Legal Corner

Posted on by davidrleng

ADA
EEOC settles first direct challenge to employer wellness program

The EEOC’s first lawsuit directly challenging an employer’s wellness program-filed in 2014- was against Orion Energy Systems. The company had switched to a self-insured plan and, to save costs, initiated a wellness plan that revolved around three incentives: the employee did not smoke, would exercise 16 times a month, and have a health risk assessment (HRA). There were surcharges for non-compliance, including paying the entire monthly premium if they did not have a HRA, which was $413.43 for single, $744.16 for limited family, and $1,130.83 for family coverage.

One employee raised concerns about the wellness initiative and HRA, questioning confidentiality and how the premium was calculated believing it excessive in light of the service fee Orion paid its third-party administrator (she knew the amount because she paid invoices). She opted out of the program and agreed to pay the premium. However, her supervisor and the HR director spoke to her about comments she made to coworkers about the premium, telling her such negativity was not welcome, and to keep her opinions to herself and eventually she was terminated.

While the court found that Orion’s wellness plan was lawful under the regulations at the time, there were issues of fact as to whether the employee was fired because of her opposition to the wellness plan. Under the consent decree settling the suit, Orion agreed to pay $100,000 to the employee and agreed that it won’t maintain any wellness program in the future that poses disability-related inquiries or seeks a medical examination that is not voluntary within the meaning of the ADA and its regulations as well as other provisions.

FMLA
Inadvisable email negates defense to FMLA retaliation claim

An employee at Wells Fargo received an informal and then a formal warning about underperformance and her failure to meet sales goals. One week prior to receiving the formal warning, she was diagnosed with myelopathy, scheduled for surgery, and received FMLA leave. When she returned to work on limited duty, her supervisor warned her that she was still near termination. After her return to full duty, her supervisor determined she had not made sufficient improvement and he documented the problems in an email to the HR department and recommended termination. In this email, he also noted, “Debby submits a request for a leave of absence.”

The employee sued for retaliatory discharge under the FMLA and the federal court found that the email comment about the request for a leave of absence as part of the email justifying discharge was direct evidence of unlawful retaliation. Although Wells Fargo could document the underperformance and warnings, the court concluded for summary judgment motions in cases involving direct evidence of discrimination, an employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reason for an adverse employment action is irrelevant.

Takeaway: Electronic communications have permanency. Be sure supervisors and managers understand the importance of their choice of words and know what should and should not be included in recommendations for termination.

Temporary work counts as a factor when determining FMLA eligibility

In Meky v. Jetson Specialty Mktg. Servs. Inc., a temporary employee was hired through a staffing agency for about six months and then was hired to work full-time. She requested FMLA, but was told she was not eligible and was terminated a few months later for leaving work early. She sued and one question the court had to decide was the start date of her employment. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the correct date was the date on which she started working as a temporary employee, since the staffing agency and the Jetson were joint employers.

Workers’ Compensation
Finding of compensable injuries to knee and shoulder does not bar later additional claim related to back – California

In Iniguez v. WCAB (Blue Rose Concrete Contractors), a worker was compensated in 2012 for injuries to his knee and shoulder stemming from an accident in 2010. In November 2014, he filed another claim seeking additional benefits for injuries to the neck and back. The WCAB found that compensation should be limited to the knee and shoulder in accordance with the 2012 litigation, but the 2nd District Court of Appeals annulled the board’s decision by saying there was no finding that these were the only industrial injuries sustained and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Vacation and sick time not earned income when calculating impairment benefits – Florida

In Eckert v. Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, the employer reduced the injured worker’s benefits by 50% for the 23 weeks he used his sick leave and vacation time, arguing that this was allowed as “earned income” under state law. However, the 1st District Court of Appeal said use of sick leave and vacation time could not count toward his average weekly pay for the 23 weeks in question, since sick leave and vacation time were not accrued during the weeks that he drew upon so it was not “earned income.”

“Heart attack waiting to happen” leads to denial of claim – Illinois

A firefighter described, as “a heart attack waiting to happen” should not receive benefits for a heart attack sustained while cleaning his firehouse parking spot of snow ruled an appellate court. The firefighter was a heavy smoker, obese, and had so many risk factors for a heart attack that the cardiac event could have occurred “anytime and anywhere,” said the arbitrator. Those risk factors were enough to overcome the statutory presumption that heart attacks suffered by firefighters are a compensable injury.

Fired for misconduct, employee can still collect benefits – Indiana

In Masterbrand Cabinets v. Waid, a worker who injured his back disagreed with his doctor and supervisor about his level of pain and work capacity. An incident with the supervisor escalated to an altercation. He was suspended and then terminated. He continued to see the doctor and the Workers’ Compensation Board found he was unable to perform work of the same kind he was performing when injured and that he was due TTD payments. The company appealed, arguing the worker was not entitled to TTD benefits because he was terminated for misconduct. However, the Court held that the inability to work was related to his injury and, therefore, he was entitled to benefits.

Statute of limitations not valid defense when injured employee was promised action – Mississippi

An employer and its carrier cannot argue the statute of limitations as a defense when the carrier had assured the injured employee that it would “take care of everything” and there was no need for her to hire an attorney. Moreover, the carrier had paid for medical expenses three days after the expiration. Dietz v. South Miss. Reg’l Ctr.

Long history of medical problems does not preclude PTD for shoulder injury – Missouri

In Maryville R-II School District v. Payton, a school groundskeeper with a history of ailments and multiple surgeries went to the emergency room when he started to have serious shoulder pain after assembling a soccer goal. An X-ray did not reveal any acute fracture or dislocation, and an emergency room doctor tentatively diagnosed him with osteoarthritis. He then saw the school district’s physician who opined that the activity was unlikely to be the prevailing cause of the pain. He then sought treatment from his own physician and an MRI revealed a rotator cuff tear. Surgery was performed but the rotator cuff tore again and he was unable to return to work because the school district could not accommodate his lifting restrictions.

A judge, the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, and the Court of Appeals all concurred that the injury was permanent and totally disabling.

Tort suit for worker’s heat-related death revived – Missouri

In Channel v. Cintas Corp., a 52-year-old delivery driver died of heat stroke and his widow filed a wrongful death action against the supervisor and the company. She argued that the supervisor ignored the company’s heat safety protocols by placing her husband in a truck without air conditioning on a day when temperatures were over 100 degrees. While a circuit judge ruled that workers’ comp was the only remedy, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission had not yet ruled on the workers’ comp case and it was improper for the judge to determine that the death was an accident. The suit was reinstated and placed on hold.

Symptoms of heart attack at work not sufficient for death benefits – New York

In the Matter of Bordonaro v Genesee County Sheriff’s Office, a deputy sheriff died at home in his sleep and his widow sought workers’ comp death benefits, contending his initial symptoms occurred at work. Noting the employee had completed his shift and had not sought medical treatment, the appellate court supported the Board’s finding that the death was not casually connected to work.

Benefits denied in two stress related cases – New York

In Matter of Novak v St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hosp., a New York appellate court affirmed a Board finding that a nurse’s work-related stress did not exceed what could be expected in her normal work environment. It was determined that her stress stemmed from her involvement in a disciplinary proceeding, wrongful termination, and subsequent reinstatement after a six-month suspension. She complained about her treatment by co-workers when she returned to work, eventually quit her job, and filed a comp claim asserting the events caused insomnia, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and a severe social phobia. The claim was disallowed and the appellate court noted claims for mental injuries based on work-related stress are precluded “if such mental injury is a direct consequence of a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion or termination taken in good faith by the employer.”

In Burke v. New York City Transit Authority, a subway train operator was denied a psyche claim for harassment from his supervisors. The employee wears glasses, has a sensitivity to light, and has tinted lenses he can flip down over his glasses. Train operators are prohibited from wearing sunglasses for safety reasons, and the employee was being monitored to ensure that he was not wearing his tinted lenses while operating a train. He claimed his supervisors harassed and intimidated him about the lenses, causing him to develop disabling anxiety and panic attacks. The courts determined that the stress created by the investigation was not greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in normal work and, therefore, it was not compensable.

Benefits granted for ‘reasonable effort’ for employment – North Carolina

For a worker to receive benefits in the state, it must be shown that the worker was not capable of earning the same money as before the injury due to the injury. In Snyder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., a tire builder suffered a back injury and returned to work with lifting restrictions. However, the employer was not able to accommodate the restrictions and sent him home. He filed for workers’ comp and the commission found that he met the burden for temporary total disability by proving he could not return to his pre-injury job and had made unsuccessful attempts to obtain employment.

While the company appealed, arguing that the employee had not made reasonable efforts for employment, the appeals court disagreed. The court did note that an employer’s failure to provide light duty work in and of itself is not proof that an injured employee made a reasonable but unsuccessful effort to find employment.

Decision in Heart and Lung claim not binding on workers’ comp – Pennsylvania

A prison guard trainee hurt his knee and filed for benefits under the Heart and Lung Act (H & L Act), which allows certain police officers and other public safety employees to collect full salary and medical benefits for temporary injuries. An arbitrator determined he was eligible for benefits. He later filed a claim for workers’ comp, but the judge found he was entitled to medical benefits, but not disability benefits because he failed to prove a loss of wages.

The guard appealed arguing his disability was established under the H & L Act, but the court noted the laws were quite different and the Workers’ Comp Act could provide significantly greater medical and indemnity benefits, including those for permanent impairment. Therefore, a decision by an arbitrator in an H & L claim filed by a corrections officer was not binding on the workers’ compensation judge. Merrell v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. Commonwealth Dep’t of Corr.

Non-payment of PT benefits leads to penalties in spite of billing dispute – Pennsylvania

An employee of Derry Township Supervisors received PT for a back and neck injury at a facility owned by The pt Group. The bills, however, came from the Physical Therapy Institute (PTI), which had a contractual arrangement with The pt Group. The Derry Township argued this arrangement was a way to charge higher fees.

As of Jan. 1, 1995, providers are able to bill comp carriers at 113% of the rate established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee schedule, but the Supervisors alleged that providers in business before that date can use a “cost-plus” formula that generally means a higher payment. The pt Group was subject to the 113% cap, but PTI was not.

The Commonwealth Court upheld lower court decisions that there was nothing illegal in this arrangement and ordered an award of $83,400 in attorney fees, and reimbursement of $3,328.32 for litigation costs.

Opioid overdose after injury not compensable – Tennessee

A carpenter was involved in an employment-related motor vehicle accident that caused fractures to the vertebrae in his neck and disc herniation in his lower back. He underwent surgery, but continued to have back pain and further surgeries were denied, as were epidural steroid injections. He was referred to a pain management clinic and restricted from returning to work.

He told the pain management specialist that he began taking extra opioid tablets and consumed alcohol because he felt the medications were no longer effective. Shortly after agreeing to a program to wean off the drugs, his wife found him unresponsive in bed. The medical examiner ruled his death an accident caused by acute oxycodone toxicity with contributory causes of hypertension and alcohol and tobacco use.

His wife filed with workers’ comp benefits and the case went through appeals and ultimately was heard by the state Supreme Court. In Judy Kilburn vs. Granite State Insurance Company, et al., the Supreme Court noted that a worker’s conduct can limit compensability of subsequent injuries that are a direct and natural result of a compensable primary injury and ruled his death not compensable because he failed to take his medications in compliance with physician’s orders.

Disagreement over diagnosis not sufficient to rebut correctness of impairment rating – Tennessee

In Williams v. Ajax Turner Co., an employee was assigned a 21.3% impairment rating from his doctor following surgery of his foot after a forklift accident. The employer requested a second opinion from an orthopedic surgeon who assigned a 5% impairment rating, and a third opinion through the medical impairment registry (MIR) program, which also resulted in a 5% rating. A trial judge accepted the treating doctor’s rating and applied a multiplier of 4.

The Supreme Court’s Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel said an MIR physician’s rating is presumed to be accurate, unless this can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence giving rise to a “serious and substantial doubt” about the accuracy of the rating. A disagreement about the rating, however, is not clear and convincing evidence; therefore, the MIR rating should have been accepted. It also agreed to the multiplier of 4, given considerations of education, job skills, work history, and medical limitations so the award of permanent disability benefits had to be modified to 20%.

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

HR Tip: Post-offer medical examination “textbook case” of ADA

Posted on by davidrleng

In EEOC v. M.G.H. Family Health Center, a federal district court in Michigan ruled that the health center violated the ADA when it fired a recently hired community outreach coordinator over fears that her migraines or other impairments might interfere with her job performance. According to the court, this was a textbook case of unlawful discrimination based on a perceived disability. Congress explicitly clarified in the ADAAA that “major life activity” definitions are not relevant to the question of whether an individual has suffered unlawful discrimination based on a perceived disability.

When the health center hired the community outreach coordinator, she was told she would be required to undergo a “post-offer” medical examination by a third party, but could begin work. While the results of the exam were normal, the third party recommended she be put on a “medical hold” and undergo a costly functional capacity evaluation (FCE) due to migraines and other medical issues resulting from injuries in a car accident that were documented in her medical files. After she had been working in the job without incident for two weeks, the health center terminated her before allowing her to complete the FCE, which she offered to pay for herself.

In granting summary judgment for the EEOC, the district court noted three things that the employer did wrong: (1) it did not engage in an individualized assessment; (2) it did not follow the recommendation of the physician to have the employee complete a functional capacity evaluation; and (3) it terminated the employee’s employment after the employee had been performing the job for two weeks without incident, even though her own physician had submitted information indicating she was able to perform the job.

Takeaways: When using post-offer, pre-employment examinations, it’s best to make the offer conditional and conduct the exam prior to the first day of employment. If the exam does reveal some concerns about the ability of the individual to perform the job, it’s the employer’s responsibility to engage in the interactive process to determine if reasonable accommodations can be provided.

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

Learn how employees are contesting Workers’ Comp exclusive remedy in court

Posted on by davidrleng

According to legal experts, there is an emerging trend in workers’ comp litigation – more and more cases are trying to bypass the “Grand Bargain,” the agreement that employers will provide compensation to workers injured on the job in exchange for immunity from lawsuits. Since, in many states, intentional tort is an exception to workers’ comp exclusivity, the lawsuits have targeted employers with willful violations of workplace safety rules. In such cases, it has to be proven that the employer acted deliberately and/or was virtually certain that its actions would result in injury or death.

Each state has its own standards for what constitutes intentional tort, but the bar is consistently high. It involves proving the employer had intent to harm the employee, or negligence that’s so wanton that the harm would be foreseeable to a reasonable person. A willful violation of OSHA is often cited as one factor, along with other evidence. In effect, the OSHA violation is a motivation for the lawsuit and is fodder for attorneys.

It doesn’t take long to find workplace injury attorneys promoting the idea on their websites. Here are a few:

“While workers’ compensation usually provides for medical treatment and a portion of lost pay, negligence lawsuits can result in compensation for pain and suffering, as well as compensation for medical bills and lost wages. Many workers are simply unaware of their legal rights to file negligence lawsuits. Many believe their only legal recourse is filing for workers’ comp. Time and time again, an injured worker and their family seek the advice of a work accident and injury lawyer when it is too late; the applicable statute has expired. That’s why it’s important to seek advice from a work accident injury lawyer as soon as possible after a serious work accident occurs.”

“An injured worker could have a much stronger negligence claim if OSHA has issued a violation against his or her employer.”

Why is this happening? Many states have had significant workers’ compensation reforms in the last 10 years. Some have made workers’ compensation systems less litigious and attorneys look for other avenues of litigation and some have placed more constraints on benefits, which can be perceived as no longer adequate to properly compensate injured workers.

A cursory review suggests that the courts have generally upheld the exclusive remedy provisions in favor of the employer, although there have been high settlement exceptions. However, many cases have had multiple appeals, an expensive process for employers. From an employer’s perspective, there are lots of reasons not to be in court. The time, cost, negative publicity, affect on employee morale, as well as the possibility of a jury trial and punitive damages can be daunting. In addition, most workers’ compensation insurance policies do not provide coverage for intentional acts.

To protect themselves from the liability of personal injury lawsuits, employers must be vigilant about workplace safety and health programs. Complying with OSHA standards and, if citations are issued, carefully weighing the options and considering how the citation may affect the company in the future, as well as having a strong recovery at work program and commitment to injured workers are keys to deterring personal injury lawsuits.

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

Psychosocial issues top the list of barriers to successful claim outcomes

Posted on by davidrleng

According to Rising Medical Solutions’ 2016 Workers’ Compensation Benchmarking Study survey, the top barriers to achieving desired claims outcomes are psychosocial issues, followed by lack of return to work options, litigation, employer/employee relationship, late injury/claim reporting, and timely communications with stakeholders (employee, employer, providers). The survey, which documented the responses of 492 claims professionals, led to a recently released report, “How to Overcome Psychosocial Roadblocks: Claims Advocacy’s Biggest Opportunity,” examining key best practices for addressing psychosocial factors.

The report begins, “We know the single greatest roadblock to timely work injury recovery and controlling claim costs. And it’s not overpriced care, or doubtful medical provider quality, or even litigation. It is the negative impact of personal expectations, behaviors, and predicaments that can come with the injured worker or can grow out of work injury.”

It’s important to note that psychosocial does not mean psychiatric issues, such as schizophrenia or depressive disorders, but represents behavioral issues, the way we think, feel, and act. A person’s fears that the treatment will fail or cause additional pain can become a self-fulfilling prophecy and impact recovery or fears about judgment of co-workers can delay a return to work. According to the report, other conditions, behaviors, and predicaments include obesity, hard feelings about coworkers, troubled home life, the lack of temporary modified work assignments, limited English proficiency, and – most commonly noted – poor coping skills. These roadblocks occur regardless of the nature of the injury.

At The Hartford, 10% of claims fall into the psychosocial bucket with at least one psychosocial comorbidity, but they consume 60% of total incurred costs. Claims adjusters are required to ask injured workers, “When do you expect to return to work?” Any answer of less than 10 days indicates the worker has good coping skills and the risk of delayed recovery is low. If the answer is longer than ten days, the adjuster explores the reasons for the response. Increasingly, insurance companies are referring certain workers to specialists who provide support, which can include enlisting cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).

A case study of Albertson, the grocery chain, revealed that about 9% of injured store workers screened since 2013 had psychosocial issues embedded in their worker’s compensation claims. Recognizing psychosocial issues as a major driver for long-tail claims, the company offers early intervention, which is usually performed by a network of psychologists who provide health coaching consistent with CBT principles. It avoids the stigma of therapy (it’s called “coaching”), is short in duration, and focuses on active problem solving to help with self-management and self-resiliency.

Medical providers are trained to find medical diagnoses and prescribing medical solutions, so it’s up to employers and claims adjusters to identify workers who are affected by psychosocial roadblocks. Some of the risk factors include:

  • Tendency toward catastrophic thinking
  • Avoidance behavior based on fear
  • Perceived injustice stemming from treatment at workplace
  • Adverse childhood experiences
  • Weak family and social supports
  • Unrealistic expectations about recovery
  • Beliefs/fear about pain
  • Fear of re-injury
  • Lifestyle and demographic risks

The workplace is often the source of barriers that cause the most trouble for injured workers. Do they feel others blame them for the injury? Are they made to feel that they have created extra work and stress for co-workers and the supervisor? Do they blame the employer for the injury? Do they worry about being reinjured? Is the recovery at work program supportive or overwhelming?

When injured workers are fearful, distressed, or blame their employer they are less likely to return to work. Understanding the issues affecting the employee and helping to resolve them in an empathic, supportive manner is key to a successful outcome.

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

OSHA watch

Posted on by davidrleng

Lawsuit over OSHA electronic records rule delayed

A Texas court granted a request from the Trump administration for a 60-day delay in litigation of the electronic record-keeping rule and stayed the case until June 5, 2017. The deadline to submit a proposed summary judgment briefing schedule and for the administration’s response to motions to intervene in the case was extended to July 5.

Deputy assistant secretary of labor creates blog on large enforcement cases

Since the Trump administration took office, there have been very few press releases announcing health/safety violators. For years, the agency has routinely issued press releases about companies receiving citations of $40,000 or more and some workplace safety professionals have criticized the current administration for staying quiet on the issue. Taking matters into his own hands, Jordan Barab, the deputy assistant secretary of labor for OSHA for the past eight years created a blog of the large violations from January 18, 2017 to February 14, 2017.

Guidance documents on Process Safety Management Standard issued

Three guidance documents intended to help chemical facilities comply with the agency’s Process Safety Management Standard have been released.

 

Volks Rule overturned

As expected, President Trump signed the disapproval resolution of the controversial “Volks” rule, which increased the threshold for citing employer violations from six months to up to five years.

New online tool to help healthcare facilities address bloodborne pathogens and other hazards

NIOSH has established a web-based injury and exposure monitoring system available at no cost to healthcare facilities. There are two electronic modules for tracking “sharps” injuries, as well as blood and body fluid exposures among health care workers.

Legal case addressing scope of federal safety inspections proceeds to US Court of Appeals

This case centers on an investigation of a workplace accident at Mar-Jac Poultry Inc., a poultry processor in Georgia, and OSHA’s attempt to expand it on numerous potential hazards, beyond the site of the accident and the tools involved. The company refused. OSHA obtained an administrative warrant but it was disallowed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in response to a motion from Mar-Jac. It is now headed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Safe + Sound week

To help employers participate and plan events for Safe + Sound week, June 12-18, OSHA has updated its webpage with sample activities, social media resources, and tools. The page also features an interactive map of events occurring across the country. Employers are encouraged to host events and activities that showcase the core elements of an effective safety and health program – management leadership, worker participation, and finding and fixing workplace hazards.

Enforcement notes

California

Building supply company fined for fatal forklift accident

A 60-year-old forklift operator was transferring building supplies from San Francisco-based Good View Roofing & Building Supply Corp.’s warehouse to a customer vehicle when the forklift he was driving tipped over the edge of a ramp and the worker was fatally crushed. The company was cited for three serious accident-related violations for failure to ensure proper use of a forklift seatbelt, failure to ensure the forklift operator was certified to safely operate the vehicle, and failure to ensure industrial ramps have at least an 8-inch curb along open edges to prevent the wheels of industrial trucks from running off the ramp. California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health fined the company $62,320.

Appeals board upholds citations for carbon monoxide poisoning

Workers contracted by Barrett Business Services to package fruits and nuts in L&L Foods’ warehouse in Anaheim had complained to their supervisor that they were experiencing headaches, nausea and other health issues caused by forklifts operating in an enclosed area with poor ventilation. In 2012, citations were issued to both Barrett Business Services and L&L Foods for numerous safety violations, including willful violations for failing to take action on known hazards and the companies filed appeals. L&L Foods settled its case, but an administrative law judge denied Barrett’s appeal and imposed civil penalties of $80,050 and Barrett petitioned for reconsideration with the Appeals Board. The Board agreed the employer did not properly train its employees, disregarded workers’ reports of health hazards, and failed to monitor the worksite.

Georgia

Cleaning service cited for slip hazards that led to worker injury

Cleaning contractor Healthcare Services Group Inc. was cited for eight violations of workplace safety and health standards after a worker fell and broke her hip while cleaning a room at a regional hospital. Violations included not providing dry standing places or mats for workers cleaning and waxing floors, and not providing personal protective equipment to prevent exposure to hazardous chemicals. Proposed fines are $143,410.

Illinois

Employee complaints lead to citations for exposing workers to chemical hazards

An inspection of Orion Industries Ltd. in Chicago, in response to two employee complaints, identified workers in the spray painting operation being exposed to hexavalent chromium at levels approximately 40 times the permissible exposure limit. Inspectors cited the company for lacking sufficient engineering controls, work practices and protective gear to safeguard workers against exposure to hexavalent chromium. Orion was prompt in addressing the worker overexposures and achieved significant reductions in the fines by the time of its closing conference.

Massachusetts

Drain company faces $1.5M in fines following fatal trench collapse

Following the death of two employees in a Boston trench collapse, Atlantic Drain has been issued 18 citations and is facing $1,475,813 in penalties. The company was cited in two previous years and did not provide safety training and basic safeguards for employees. In February, a Suffolk County grand jury indicted Atlantic Drain and company owner, Kevin Otto, on two counts each of manslaughter and other charges in connection with the deaths.

General contractor must pay fines

An administrative law judge with the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has ruled that two Massachusetts contractors – A.C. Castle Construction Co. Inc. and Daryl Provencher, doing business as Provencher Home Improvements – were operating as a single employer at a Wenham worksite when three employees were injured in October 2014. A.C. Castle contended that, as general contractor, it was not responsible for the safety of the workers on the jobsite, asserting that they were employed by Provencher. Based on a number of factors, the judge upheld the citation as a single employer.

New York

Driller’s death leads to $360,000 in fines

Catskill-based North American Quarry and Construction Services L.L.C, has agreed to pay $360,000 in penalties related to the 2012 death of a 30-year-old driller. The employee became entangled in the rotating drill steel and suffered fatal injuries when he tried to manually load a threaded drill steel into the mast of a drilling machine at the pit. The Labor Department’s Mine Safety and Health Administration determined that, before the accident, the company intentionally removed an emergency-stop switch from the drill and that the driller was assigned to work alone under hazardous conditions.

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

The challenges of heat-related illnesses and how technology can help

Posted on by davidrleng

Steamy summer weather combined with intense physical labor can be a recipe for disaster. It can threaten the health of workers, impair their work capacity and productivity, and lead to OSHA fines and even intentional tort cases, when not properly managed. While educational campaigns and accessible resources have aided employers in combating the issue, OSHA notes in 2014 alone, 2,630 workers suffered from heat illness and 18 died from heat stroke and related causes on the job.

As a result, OSHA has stepped up its focus on and enforcement of heat-related hazards, citing employers for failing to properly protect workers from heat illnesses, including issuing willful citations with a proposed penalty of $70,000 in some cases. While it does not have a heat illness prevention standard, OSHA issues citations under the General Duty Clause, which requires employers to provide their employees with a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm, including heat stroke and other serious heat-related illness. Fines have also been levied under other standards such as Medical Services and First Aid, Safety Training and Education, Personal Protective Equipment, and Injury and Illness Recordkeeping and Reporting.

California has made heat prevention a top priority under its State OSHA plan and has a robust standard. According to a 2016 news release, Cal/OSHA Urges Employers to Protect Outdoor Workers from Record-Breaking Heat Wave, the most frequent violation that Cal/OSHA cites during targeted heat inspections is for failure to have a proper written heat illness prevention plan specific to the worksite. Serious violations are often related to inadequate access to water and shade, and to a lack of supervisor and employee training. It’s a good idea for employers and supervisors to review the applicable websites for compliance guidance for OSHA and for Cal/OSHA.

Although there are a number of precautions employers can and must take to ensure the safety of their worksite such as providing an adequate water supply, ready access to shade, periodic rest breaks, acclimatizing workers, adjusting work operations for the level of heat, providing first aid, and monitoring workers, heat illness poses significant challenges for employers. There are many factors that influence the likelihood of a worker developing a heat related illness, including age, fitness, experience, weight, medications, heart disease, high blood pressure and so on. In addition, minor heat illness symptoms can quickly progress to heat exhaustion and stroke.

Here are some apps and online resources that can help:

OSHA’s Heat Safety Tool
With OSHA’s Heat Safety Tool, available for download on iOS and Android devices in English and Spanish, workers can calculate the heat index at their worksite and determine heat illness risk levels. The app includes information for workers to monitor themselves and others for heat illness signs and symptoms. The app, which is only designed for outdoor use, is constantly updated in collaboration with NIOSH.

National Weather Service (NWS)
This is not a smartphone app, but an easily accessed website that is a helpful planning tool. The Maximum Heat Index Forecasts page from NWS shows the heat forecast three to seven days from the current date. There is also an hour-by-hour heat index forecast from the local NWS forecast page.

NIOSH web pages
The NIOSH web pages offer a host of fact sheets, blogs, and podcasts related to protecting workers from heat illness.

Wireless emergency alerts
Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) are text messages from federal and state public safety agencies. These are not just warnings about heat emergencies, but include other extreme weather warnings (e.g., tornadoes, floods), local emergencies requiring evacuation or immediate action, AMBER alerts, and presidential alerts during a national emergency.

USDA App to protect cattle from heat stress
A USDA smartphone application that provides forecasts of weather conditions that can trigger heat stress in cattle. It is primarily geared to livestock producers, but can be used by others. The app issues forecasts one to seven days in advance of extreme heat conditions, along with recommended actions that can protect animals before and during a heat-stress event.

When used as components of a comprehensive program, the apps and web resources can be valuable tools in combating heat-related illnesses.

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

Things you should know

Posted on by davidrleng

Opioid abuse rises with length of prescription

According to a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the risk of opioid abuse rises with lengthy prescriptions. If received a one-day prescription, 6% were still on opioids a year later; when prescribed for 8 days or more, this rises to 13.5%; when prescribed for 31 days or more, it increases to 29.9%.

Blacklisting rule repealed

President Trump repealed the so-called “blacklisting rule” that required federal contractors to disclose labor violations. The executive order had required employers bidding for federal contracts worth at least $500,000 to disclose any of 14 violations of workplace protections during the previous three years.

FMCSA will not reinstate overnight rest regulations for commercial drivers

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) regulation that required CMV (Commercial Motor Vehicle) drivers to take breaks in the hopes of preventing driver fatigue has been suspended since 2014 so that further research could be done to understand the efficacy of the program. A study from the Department of Transportation found that stricter mandated breaks did not do much to reduce driver fatigue or improve safety. Thus, the rule will not come out of suspension.

Study reveals occupations with sleep deprived workers

If your industry is health care, food service, or transportation, your workers are probably not getting adequate sleep, according to a study published March 3 in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Workers who averaged fewer than seven hours of sleep per night were classified as having short sleep durations. Occupation groups that failed to average seven hours of sleep included:

  • Communications equipment operators: 58 percent
  • Rail transportation workers: 53 percent
  • Printing workers: 51 percent
  • Plant and system operators: 50 percent
  • Supervisors, food preparation and serving workers: 49 percent
  • Extraction workers: 45 percent
  • Nursing, psychiatric and home health aides: 43 %

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society recommend that adults 18 to 60 years old get at least seven hours of sleep every day. A lack of sleep can contribute to cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, depression, and other health issues, as well as contribute to more injuries on the job.

NIOSH announces free health screenings for coal miners

A series of free, confidential health screenings will be available for coal miners as part of the NIOSH Coal Workers’ Health Surveillance Program. The first set of screenings will take place from March 26 to April 15 in coal mining regions throughout Alabama. The second set will occur from May 10 to May 31 throughout Indiana and Illinois. Finally, testing will take place from July 30 to Aug. 26 throughout Eastern Kentucky.

NIOSH updates mine hazard assessment software

Mine operators and workers now have access to updated hazard assessment software from NIOSH. According to the agency, EVADE 2.0 – short for Enhanced Video Analysis of Dust Exposures – offers a more comprehensive assessment of the hazards miners face by pulling together video footage and exposure data on dust, diesel and other gases, as well as sound levels.

Study: PT as effective as surgery for carpal tunnel

Physical therapy is as effective as surgery in treating carpal tunnel syndrome, according to a new study published in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. Researchers in Spain and the United States report that one year following treatment, patients with carpal tunnel syndrome who received physical therapy achieved results comparable to outcomes for patients who had surgery. Further, physical therapy patients saw faster improvements at the one-month mark than did patients treated surgically.

When hospital inspectors are watching, fewer patients die

A recent report in the New York Times cited a study in JAMA Internal Medicine which found death rates dropped when inspectors were onsite. In the non-inspection weeks, the average 30-day death rate was 7.21 percent. But during inspections, the rate fell to 7.03 percent. The difference was greater in teaching hospitals – 6.41 percent when the inspectors were absent, and 5.93 percent during survey weeks. While the difference may seem low, an absolute reduction of only 0.39 percent in the death rate would mean more than 3,500 fewer deaths per year.

Although the reasons for the effect are unclear, it was suggested when docs are being monitored, diligence ramps up.

Wearing eye protection can prevent 90 percent of work-related eye injuries, experts suggest

Ninety percent of on-the-job eye injuries could be avoided if workers wore eye protection, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO). AAO offers the following tips for avoiding workplace eyestrain or injury:

  • Wear protective eyewear appropriate for the type of hazard you may encounter
  • Position your computer monitor 25 inches away
  • Follow the 20-20-20 rule: Every 20 minutes, take a break by looking at an object 20 feet away for 20 seconds
  • Reduce glare on your cell phone or digital device
  • Adjust environmental lighting near your workstation

 

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

Legal Corner

Posted on by davidrleng

Workers’ Compensation
Worker has right to obtain medical report from doctor of his choice – California

In Davis v. WCAB (City of Modesto), Davis filed two workers’ compensation claims stating his prostate cancer developed because of his exposure to carcinogens while working as a firefighter. A qualified medical examiner (QME) issued opinions that the cancer was not work-related and Davis then hired a doctor to review the reports, which were sent to the QME for review. The city protested that this violated the discovery process and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) rescinded a judge’s order that had allowed the review.

Upon appeal, however, the WCAB filed a letter brief to the Court of Appeals, asking for review to be granted and for its decision to be vacated, since the decision had not addressed Labor Code Section 4605. Section 4605 says there is no limitation on the right of a worker to obtain a medical report, at his own expense, from the doctor of his choice. While the report cannot be “the sole basis of an award of compensation,” Section 4605 specifically allows a QME to address the report and respond to its contents.

Traveling worker denied benefits for fall in motel parking lot – Georgia

In Avrett Plumbing Co. v. Castillo, an hourly employee lived in Atlanta, but his job required him to work in Augusta. The company paid a weekly rate to provide him a hotel room and allowed him to use it on weekends at no cost. On a Sunday evening when returning from grocery shopping he tripped and fell in the parking lot, breaking his ankle. When he filed for workers’ comp, the company argued that the accident had not occurred during the course of employment, since it happened outside of normal work hours and the employee was engaged in activities unrelated to his job.

An administrative law judge disagreed and found the injury compensable under the “continuous employment” doctrine, because the employee was “required by his employment to live away from home while working.” The case went through several more appeals, and benefits were ultimately denied with the court finding the employee was there “merely as a personal convenience” (lack of money and transportation prevented travel to Atlanta) and that the errand was for the sole benefit of the employee.

Willful misconduct may bar comp benefits – Georgia

An employee who disobeys an employer’s instructions and acts in a dangerous fashion may not be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, the Supreme Court ruled. Chandler Telecom v. Burdette revolved around the question of willful misconduct. A cellphone tower employee sustained serious injuries attempting a “controlled descent” from a tower, even though a supervisor ordered him not to attempt the descent and to climb down and the crew’s lead tower repeatedly protested his actions.

The Board of Workers’ Compensation concluded the employee could not receive comp benefits because he engaged in willful misconduct by defying his supervisor’s instructions, a decision that was affirmed by a Superior Court. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, saying his actions did not constitute willful misconduct because his actions were not of a “quasi criminal nature…”

The Supreme Court found that the appellate court erred in its ruling, noting the proper interpretation of a 1993 decision defining willful misconduct is “an intentional and deliberate action done either with the knowledge that it is likely to result in serious injury, or with a wanton and reckless disregard of its probable consequences.” The Supreme Court said it did not have enough information to make a determination about whether willful misconduct had occurred. It remanded the case to the Board of Workers’ Compensation for further fact-finding.

Worker killed by exploding shell can only claim comp – Illinois

An employee was killed by the explosion of a live mortar shell that had been transferred from the U.S. Army’s National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California to the Totall Metal Recycling’s (TMR) facility in Granite City. The lawsuit alleged the employer acted intentionally in transporting dangerous materials, but not that the company acted intentionally in injuring the employee. As such, the judge noted any allegation of TMR’s intent to injure the employee would fly in the face of the complaint, which alleges a claim of negligence. Thus, the exclusive remedy of workers’ comp barred the wrongful death claim. Muenstermann v. United States

Exclusive remedy bars negligence suit for borrowed worker – Illinois

An employee of a temporary staffing agency was assigned to work for Lindoo Installations Inc. and suffered a partial amputation of his right index finger when it was trapped between a bundle of shelving and a forklift. He filed for workers’ comp with the staffing agency and filed a negligence claim against Lindoo. While the trial court granted Lindoo’s motion for summary judgment under the exclusive remedy provision, the employee appealed arguing that the staffing agency’s branch manager periodically checked in.

The appeals court affirmed the decision, noting Lindoo met several factors that determine a borrowed employee relationship and qualified as a borrowing employer because it had the right to direct and control the employee’s work. TerranceFalge v. Lindoo Installations Inc.

Undocumented worker due benefits – Kansas

In Mera-Hernandez v. U.S.D. 233, the court found the injuries suffered by an undocumented school custodian were compensable even though she used a false name and submitted falsified documents to the school district when she was hired. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling that her immigration status does not dispute the work she performed for the school district and she fits the broad definition of employee under the law.

Clarifying Schoemehl window, court awards widow comp benefits – Missouri

For a very brief time, Missouri espoused a rule, known as the “Schoemehl doctrine,” that allowed for a permanently and totally disabled worker’s weekly benefits to be passed on to his dependents upon his death. The doctrine is limited to claims that were in existence as of January 2007, the date of the Supreme Court’s decision in Schoemehl v. Treasurer, and had not yet been fully resolved by June 2008, when the legislature then abrogated the doctrine.

In Ogden v. Conagra Foods, Ogden suffered serious injuries to his skull and spine in a 2001 motor vehicle accident and collected more than $2.4 million in benefits until his death in 2014. In 2009, the Ogden’s attorney filed a Form 21 Claim for Compensation for the employee and his wife. After Ogden died, his wife demanded payment on her claim for Schoemehl benefits.

The Industrial Commission determined she was entitled to payment, and Conagra appealed. The Court of Appeals approved benefits, explaining it didn’t matter that the wife’s claim for Schoemehl benefits wasn’t filed within the window of January 2007 to June 2008 because the claim was open and active during this time.

 

Credibility of doctors’ conflicting testimony weighed in appeal – Nebraska

In Hintz v. Farmers Cooperative Association, a worker was injured when a tire exploded, but he did not seek medical care and returned to work after a day-and-a-half absence. About three weeks after the accident, he tripped on the stairs at home and sought medical attention, which revealed a labral tear and other problems with his hip. His physician took him off work and performed surgery, and Farmers’ Cooperative terminated him after several months’ absence.

The worker filed a workers’ comp claim, and his physician testified although the worker had given inconsistent accounts about whether the hip injury was caused by the explosion at work or the trip down the stairs, when he performed surgery he observed a serious labral tear that seemed more likely to have been caused by the workplace explosion. An IME disagreed, testifying the injury was more likely caused by the fall down the stairs.

The Workers’ Compensation Court denied the claim, finding the IME’s testimony to be more reliable, but the Court of Appeals overturned, noting the treating physician had personally seen the extent of the injury during surgery.

Country club worker can proceed with lawsuit after general manager struck him in the groin with a golf club – New York

A country club employee whose left testicle was surgically removed after the club’s general manager struck him in the groin with a golf club is entitled to sue for damages beyond workers’ compensation benefits ruled an appellate court. The locker-room attendant was observing the assembly of golf clubs in the pro shop when the general manager entered and picked up a golf club shaft and struck him in the testicle, then left the room laughing.

The employee and his wife sued the general manager, who sought dismissal of the case based on workers’ comp exclusive remedy. The Court concluded that questions of fact existed as to whether the general manager acted in a ‘grossly negligent and/or reckless’ manner when he swung the golf club shaft and struck the employee and whether the country club condoned the action, thus the civil case can proceed. Montgomery v. Hackenburg.

Blackout caused by non-work conditions does not prohibit benefits – New York

In Nuclear Diagnostic Products, 116 NYWCLR 211, the New York Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits to a driver, who crashed his work vehicle after losing consciousness. The driver reported that he started coughing due to an asthmatic reaction to a new air freshener in his house and lost control of the car. The Board explained that since the driver’s accident occurred in the course of his employment he was entitled to a presumption that the accident arose out of his employment and that the driving of the employer’s vehicle was an added risk of employment.

Severe disability from Legionnaires’ Disease compensable – Pennsylvania

An employee of Nestle’s New Jersey office did most of his work in Pennsylvania performing maintenance on beverage machines. He fell ill, was hospitalized, lapsed into a coma, and was diagnosed with Legionnaires’ Disease. The illness left him wheelchair-bound, affected his speech, and the treatment he received may have caused brain damage. Nestle denied the allegations that he contracted the disease while working on fountain and soda drink machines that contained contaminated water, and argued the disease was not a result of work-related exposure. After testimony from a number of personal witnesses and medical experts, a workers’ comp judge determined that the employee was temporarily totally disabled and entitled to workers’ comp benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board and the Commonwealth Court affirmed. Nestle USA Inc./Vitality vs. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board

Seasonal worker difficult to prove – Pennsylvania

Two recent decisions of the Commonwealth Court illustrate how difficult it is for an employer to establish that a worker is a seasonal employee. While there is a specific formula for calculating the average wage when a worker is engaged in an “exclusively seasonal” occupation, the law does not provide a definition for the term. The controlling standard comes from a 1927 Supreme Court case which declared seasonal occupations are “those vocations which cannot, from their very nature, be continuous or carried on throughout the year, but only during fixed portions of it.”

In Toigo Orchards v. WCAB (Gaffney), a tractor driver who was hired for a single apple harvest doesn’t fall within the “exclusively seasonal” category. The argument was that the injured employee was “itinerant agricultural labor,” a tractor driver, and that short-term employment is not synonymous with seasonal work. Had he been treated as a seasonal employee his weekly benefits would have been only $31.99, compared to $315.90 weekly, which he was awarded.

In Lidey v. WCAB (Tropical Amusements), a carnival ride fabricator wasn’t an “exclusively seasonal” employee, even though his employer did business only during the summer months. He was awarded $917 per week, based on his weekly wage of $2,000.

Philadelphia Eagles must pay workers’ comp and a penalty for failing to report player’s injury – Pennsylvania

A defensive end for the Philadelphia Eagles ruptured his right Achilles tendon during the team’s training camp and underwent surgery and PT until he became a free agent. The team paid for his treatment and surgery and paid his regular salary until his contract expired, but failed to file workers’ comp documents. As a free agent, he rehabilitated at a private facility, which the team paid for, and ruptured his left Achilles tendon and the team paid for the surgery, but he paid for the rehabilitation. He filed for disability benefits and the team argued it should not be responsible for the second injury because it was not work related.

A workers’ compensation judge, and on appeal the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, ruled that the Eagles violated regulations by failing to report his first injury and awarded the claim petition as well as a 50 percent penalty to be paid by his employer on past-due compensation. The Eagles argued it was “not practically possible” to report every injury that occurs as a workers’ compensation claim as they see between 800 to 1,000 injuries during the season and practice. They file workers’ compensation claims only when players need treatment beyond what can be treated in the training facility, and they file NCPs on request.

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

Legal Corner

Posted on by davidrleng

ADA
Jury verdict for needle-phobic pharmacist overturned

In Christopher Stevens v. Rite Aid Corp. et al. a federal appeals court overturned a $1.8 million jury verdict and ruled Rite-Aid did not violate the ADA when it terminated a pharmacist who was afraid of needles. When the company started requiring pharmacists to perform immunizations in 2011, the pharmacist, who had worked as a Rite Aid pharmacist and its predecessor pharmacies for 34 years, provided a doctor’s note that he suffered from trypanophobia (needle phobic) and would likely faint if he had to administer an injection. Shortly thereafter he was fired and filed a wrongful termination suit.

At trial, a U.S. District Court jury in Binghamton, New York, awarded him a total of $1.8 million. But on appeal, the court found that immunization injections were an essential job requirement for Rite Aid pharmacists at the time of Stevens’ termination and, therefore, Rite Aid did not violate the ADA.

Firing of bad-tempered bipolar employee did not violate ADA

In Michael Waggoner v. Carlex Glass America L.L.C., an employee of Nashville, Tennessee-based Carlex Glass America L.L.C., had been disciplined twice for violent outbursts while working for his plant’s previous owner. The second time he was suspended but allowed to return to work under a “last chance” agreement. After two more outbursts, he was terminated with the employer citing a work rule against using abusive language toward co-workers.

While he cited examples of other employees who had similar violations of the work rule, the court concluded that his outbursts may have posed a greater workplace safety threat and that the other employees did not have a history of infractions.

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

HR Tip: ABA’s summary of 2016 FMLA cases

Posted on by davidrleng

Every February, the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Federal Labor Standards Legislation Committee publishes a comprehensive report of FMLA decisions handed down by the federal courts in the previous year. This handy report summarizes every FMLA decision from 2016 in a user-friendly manner.

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