regulatory deadline subject to review.

However, importantly, the federal court also denied a preliminary injunction barring OSHA from implementing its planned delay, noting the advocacy groups had not demonstrated that they will suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief. Also, the court decision was not on the merits of the case, but rather on whether the group had standing to sue or the case should be dismissed as OSHA argued.

Originally, as part of its electronic recordkeeping rule, OSHA mandated that certain employers submit 2017 data from Forms 300, 300A and 301. However, on July 30, 2018 a proposed rule officially eliminated the Forms 300 and 301 data submission requirements. While the Fall 2018 Regulatory agenda had predicted that the proposed regulation would go over to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on time for the standard to be issued in June 2019, the final draft was submitted earlier than expected on December 7, 2018.

But for many employers this proposed rule does not go far enough. Since it does not rescind the agency’s plan to publish employer information, they argue it puts employers at risk for improper disclosure and release of sensitive employer information. Nor does it formally repeal the provisions regarding post-incident drug testing or incentive programs, although an October 2018 memorandum was issued to clarify these provisions. And the anti-retaliation provisions are unchanged.

Form 300A electronic submission deadline: March 2, 2019

Establishments with 250 or more employees that are currently required to keep injury and illness records under the Recordkeeping Standard, as well as establishments with 20-249 employees that are also covered by the Recordkeeping Standard and operating in certain industries with historically high rates of occupational injuries and illnesses are now required to submit their calendar year Form 300A electronically by March 2, 2019.

How the data is being used: Site-Specific Targeting Initiative

On Oct. 16, 2018, OSHA launched a “site-specific targeting” plan, SST-16, that uses employer-submitted data from 2016 to select non-construction worksites for inspections. The SST-16 directs that “OSHA will create inspection lists of establishments with elevated Days Away, Restricted or Transferred (DART) rate, together with a random sample of establishments that did not provide the required 2016 Form 300A data to OSHA.” The employers are chosen using software that randomly selects the establishments.

Although establishments with elevated DART rates and those that did not submit the required data are the primary targets, establishments with lower DART rates can also be inspected. A random sample of low injury rate establishments on the inspection list will be selected to verify data accuracy.

While OSHA inspections are generally unwelcome, SST inspections are particularly onerous. They are unannounced, comprehensive, and can take significant time and resources. They are not limited to recordkeeping practices, potentially hazardous areas, or operations with an elevated DART rate, and often result in substantial citations. Employers that failed to comply with the electronic reporting requirements for 2016 or reported a high elevated DART rate (compared to industry average rates) would be wise to begin preparing for an inspection.

Despite the expectation that the Trump Administration would significantly lessen the burden of data submission requirements on employers, much of it appears here to stay, at least for a while. There have been fewer shifts in OSHA enforcement and rulemaking than expected by experts, who point to the leadership void at the agency. While Scott Mugno’s nomination was sent to the Senate on Nov. 1, 2017, it has been stalled and OSHA still does not have a Senate-approved Assistant Secretary – the longest ever vacancy.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Things you should know

EEOC issues FY 2018 Performance Report

In its performance report, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported significant increases in its outreach efforts and enforcement actions to prevent and remedy employment discrimination. The EEOC secured approximately $505 million and other relief for over 67,860 victims of discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC’s legal staff resolved 141 merit lawsuits, filed 199 more in FY 2018, and filed 29 amicus curiae briefs on significant legal issues in employment discrimination cases.

Non-fatal injuries and illnesses decline – BLS report

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report on workplace injuries and illnesses showed a slight decline from 2016 to 2017. There were 2.8 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses reported by private industry employers in 2017, a rate of 2.8 cases per 100 full-time equivalent workers, compared with 2.9 cases in 2016. In manufacturing, sprains, strains and tears were the leading type of injury with a rate of 27.5 cases per 10,000 FTE workers which was unchanged from 2016. For more details

Recreational and medicinal marijuana – midterm results

  • Michigan became the 10th state to legalize the possession and use of recreational marijuana for adults.
  • Missouri and Utah approved the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
  • North Dakota rejected a measure to legalize recreational marijuana.

Crashes up in states with legalized marijuana

Crashes have increased by up to 6% in four states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use compared with neighboring states that have not done so, said the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institutes. Data from Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, which have legalized marijuana, was compared with the control states of Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming. The combined state analysis is based on collision loss data from January 2012 through October 2017.

Bad commutes have driven more than 20 percent of office workers to quit a job, survey shows

Nearly one in five U.S. office workers say they’ve quit a job because their commute was too much, according to the results of a recent survey conducted by global staffing firm Robert Half.

In a survey of more than 2,800 office workers from 28 cities, 23 percent cited a bad commute as a reason for quitting a job. The cities with the most workers resigning for commute-related reasons were Chicago, Miami, New York and San Francisco.

Managing fatigue risk in the tugboat, towboat and barge industry: New guide available

The American Waterways Operators has released a guide on various principles of fatigue risk management.

State News

California

  • Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (WCIRB) released their Workers’ Compensation Aggregate Medical Payment Trends report, which compares medical payment information from 2015 to 2017. There was a cumulative 8% reduction in medical payments per claim from 2015 to 2017. More information
  • Average losses on newer indemnity claims are starting to tick up even as costs for older claims continue to level out or decline, the Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) reports.

Florida

  • The Insurance Commissioner has issued a final order for a 13.8% workers’ compensation rate decrease for 2019, which applies to both new and renewing workers comp policies effective in the state as of Jan. 1. The reduction is slightly larger than that submitted by NCCI (13.4%).

Illinois

  • Legislature overturned the Governor’s veto of the workers’ compensation law to allow medical providers to sue insurers over interest stemming from unpaid bills, among other changes to the way medical claims are managed between doctors and payers. Attached to the new law is an amendment that specifies the medical treatment must be approved under workers’ compensation – and oftentimes by the commission – before interest can be accrued and then collected via the circuit court.

Massachusetts

  • Falls to a lower level were the leading cause of fatal worker injuries from 2014 to 2015, representing nearly 17 percent of the workplace fatalities, according to a report released Oct. 16 by the Department of Public Health.

Minnesota

  • The workplace injury rate fell to the lowest level ever recorded in 2017, to 3.3 nonfatal injuries per 100 full-time workers, reports the Department of Labor & Industry.

North Carolina

  • The nonfatal workplace injury and illness rates reached an all-time low in 2017, according to a new report from the state Department of Labor.

Tennessee

  • The Department of Commerce and Insurance Commissioner approved a 19% reduction in workers’ compensation rates, consistent with NCCI’s recommendation. The reduction will become effective on March 1.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Legal Corner

Workers’ Compensation
ABC test applies only to wage order claims – California

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking decision when it adopted a new legal standard known as the “ABC Test,” making it much more difficult for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors. The Dynamax vs The Superior Court of Los Angeles County case was decided for the purposes of the state’s wage orders, but some speculated it might be applied more broadly.

Recently, in Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, a Court of Appeals held that the new test is limited to claims arising under the California Wage Orders, and that other claims continue to be governed by the prior (and more employer-friendly) standard known as the Borello test. It noted: “Dynamex did not purport to replace the Borello standard in every instance where a worker must be classified as either an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of enforcing California’s labor protections…[The California Supreme Court] did not reject Borello, which articulated a multifactor test for determining employment status under the Worker’s Compensation Act.”

No coverage for injury that occurred before issuance of policy – Florida

An insurance broker scrambled to get a policy in place for an uninsured employer dated the same day of an employee injury without disclosing the incident to the insurance carrier. In Normandy Ins. Co. v. Sorto, an appellate court ruled that there could be no coverage because insurance laws preclude coverage for losses that have already taken place. The court noted agreement to assume a known loss is not insurance. Insurance is to provide protection against risk. One cannot insure against known losses; there is no risk.

Lunch break injury not compensable – Georgia

In Frett v. State Farm Employee Workers’ Comp., an insurance claims associate had a scheduled lunch break and walked to the break room to microwave her lunch, which she intended to eat outside. In the breakroom, she fell in a puddle of water and a manager instructed her to complete an incident report. While an administrative law judge granted benefits, the State Board of Workers’ Compensation reversed and a superior court judge affirmed the denial.

The board found the injury did not arise out of her employment because it occurred while she was on a regularly scheduled break and while she was leaving to attend to “a purely personal matter.” While there was precedent for compensability when a worker is entering or exiting the employer’s property, even during break times, the court said this was a mistake and disapproved of its prior decisions.

Injured employee has right to sue employer under retaliatory discharge statute – Massachusetts

In Bermudez v. Dielectrics, Inc., a worker was placed by a temporary employment agency in a manufacturing facility. She sustained work-related injuries when one of the manufacturer’s employees negligently operated a forklift and several large metal sheets fell on her foot. She received work comp benefits from the employment agency and returned to work at the manufacturer eight weeks later. A few months later, she was hired as a full-time employee at the plant.

Eighteen months later, she filed a third-party action for negligence against the manufacturer and the forklift operator. Two months later she was terminated and she sued.

While a trial judge ruled in favor of the company, an appeals court found that the workers’ compensation law specifically says a worker can initiate a third-party action in addition to receiving benefits through the comp system and that a 1971 amendment eliminated the election of remedies concept (comp remedy or a civil claim). The worker had a right to file her third-party action and she could not be fired for doing so.

Worker on business trip who witnessed killings at a restaurant awarded benefits for PTSD – Michigan

In Dickey v. Delphi Automotive Systems LLC., an employee was at a restaurant in Mexico with clients and workers when he witnessed gunmen kill several people in the restaurant. When he returned to Detroit, he was diagnosed with PTSD. The Commission held it was logical to conclude that one who witnesses a horrific, stressful, and traumatizing event such as a multiple murder could possibly be afflicted with PTSD and that the award of benefits was reasonable. The employer’s examining doctor found that his symptoms were related to the side effects from the medicine he was taking, but the magistrate relied on the opinion of the treating doctors, who were actually increasing the worker’s medications.

Murder of worker by co-worker not work related – Michigan

In Williams v. Park Family Health Care PC, a worker was killed by a co-worker who she previously dated. She had broken off the relationship because he was married and not seeking a divorce. He let himself into the building, killed the worker, set the building on fire, and killed himself.

While the court found the death occurred in the course of employment, it did not arise out of her employment. The feud was personal and not connected to her employment.

Devastating stroke after reaching MMI does not affect permanent total disability benefits – Nebraska

In Krause v. Five Star Quality Care, a housekeeper fell and fractured her right femur. After her surgery she attempted to return to work, but experienced too much pain. About 2.5 years later, she filed a petition in Workers’ Compensation Court seeking temporary and permanent disability benefits. Approximately three weeks later, she suffered a massive stroke that left her incapacitated.

The compensation court, finding that the stroke was unrelated to the work injury or treatment, found she had reached maximum medical improvement prior to her stroke and awarded her permanent total disability benefits (PTD). The company argued that the stroke cut off her entitlement to PTD benefits. The court disagreed, noting that her work-related disability did not cease once she had the stroke.

Treatment guidelines apply to out-of-state providers – New York

In Matter of Gasparro v. Hospice of Dutchess County, a home health aide sustained work-related injuries to her lower back and buttocks while employed in New York and was given a nonscheduled permanent partial disability classification. Ten years later, she moved to Nevada.

Several years later, the workers’ compensation carrier objected to payment of various medical charges from a pain management specialist in Nevada. A workers’ compensation law judge ruled in favor of the medical provider, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed and the appellate court agreed.

Although the Board had departed from its prior decisions on the issue, the appellate court found it was rational to require medical treatment be in compliance with the guidelines.

Unreasonable deviation from employment nixes benefits – New York

In Matter of Button v. Button, a farmhand was seriously injured in a vehicular accident as he crossed a road on an employer-owned all-terrain vehicle (ATV) from his employer-provided residence to the farm itself. His residence was across the road from the farm and his girlfriend was moving in that day. He stopped at the house and grabbed a beer and the accident occurred on the way back to the farm.

His comp claim was denied by a judge because he was engaged in a prohibited activity at the time of the accident (drinking) and, therefore, his injuries did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The Board affirmed as did the appellate court, noting there was a verbal warning about drinking on the job and that other employees testified the consumption of alcohol at work was prohibited.

Workers’ Compensation Board must determine if worker is independent contractor – New York

In Findlater v Catering by Michael Schick, Inc., a state appellate court held that a trial court’s finding that a worker was an independent contractor, and not an employee, must be reversed. It found that employment issues must be decided by the Workers’ Compensation Board and the court erred by not holding the matter in abeyance pending a final resolution.

Volunteer can pursue personal injury suit in spite of liability waiver – New York

In Richardson v. Island Harvest, an unpaid volunteer worked as warehouse assistant and signed an agreement, which stipulated he was a volunteer and would not attempt to hold the organization liable for any bodily injuries he suffered in the course of his volunteer activities. He was struck by a forklift being operated by an employee and filed a personal injury suit. While a county Supreme Court Justice granted summary judgment to the organization, an Appellate Court reversed.

“New York courts have long found agreements between an employer and an employee attempting to exonerate the employer from liability for future negligence whether of itself or its employees or limiting its liability on account of such negligence void as against public policy,” the Appellate Division said.

Insurer cannot sue third-party without involvement of injured worker – Pennsylvania

An employee of Reliance Sourcing, Inc, which was insured by The Hartford, was standing in the parking lot of Thrifty Rental Car when she was struck by a rental vehicle. The Hartford paid over $59,000 in medical and wage benefits and sought to sue the responsible parties for damages. The employee did not join in the insurer’s action, did not assign her cause of action to the insurer, and did not seek to recover damages independently.

While the defendants argued The Hartford had no independent ability to commence a subrogation claim directly against them, The Hartford argued it had filed the suit “on behalf of” the employee. In a divided decision, the Supreme Court ruled that absent the injured employee’s assignment or voluntary participation as a plaintiff, the insurer may not enforce its right to subrogation by filing an action directly against the tortfeasor. – The Hartford Insurance Group on behalf of Chunli Chen v. Kafumba Kamara, Thrifty Car Rental and Rental Car Finance Group.

Widow denied benefits for husband’s pancreatic cancer – Tennessee

In Alcoa v. McCroskey, the Supreme Court of Tennessee Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel ruled that a widow failed to prove her husband’s cancer was caused by his occupational exposure to coal tar pitch, affirming the decision of a trial judge. The judge found Alcoa’s expert to be more persuasive than the widow’s expert, who relied upon a single medical article, yet that article expressly noted its evidentiary deficiencies. The employer’s expert testified that the employee possessed recognized risk factors for the development of pancreatic cancer that were wholly unrelated to his work exposure to coal tar pitch.

Department-approved settlement not sufficient to compel treatment – Tennessee

In Hurst v. Claiborne County Hospital and Nursing Home, a paramedic was injured in an ambulance accident and also alleged a psychological injury from an October 2000 incident when she encountered a severely abused infant. The claim was settled, but the agreement only addressed her psychological injury. No reference was made to the ambulance accident.

After the settlement was finalized, she filed a new claim seeking benefits for the injuries incurred in the ambulance accident. She settled the claim in exchange for the payment of permanent partial disability benefits and the promise of payment for future medical directly related to her injuries. The Department of Labor and Workforce Development signed off on the settlement, not a judge. Seven years later, she filed a motion to compel payment for medical care which a trial judge granted.

On appeal, the hospital argued that the judge lacked jurisdiction since there was no court order awarding her a right to medical treatment for her physical injuries. The Supreme Court of Tennessee’s Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel found the version of the Workers’ Compensation Law applicable to the 2001 car accident did not provide any mechanism for the enforcement of a department-approved agreement that had not been approved by a judge.

Worker loses benefits for failure to attend FCE sessions – Virginia

On three occasions over a four-month period of time, an employee cancelled a scheduled (and rescheduled) functional capacity evaluation (FCE) session. The employer filed a request to terminate benefits. Although the worker did appear for a FCE one week after the hearing, the worker took no action in the nearly seven-month period between the time the employer filed the request and the date of the hearing. In DeVaughn v. Fairfax County Public Schools, the Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission that there were no mitigating circumstances excusing her lack of effort and no basis for a finding of good faith.

Drivers failure to chock wheel nixes benefits – Virginia

In Callahan v. Rappahannock Goodwill, an appellate court affirmed a finding by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that a truck driver willfully violated safety rules when he failed to chock the wheel on the employer’s truck during a stop and, hence, could not receive benefits for the injuries he sustained. The record supported that the safety rules were communicated through several methods to the driver and the physical evidence supported the finding that the wheels were not chocked.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA watch

Final rule on crane operator certifications issued

As anticipated, the final rule clarifying certification requirements for crane operators, requires certification by type of crane or type of crane and lifting capacity. “Certification/licensing” must be accomplished via an accredited testing service, an independently audited employer program, military training, or compliance with qualifying state or local licensing requirements. Employers also are required to “train operators as needed to perform assigned crane activities” and provide training when it is necessary to operate new equipment.

Most requirements in the final rule became effective on Dec. 9, 2018. The evaluation and documentation requirements will become effective on Feb. 7, 2019. Employers who have evaluated operators prior to Dec. 9, 2018 will not have to conduct those evaluations again, but have to document when those evaluations were completed.

New publication on lockout/tagout and temporary workers

A new bulletin on lockout/tagout explains the joint responsibility of host employers and staffing agencies to ensure that temporary employees are properly protected against the sudden release of stored energy. Prior to beginning work, both employers should review the task assignments and job hazards to identify, eliminate, and control the release of hazardous energy before workers perform service or maintenance on machinery.

Regional Emphasis Program (REP) in Pacific Northwest for fall protection in construction

Enforcement of the REP, which includes Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, will begin after a period of outreach and education. Enforcement activities will include “onsite inspections and evaluations of construction operations, working conditions, recordkeeping, and safety and health programs to ensure compliance.”

Cal/OSHA emergency regulations approved for electronic submission form 300A by December 31, 2018

The Office of Administrative Law approved the emergency regulations that businesses required to submit the Cal/OSHA Form 300A online include all establishments with 250 or more employees, unless specifically exempted by section 14300.2 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, and establishments with 20 to 249 employees in the specific industries listed on page 8 of the emergency regulation’s proposed text (including common industries such as manufacturing, grocery stores, department stores, and warehousing and storage).

Enforcement notes

California

  • Oakland-based general contractor, Bay Construction, Inc., was cited for dismantling a trench box while an employee was still working inside and later killed by a loosened support rail. The company was issued nine citations with $141,075 in proposed penalties, including five classified as general, two serious, one serious accident-related and one willful-serious accident-related.
  • Amazon Landscaping Co. faces six citations and $54,750 in penalties after a worker was fatally injured when a rope he had around his body became entangled in the stump grinder and he was pulled into the cutting wheel.
  • After a series of appeals relating to citations issued to Pinnacle Telecommunications Inc. after an employee suffered serious head injuries from a 7-foot fall from a telecommunications structure, the Alameda County Superior Court affirmed that fall-protection safety orders apply to elevated indoor telecommunications structures and the penalty of $25,560.

Florida

  • PGT Industries Inc., operating as CGI Windows and Doors Inc. in Hialeah, was cited for machine guarding hazards after an employee suffered a partial finger amputation while working on an unguarded punch press. The window and door manufacturer faces $398,545 in penalties, including the maximum amount allowed by law for the violations that can cause life-altering injury.
  • Inspected under the REP on falls, Crown Roofing, LLC, was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards, including installing roofing materials without the use of a fall protection system. The roofing contractor was issued the maximum allowable penalty of $129,336.
  • Inspected under the REP on falls, Panama City Framing LLC was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at a worksite in Panama City. The company faces $113,816 in proposed penalties.
  • Tom Krips Construction Inc. and Etherna Services Inc. were cited after a lattice boom section of a crane fell onto an employee during disassembly, crushing his foot and ankle at a Fort Lauderdale worksite. Tom Krips Construction Inc. faces $29,877 in penalties, and Etherna Services Inc. penalties total $5,174.

Georgia

  • Dollar Tree Distribution Center, Inc., and U.S. Xpress, Inc., were cited for exposing workers to hazards after an employee was fatally struck by a forklift and face penalties of $130,112 and $12,934 respectively. Both companies were cited for failing to ensure that employees wore high-visibility vests while working at night inside the center and Dollar Tree Distribution Center Inc. was also cited for using a vehicle with a non-functioning headlight, failing to guard a nip point on a conveyor discharge belt, and storing unstable materials on racks.

Massachusetts

  • Northeast Framing Inc., based in Lunenberg, was cited for exposing workers to falls and other hazards following an employee’s fatal fall at an East Boston worksite. The company faces $311,330 in penalties, the maximum allowed by law.

Nebraska

  • Rivera Agri Inc., a provider of temporary agricultural labor, was cited for failing to protect employees working in excessive heat after a farmworker succumbed to apparent heat-related symptoms while working in a cornfield near Grand Island. The company was cited for a serious violation of the General Duty Clause, and faces proposed penalties totaling $11,641.

For more information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

HR Tip: Are you still doing annual performance reviews?

The farewell to annual performance reviews began in mid-2015 and more and more employers are restructuring their performance management process. In a blog, Nancy Owen, Senior Human Resource Consultant with East Coast Risk Management, notes that employers need to spend more time collecting information related to their unique environment and culture and examine the pros and cons of the process for reviewing employees.

Employers are realizing that they need to increase their communication to their employees about performance and conduct. Here are her suggestions:

  • “First thing” stand-up meetings, conducted at the beginning of a shift to communicate daily updates and company or departmental news to employees, so that employees never feel “in the dark.”
  • Monthly one-on-one meetings between supervisor and employee, pointing out what is going well and what is not according the goals and competencies set forth at the beginning of the year.
  • Quarterly and/or mid-year reviews, when any adjustments or changes should take place:Are the employee’s goals still realistic?

    Has the employee moved to a different department or taken on new tasks?

  • Year-end discussions, carried out in a non-formal meeting, to review the last year and what could have been done better or needs to change for the upcoming year

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com