Watch out for 20 costly workers’ comp mistakes in 2020: Part One (1 – 10)

For many employers, workers’ comp was a bright spot in 2019. Rates were low, workplaces continue to be safer, and the industry made significant strides in controlling opioids. Yet, there are unresolved issues and persistent trends that can spell trouble for complacent employers in 2020.

As employers continue to grapple with long-term labor shortages, it’s important to be mindful that workers’ comp cannot be separated from employee retention and engagement. It’s a core business practice of comprehensive risk management that protects your most valuable asset – your employees.

The order of the following listing does not reflect importance and some may not apply to your workplace. We hope you will use the list to establish your priorities:

  1. Not taking a holistic view of injured employeesRegardless of the size or type of claim, there’s been an overarching shift in treating injured employees as consumers, rather than claimants. This means not only advocating for them and giving them support and a voice in handling claims, but also recognizing the social and economic factors that affect recovery, and the psychology of pain. Taking the time to understand the needs of the individual employee both improves claim outcomes and bolsters employee morale.
  2. Relaxing claims monitoringWhen claims are down, it’s easy to divert attention elsewhere and leave the claim to the adjuster. Yet, three to five percent of claims drive 50 to 60 percent of the cost and it doesn’t take a catastrophic injury to create a complex, costly claim. Delayed recovery, which can be caused by co-morbidities, psychological or family problems, employment issues, attorney involvement, or prescription abuse increases the duration and cost of a claim. Early identification of these potential high-cost claims reduces costs.

    Also, when legacy claims linger on autopilot, by default, the employer commits to costly ongoing medical care that often involves opioids. While the industry has done a good job of controlling opioid prescribing for new claims, regular intervention is necessary for older claims to accelerate settlements and improve pain management.

  3. Not recognizing marijuana is here to stayThe continuing trend of states legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use in spite of the federal ban has made it one of the top challenges in maintaining a safe workplace. Staying abreast of evolving laws and cases, as well as a clearly defined policy on how marijuana will be addressed in the workplace, are necessary to ensure the safety of all workers and decrease the likelihood of adverse employment actions. Shifting cultural acceptance of marijuana as well as its legalization in many states means that employers need to thoughtfully evaluate their drug testing policies.

    Case law in 2019 moved toward protecting the medical use of marijuana in the workplace. Sixteen states provide workplace protections for legalized medical marijuana use either through their statutes or through case law, including Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Massachusetts.

    Experts postulate that there will be more law suits from employees or job applicants who were terminated or not hired because they failed a drug test and take medical marijuana. Further, the question of marijuana as treatment in workers’ comp claims will continue to be a hot issue in 2020.

  4. Failing to understand what’s happening at OSHAWhile many observers expected a decline in the number of OSHA workplace inspections, they increased to 33,401 in FY2019, higher than in any year since 2015. There’s been a record number of $100,000+ citations, higher penalties, more willful and repeat citations, as well as worker safety criminal prosecutions.

    On October 1, OSHA implemented major changes to how it prioritizes inspections and other compliance activities. Factors now considered in inspection weighting include:

    • Agency enforcement priorities
    • Impact of inspections on improving workplace safety
    • Hazards inspected and abated
    • Site-Specific Targeting (SST) program objective

    Further, the agency announced that it is moving away from its long focus on “OSHA recordables” as a way to measure the safety of a workforce and will focus its enforcement efforts on leading indicators, which are proactive.

  5. Failing to properly classify employeesWhile the contractor vs. employee status debate has existed for many years, it ramped up in 2019 and is expected to be a hot issue in 2020. Some estimate that over 30% of the workforce is part of the gig economy. With the passage of AB5 in California and a growing number of court cases, expect to see more legislation and court cases.
  6. Developing a false sense of security from distracted driving policiesOver the past five years, motor vehicle accident claims accounted for 28% of workers’ comp claims over $500,000. They now account for more worker fatalities than any other cause and savvy employers know they have to go beyond state laws to develop best practices. Employers are being held liable for employee crashes, even when employees use hand-free devices. The National Safety Council considers hands-free devices to be just as distracting as hand-held devices while driving.

    A distracted driving policy is only the beginning. It must be implemented, updated, and consequences for non-compliance enforced. There are growing options for discovering violations – locking devices, GPS monitoring, in-vehicle cameras, and so on.

  7. Being unprepared for workplace violenceWith more high-profile workplace shootings, fear of workplace violence is on the rise. According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), one in seven workers do not feel safe at work. Unfortunately, incidents and attitudes that lead to workplace violence are a reality at all workplaces. Workers feel safer and more valued when investment is made in security and preparation.
  8. Not reassessing your PPEWhen NASA was forced to cancel the first-ever spacewalk by two women because it did not have two appropriate space suits, social media erupted with stories from women in all industries about ill-fitting or no PPE. Through continued advancement and technological changes, “smart” PPE with sensors that monitor, collect, and record biometric, location, and movement data is on the rise. In addition, employees’ personal preferences and increased comfort have driven new innovations.

    Providing the right PPE is another way companies can recruit and retain more talent.

  9. Ignoring changes in workplace ergonomicsMusculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) develop over time, but are highly preventable at a reasonable cost. Yet, they account for close to one-third of all occupational injuries and illnesses and have a median of nine days away from work.

    New technologies and devices, an aging workforce, temporary workers, more employees working remotely, the dramatic shift to e-commerce, coupled with massive changes in warehousing and office designs have introduced new ergonomic challenges. Moreover, employees want to work in a comfortable environment and embrace employers that take a holistic approach to ergonomics. A 2019 study by Future Workplace and View found that air quality and natural light were most important to employees, topping fitness facilities.

    Addressing new potential ergonomic risks now will prevent costly injuries in the future, improve productivity, and retain talent.

  10. Failing to stay in touch with your medical provider networkPerhaps you’ve had a few good years with no lost-time injuries. No real need to stay in touch with your medical network. But networks and providers change as do work processes. An ongoing face-to-face relationship ensures your workers get appropriate and priority treatment as well as leads to better outcomes for injured employees.

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

Pennsylvania – First state ruling on termination for medical marijuana

In Pamela Palmiter v. Commonwealth Health Systems Inc. et al, the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County in Scranton held that a worker terminated for her medical marijuana use can pursue litigation against her former employer under the state Medical Marijuana Act’s anti-discrimination provisions. The employee was a medical assistant, who was prescribed marijuana by her physician for chronic pain, migraines, and persistent fatigue.

When her original employer was taken over by Franklin, Tennessee-based Commonwealth Health, she failed a drug test and was advised she could not continue employment.

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

Culture Issues: Having a Good Culture is More than being OSHA & HR Compliant (Benchmarking Your Culture)

If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.” – Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin).

Sure, you can think you’re improving something, but unless you know what the problem was in the first place you can’t truly fix it, and if you don’t truly fix it your improvement is nothing more than band-aid surgery. For example, a baseball player is in a deep slump and can’t hit a lick. Suddenly he’s goes four for five in a game and thinks he solved his problem. But what caused the problem? Without analyzing and benchmarking what he’s been doing all along, i.e. the angle of his bat, how high he holds his hands, the all-important “launch angle,” he will not have a true measure of if he is on the right track or just “having a good day.”

This is not uncommon in the business world. Let’s take for example your experience modifier, which is one of the biggest drivers of an employer’s workers’ compensation premium. The lower your experience modifier is the lower your premium will be.

Your experience modifier is based on your data, total claim dollars and audited payroll amounts over a three-year period.  Unfortunately, most insurance agents will come to you and say: “You have a 0.94 experience modifier. That is great! You are getting a credit of 6% for a great loss history.” In other words, your company is making money. Therefore, you must be stressing to your employees to be job safety conscious. But that’s not automatically the case.

Many times a business owner believes because they are making money they have a good culture, so all is good.  However, when they conduct an analysis, and do a deep dive into the all-important data points, they can see that there are issues within the company that is holding them back from real growth, productivity, accountability and profitability. From making real money.

To Continue Reading: Construction Today Magazine

Culture Issues: Accountability When it Comes to Job Performance

Close your eyes and imagine you’re the manager of a professional baseball team, it’s Game 7, bottom of the ninth, two outs, your team is up 3-2 with the tying run on third base, and the winning run on first base. Batter hits a fly ball to the gap in right center field, and the base runners go on contact. The center fielder starts to sprint… if he catches it – game over; if he plays it on one hop – the score is tied with the winning run in scoring position. The center fielder dives at full speed, lands on the ground as the ball just skips over his glove… the 3rd base runner ties the score as the ball continues to roll all the way to the warning track allowing the 1st base runner to score – the game is over and you lost.

Now, as the manager of the team, what is your reaction?  Do you “back” your fielder and compliment him on making a rational decision? Or, do you hold him “accountable”, by laying blame and berating the player for making a bad choice?

Continue to read at: Commercial Construction & Renovation

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

 

Legal Corner

ADA
Lawsuit alleging wrongful termination because perceived-as disabled reinstated

In Paula E. Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists P.C., a nurse anesthesiologist contends that Tennessee-based Maryville Anesthesiologists P.C., fired her because it thought she was visually disabled. She acknowledges an eye condition that requires her to hold written records close to her eyes, but argues it does not inhibit her ability to read.

The company, however, says she was fired because of two serious errors that put patients at risk. But an email was circulated to staff saying that she was fired because she “has been having major issues with her eyesight and as of late, it has seemed to be getting even worse.”

The Sixth Circuit finds that the email and other evidence present a triable case of regarded-as disability discrimination under the ADA and reinstates the case.

EEOC disability suit settled for $2.65 million

Crossmark, a company that provides workers to dispense free food samples to shoppers, allegedly failed to provide a reasonable accommodation by not allowing its employees to sit for more than 10 minutes every two hours. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) noted some employees were permitted to sit as needed when they performed the same job while working directly for the retailers.

The firm agreed to pay $2.65 million and designate ADA coordinators to address accommodation requests, among other provisions.

Workers’ Compensation

Tort claim for lead poisoning barred by exclusive remedy – California

In an unpublished opinion, Deville v. Bloch, the company, Exide, was ordered to suspend operations in Vernon because plant operations were causing the discharge of illegal amounts of lead into the air, water, and soil. Before the plant’s closing, a long-term worker at the hazardous waste treatment and storage plant lost consciousness while cleaning one of the facility’s furnaces. More than three years later he sued, alleging unspecified injuries caused by exposure to lead and other hazardous chemicals.

The appellate court upheld the dismissal of the claim, agreeing workers’ comp exclusive remedy applied. The allegations that Exide knew the employees faced a risk of harm from exposure to lead and other chemicals were not enough to invoke the fraudulent concealment exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity.

Workers over 70 have five-year statutory limit on PTD benefits – Florida

In Crispin v. Orlando Rehabilitation Group, the 1st District Court of Appeals ruled that a worker over the age of 70 is statutorily limited to permanent total disability benefits for a calendar period of five years after she is determined to be permanently and totally disabled. According to the court, eligibility for PTD payments ends five years to the day after the worker is determined to be permanently and totally disabled.

Undocumented worker denied medical care for injury – Florida

In Hernandez v. Food Mkt. Corp., an appellate court upheld the ruling that an undocumented worker who sustained injuries in a work-related accident can be denied benefits on the basis that he used someone else’s Social Security Number (SSN) when completing an intake form at a medical provider. By so doing, the court noted the injured worker had offered a false or misleading statement to secure workers’ compensation benefits.

Pre-existing condition does not negate continuation of medical treatment – Florida

In Premier Community Healthcare Group v. Rivera, a divided appeals court ruled that a dental assistant who was injured while preventing a patient from falling, but had a previous medical condition related to a car accident, must continue to receive benefits. The employer and insurer initially accepted compensability of injuries to the low back and neck, but later denied claims for cervical injections and physical therapy when her medical history revealed that she had a prior motor vehicle accident and previous neck symptoms.

The carrier presented two doctors who testified that the workplace injury is not the major contributing cause of the need for medical treatment of the cervical spine. However, in a divided opinion, the court upheld the JCC’s opinion the worker’s doctor was more persuasive.

JCC may not ignore opinion of expert medical advisor – Florida

In Olvera v. Hernandez Constr. of SW Fla. Inc., although an Expert Medical Advisor (EMA) indicated in his report that a worker had not reached MMI because future surgery was required, a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) found that the worker had reached MMI. An appellate court found that the JCC’s decision, which was made based on the EMA’s answer to one leading hypothetical question on cross-examination, was in error because the JCC cannot disregard the presumed correctness of an unequivocal EMA.

Civil suit can proceed in workplace parking lot shooting – Georgia

In Smith v. Camarena, the estate of a worker who was killed in a grocery store parking lot after finishing her shift filed a civil suit against her employer. The woman and a co-worker were approached by a masked gunman who demanded their purses. An assistant manager was driving by and called to the gunman and shots were exchanged and the woman was killed. While a trial court denied the suit based on the exclusive remedy of workers comp, the Court of Appeals said it could proceed.

Although it is undisputed that she had left work, the employer argued she was “within the period of her employment under the ingress/egress rule.” Noting the parking lot was owned by the store’s landlord and served several other stores, the appellate courts said there is a question of whether the location was part of the employer’s premises and a jury should decide if the shooting occurred in the course of employment.

TTD denied for failure to follow work restrictions – Georgia

In Burch v. STF Foods Inc., the Court of Appeals ruled that a restaurant worker, who had injured his back and had received written restrictions from the restaurant’s owner, was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits after being fired for failing to abide by the lifting restrictions. Despite the instructions, he continued to lift heavy items, received warnings, and suffered additional injuries to the back/shoulder area.

When he was fired for insubordination, he filed for workers comp and an administrative law judge (ALJ) found in his favor, finding his restrictions were related to his work injury. Upon appeal, the court found the ALJ had erred and that the worker failed to prove any loss of earning capacity was attributable to his compensable work injuries, but rather was due to subordination.

Case to watch: McDonalds’ employees in Chicago sue over workplace violence – Illinois

Seventeen Chicago-area workers filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County claiming that the “Experience of the Future” store renovations makes it easier for angry customers to leap over the counter and attack them. The suit claims that in the Chicago area, there are more than 20 calls every day to emergency services from McDonald’s stores and that the company ignores practices that could make the stores safer.

Drainage contractor found guilty of manslaughter in workers’ deaths – Massachusetts

Atlantic Drain Services of Blackstone had been cited by OSHA in 2007, 2012 and again in 2017 after two workers drowned when a trench collapsed. The company was fined $1.47 million in 2017. Three years later, Atlantic Drain owner Kevin Otto and his company were separately found guilty of two counts of manslaughter and one count of witness intimidation in Superior Court.

In addition to failing to use cave-in protection and placing employees in severe danger, it was alleged that the company attempted to mislead the investigation by falsifying documents, including sign-in sheets for excavation and trenching training, as well as workers’ signed acknowledgment of receiving personal safety equipment.

The owner faces up to 20 years in prison and fines up to $250,000.

City agrees to pay workers comp, a wrongful termination claim, and hold open the possibility of a future asbestos-related claim – Michigan

The East Lansing City Council has agreed to pay a former wastewater treatment plant employee $125,000 to settle a workers’ compensation claim and a wrongful termination lawsuit. He alleged he was fired because he reported health and safety violations to state agencies and because he filed a workers’ compensation claim. He also claimed respiratory damage from asbestos and a mercury spill at the facility and the city agreed he could file a claim in the future if he is diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness.

No causal connection between tinnitus and work-related fight – Missouri

In Schlereth v. Aramark Uniform Servs., a state appellate court panel affirmed a Commission decision concluding that a supervisor’s tinnitus was not caused by a work-related brawl that resulted from the supervisor’s crude characterization of a subordinate’s work. Although he did sustain obvious injuries to the face and head, he did not seek benefits until three years later after he received social security benefits.

In spite of surgery complications, worker fails to prove medical causation of sinus cavity clot – Nebraska

In Homstad v. Block 21, LLC, a worker underwent knee surgery for a work-related injury and suffered a deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in his thigh, as well as a pulmonary embolism. Later, he contended that a blood clot in his sinus cavity was causally connected to the earlier injury and surgery. The medical experts were cautious, neither confirming or denying, the causation. Thus, an appellate court upheld the Workers’ Compensation Court decision that the worker had not met the burden of proof.

Workplace fire did not conclusively cause lung disease – Nebraska

In Pennington v. SpartanNash Co., a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed a Workers Compensation Court decision that a worker with lung disease failed to show that his illness was brought on by a workplace fire. He worked as a store manager for Michigan-based food distributor SpartanNash and put out a small fire in an unused walk-in freezer. Although he did not seek medical treatment at the time, a few days later he fainted and was referred to a pulmonologist, who diagnosed pneumonitis and ordered him to stop working. His treating physician wrote a letter stating that his pneumonitis and symptoms were “more likely than not” a result of the chemical and smoke exposure, and a second physician opined that his exposure on the day of the fire more likely than not resulted in his lung disease. The company’s medical expert said the cause could not be determined with certainty.

The court found that his medical experts failed to provide sufficient support for their opinions.

Construction company operator, foreperson, and engineer indicted for manslaughter in death of laborer following wall collapse – New York

Owners and managers of WSC Group LLC, a Sunset Park construction company, have been indicted on manslaughter, negligent homicide and workers’ compensation insurance fraud some 14 months after a wall collapsed and killed a welder at an excavation site in Brooklyn.

Worker employee, not independent contractor – North Carolina

In Macias v. BSI Associates Inc., a worker was injured while working for the Carolina Chimney Crew, settled the claim, and agreed not to work for the company in the future. The following year, the owner suggested the former employee start his own company, purchase the necessary insurance, and work as an independent contractor for him. His insurance indicated zero employees and he excluded himself from coverage.

The company furnished vehicles, tools, equipment and supplies, business cards, Carolina Chimney Crew clothing, and provided specific instructions on where he was to work and what work he was to perform each day. He resumed his work in almost identical fashion as when he was an employee and a few years later fell from a scaffold and fractured his spine.

While the claim for workers’ comp was denied by the company’s insurer based on his status as an independent contractor, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed an Industrial Commission decision holding that the injured man was an employee, not an independent contractor, and, therefore, entitled to workers compensation.

Definition of employer’s premises clarified in parking lot decision – Pennsylvania

In US Airways v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board, a 6 – 0 decision of the Supreme Court’s Western District in Pittsburgh affirmed a workers compensation judge’s finding that a flight attendant was in the course and scope of her work when she was injured. The flight attendant was injured after her shift ended while riding an airport shuttle bus to an employee parking lot. The City of Philadelphia, and not the airline, owned both the shuttle bus and the employee parking lot.

With the decision, the Court stood by its earlier Epler holding that the phrase “the employer’s premises” should be construed liberally to include any area that is integral to the employer’s business operations, including any reasonable means of ingress to or egress from the workplace.

Employee of staffing agency cannot sue borrowing employer – Pennsylvania

In Burrell v. Streamlight, an employee of a staffing agency fell while assigned to Streamlight, received comp benefits from the staffing agency, and filed a negligence suit against Streamlight. Streamlight argued it was acting as his employer at the time and, therefore, was immune from civil liability.

The appellate court stressed that the issue turned upon whether the borrowing employer had the right to control not only the work to be done by the borrowed employee but the manner of performing it. It found the evidence established that Streamlight was his employer.

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

Workplace safety: an untapped tool to attract and retain skilled workers

It’s easy for employers to be complacent about Workers’ Compensation when rates are declining and workplaces are safer overall. There are more pressing business matters in today’s competitive market, such as attracting and retaining skilled and committed workers. But failure to relate the two is a lost opportunity and complacency is a slippery slope to higher costs.

A strong safety record reflects positively on the quality of management, supervision, and all employees. While there are individual and generational differences in what attracts workers to a company, there are common denominators. Trust, respect, involvement, clear goals and expectations, engaged management, collaborative working environment, and recognition are regulars on the lists of most desirable workplace characteristics. All of these are integral to a sustainable safety culture.

There is one value everyone can share: to go home without an injury. Use it to tell your story. While the message, “we value and care about our employees,” is often boasted, it’s met with skepticism. The opinion that production and profit trump safety is still pervasive among many employees.

To combat this attitude, safety must become everyone’s responsibility. Management must walk-the-talk and model the safety behavior they expect from employees, as well as empower employees to voice their concerns and take it upon themselves to improve safety. If an incident occurs, the focus is not on blame, but on the worker’s full recovery and a cooperative effort to improve processes to prevent future occurrences.

With a strong safety culture, employers have a credible way to demonstrate they value, trust, and care about their employees. Here’s how to use it to give yourself an edge:

For recruitment:

  • Communicate that safety is a core value by personalizing the message. Don’t just talk about metrics, but how employees are valued, respected, and engaged
  • Explain the role employees have in safety and how employees are trusted to do the right thing
  • Describe how orientation training truly reflects what happens in the field/plant, occurs before they even set foot on the job, and how training continues throughout the year
  • Share how employees are rewarded or recognized for making safe behaviors and reporting incidents or near misses
  • Tell how your recovery at work program reflects the company’s values with real stories

For retention:

  • Focus on successes and recognize and reward safe behavior
  • Continually encourage reporting incidents and near misses
  • Use safety to build teamwork and strive for excellence
  • Take an active role in an injured worker’s treatment and recovery. Let them know their recovery is a priority by your actions
  • Reinforce there are no acceptable trade-offs between safety and productivity and that both are everyone’s responsibility
  • Encourage workers to speak freely about hazards and make suggestions for controlling risk

It’s important to recognize that employer complacency will filter down to employees. This can lead not only to a lax attitude about safety and an increase in injuries, but also fewer referrals. Word-of-mouth, as well as social media, can make or break recruitment efforts.

Hiring and retaining the right workers for the right positions

It takes work to maintain a strong safety culture and it begins with the hiring process. While making safety part of the recruiting process enhances the possibility of safety-conscious applicants, employers must be sure that they hire employees who are physically and mentally able to perform the job they are being hired to do.

A compliant way for employers to find out whether an applicant can do the job safely is to implement the Conditional Offer of Employment and Post-Offer/Pre-Placement Medical Questionnaire. When you hire someone who is not capable of doing the job, it’s not a question of if, but rather a question of when they are going to suffer an injury. Employers are less able to bear the burden of employees losing time today than at any time in the recent past.

With Workers’ Comp on the priority backburner, it’s easy to forget about including it in onboarding new employees or training current employees. Yet, the vast majority of employees who suffer an injury at work will find themselves inside the workers’ comp system for the first time. Even a minor injury may seem like a major occurrence because it is unfamiliar and frightening. “What am I going to have to pay?”, “How am I going to feed my family?”, “What do my co-workers think?”, and more fill their mind. When you communicate to workers how the workers’ comp process works, you can alleviate doubts and build confidence.

Getting injured employees back to work is always near the top of the list for best claims practices. While it’s been proven that Recovery at Work programs have an economic benefit, the human element is equally important. By providing support, encouragement, and opportunity, the employer makes the employee feel valued, protected, and confident appropriate work will be available.

Culture has been at the top of safety and health issues for more than a decade. Rethinking recruitment and retention strategies around safety may be the solution to one of the most pressing business matters today.

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

Things you should know

Soap more effective than hand sanitizers in combatting flu

Researchers from the Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine found that ethanol-based sanitizers can take up to four minutes to disinfect hands that carry the flu virus. The use of soap and water inactivated the virus in the infected mucus within 30 seconds.

The study was published online in mSphere, the journal of the American Society for Microbiology.

CMS Updates WCMSA Reference Guide

CMS has released an updated WCMSA Reference Guide version 3.0. Noteworthy changes are 1) the Amended Review period was extended from 4 to 6 years (Section 16.2), and 2) Effective April 1, 2020, the required language for the signed consent form to submit an MSA to CMS now must include a statement that the WCMSA arrangement need and process has been explained to the claimant and that the claimant approves of the contents of the submission (Section 10.2).

New drug tests in works for measuring medical marijuana impairment

New drug tests that could help employers measure marijuana impairment are expected to hit the market in 2020 and be similar to an alcohol breathalyzer. Researchers from the Swanson School of Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania and Hound Labs Inc., based in Oakland, California, are among those working on the testing.

NSC issues policy position on cannabis use while working in a safety sensitive position

The National Safety Council (NSC) released a policy position that it is unsafe to be under the influence of cannabis while working in a safety sensitive position due to the increased risk of injury or death to the operator and others. The NSC defines safety sensitive positions as those that impact the safety of the employee and the safety of others as a result of performing that job.

Opioids cost economy at least $631 billion from 2015 to 2018: Study

study by the Society of Actuaries finds the opioid epidemic cost the U.S. economy at least $631 billion from 2015 to 2018.The costs include healthcare, lost productivity, premature mortality, criminal justice activities, and child and family assistance and education programs. It’s projected that the costs in 2019 will be around $188 billion.

Construction workers most likely to use opioids, cocaine: Study

Construction workers are more likely to use opioids and cocaine than workers in any other profession and were the second most likely to use marijuana (service workers were first), concluded researchers from the Center for Drug Use and HIV/HCV Research at New York University’s College of Global Public Health. The problem creates a vicious cycle: substance abuse may lead to accidents and the associated injuries may lead to higher substance abuse.

Doctors wary of taking opioid patients: Study

Eighty-one percent of primary care physicians surveyed recently said they are reluctant to take on patients who are currently on opioids, according to a new Health Trends™ report from Quest Diagnostics. 72% worry that chronic pain patients will turn to illicit drugs if they do not have access to prescription opioids,

Doctors trust patients, but test results show misuse

The same Health Trends report cited above notes nearly three in four physicians trust their patients to take controlled substances as prescribed, yet half of all patient test results show misuse of these drugs. Non-prescribed gabapentin use is accelerating, growing 40% in the past year, making it the most commonly detected non-prescribed controlled medication in tested patients.

Registration is open for FMCSA drug and alcohol clearinghouse

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has opened registration for the long-awaited clearinghouse. The clearinghouse is a secure database that allows FMCSA and others to identify commercial drivers who have violated drug and alcohol testing program requirements in real time. Commercial driver’s license holders, fleets, medical review officers and substance abuse professionals can create an online account.

Two studies address preventing work-related asthma

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) suggests in two studies that work-related asthma can be controlled by controlling exposure to hazardous substances. In the first study, NIOSH investigators focused on the link between cleaning and disinfecting products and various asthma symptoms among healthcare workers. In the second, they looked at the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) among people with work-related asthma and those with asthma from other causes.

Sleep deprivation a growing problem: Study

Researchers from Ball State University found that more than 1 out of 3 U.S. working adults aren’t getting enough sleep, and the prevalence of sleep deprivation has increased significantly since 2010. Women have experienced the largest increase. The study notes “Inadequate sleep is associated with mild to severe physical and mental health problems, injury, loss of productivity, and premature mortality.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Community Health.

MSHA reinstates final rule on pre-shift mine examinations

The Mine Safety and Health Administration has reinstated a 2017 rule that requires a competent person to inspect the workplace before a shift rather than when miners begin work, in accordance with an Aug. 23 mandate of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. According to a notice in the Federal Register the measure vacates a 2018 amendment to the rule.

State News

California

  • The Governor has signed a bill adding post-traumatic stress disorder suffered on the job as a compensable injury for first responders.
  • Workers compensation inpatient hospital stays dropped by nearly one-third between 2010 and 2018, largely due to a decline in spinal fusions, according to a study by the Workers Compensation Institute (CWCI).
  • Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau releases 2019 Policy Year Statistical Report.
  • 94.1% of medical services performed or requested for injured workers were either approved or approved with modifications, according to a CWCI report.

Florida

  • The insurance commissioner refused to accept the NCCI recommended 5.4% rate decrease in 2020 and has proposed a workers’ compensation rate decrease of 7.5% on new and renewal policies.

Massachusetts

  • The Department of Industrial Accidents has posted updates to maximum weekly benefits, cost-of-living adjustments and other payments, including a significant increase in attorneys’ fees.

New York

  • Indemnity, medical and disability claims have remained stable, and more workers are receiving their first indemnity payment within three weeks of an injury, according to a report by the Workers Compensation Research Institute.
  • Large, complex construction sites in New York City must immediately post at their exits multilingual notices about upcoming safety training requirements. Beginning Dec. 1, all workers at these construction sites must have at least 30 hours of site-safety training, while supervisors must have at least 62 hours. A 40-hour training requirement for workers at these sites will go into effect Sept. 1, 2020. More information.

Tennessee

  • The Department of Labor and Workforce Development has proposed rule changes to workers’ compensation appeals procedures, which appear to be extensive, but are intended to make the process easier to navigate. There will be a public hearing on the proposed appeals rules at 1 p.m. Dec. 12 in the Occupational Safety and Health Hearing Room, 220 French Landing Drive, 1-A, in Nashville.

Virginia

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

Legal Corner

ADA
Adverse employment action cannot be motivated by associational disability claim

The association provision of the ADA does not require employers to reasonably accommodate nondisabled employees so that they may care for disabled relatives or others. In Kelleher v. Fred A. Cook Inc., 2d Cir., a truck operator had a daughter who was born with Rett Syndrome, a severe neurological disorder. After he informed his company that he may have to rush home occasionally, he was given different job responsibilities with lower pay and his request to work 8-hour shifts, rather than 10-12 was denied. His supervisors told him, “his problems at home were not the company’s problems” and that he would not receive a raise.

After his daughter had a near-fatal seizure he told the company he could not work his next shift and he was demoted. A few weeks later, he was 10 -15 minutes late for work and ultimately was fired. While a district court dismissed his complaint under the ADA, the 2nd Circuit reversed. Although it acknowledged that he was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation as an employee associated with an individual with a disability under the ADA, the Court noted, “an employer’s reaction to such a request for accommodation can support an inference that a subsequent adverse employment action was motivated by associational discrimination.”

The company did not have to accept his schedule request, but his termination could not be motivated by his daughter’s disability. The court found sufficient allegations that the employer thought his daughter’s disability was a distraction and terminated him as a result because he was told “his problems at home were not the company’s problems” and was demoted after missing a shift to care for his daughter.

 

 

Woman wins lawsuit against university for not extending leave for postpartum depression

In Alves v. Trustees of Boston University, a woman who suffered from postpartum depression recently won a disability discrimination case against Boston University, her former employer, after her request for a second medical leave was rejected following the birth of her son about three years ago. Her leave was extended once under the FMLA, but her request for a second extension was denied and she was fired.

A jury awarded her $144,000 in compensatory damages for lost wages and emotional distress since the University did not follow the interactive process to reach a reasonable accommodation.

Jury awards Walmart employee $5.2 million

A Walmart cart pusher, who has a developmental disability and is deaf and visually impaired, had worked at a Beloit, Wisconsin, Walmart for 16 years. After a new manager started at the store, the employee was suspended and later forced to resubmit medical paperwork to keep his reasonable accommodations at his job. Walmart indicated safety concerns triggered the request. Before his suspension, the employee had performed his job with accommodation including assistance of a job coach.The paperwork requested the coach’s continued assistance. At that point, the employee was terminated.

Walmart’s position was that the employee could not perform the essential parts of his job with or without reasonable accommodations and that the EEOC demands were unreasonable. The company is weighing its options.

Workers’ Compensation

Safety citation for failure to require appropriate footwear upheld – California

In Home Depot USA Inc. v. California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, the Court of Appeals in Riverside unanimously affirmed an administrative law judge’s safety citation of $12,375 against Home Depot for failing to require its employees to wear appropriate footwear and ensure workers complied with industrial truck operation standards at its Mira Loma distribution warehouse. Two Home Depot warehouse workers had an accident while driving electric pallet jacks and one caught her foot between two jacks, sustaining an injury.

A Cal/OSHA inspection revealed that the employees were not wearing steel-toed footwear or work boots, but most wore sneakers. The investigator cited Home Depot for failing to require employees to wear appropriate foot protection and ensuring employees comply with safe operation standards for industrial trucks.

Home Depot’s policy required only that workers wear “closed-toed and closed-heeled shoes” and specifically did not allow “flip-Flops, sandals, open-toed shoes, or open heeled shoes.” The company argued that steel-toed boots or similar footwear can cause ergonomic problems, tripping hazards, and fatigue, and they can be “cumbersome,” “uncomfortable” and “bulky.”

Amicus curiae, Retail Litigation Center, Inc. and National Federation of Independent Business, who supported Home Depot, objected that the Board’s opinion articulates an “uncertain standard [that] will have far-reaching consequences…” The appeals court noted that a violation of the safety order is not based on previous history of accidents or injuries resulting from the exposure but rather on the existence of the danger which may cause injury. However, the court did “agree the language in the Board’s opinion can be read to sweep too broadly, so we emphasize our holding is limited to the facts and evidence of the case.”

Ruling on enforceability of unsigned document published – California

The 2nd District Court of Appeal’s decision in Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. WCAB (CIGA) established that an insurance policy’s limiting endorsement for special employees could not be invalidated just because the employer had not signed it. It originally was released as an unpublished decision, which is not binding precedent.

Unexercised right to subrogation does not bar removal of civil suit to federal court – California

In Gutierrez v. McNeilus Truck & Mfg, a worker was seriously injured when he fell from the roof of a garbage truck and sued the company that designed and manufactured the truck. When the case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds, the company filed a motion to remand because generally a civil action arising under the workers’ compensation laws of a state may not be removed.

However, the court denied the motion because the company contended that the claim arose under the workers’ compensation law because the injured worker’s employer and insurer had the right of subrogation, but neither the employer nor the insurer had asserted a subrogation claim. Therefore, they were not parties to the action. If the employer or insurer had intervened before the removal, there could have been a different outcome.

IME opinion that smoking and not worksite caused respiratory condition nixes claim – Florida

In Ernesto Blanco v. Creative Management Services LLC/Technology Insurance Co., an appeals court upheld the opinion of a judge that the major contributing cause of an employee’s respiratory condition was his 17-year history of cigarette smoking, not his 11 days on the job at an events management firm, handling materials that produced sawdust and debris in the air. On appeal, one of the worker’s challenges was the qualifications of the employer’s independent medical examiner (IME), who was not a pulmonologist. The court disagreed noting the IME was a board-certified occupational medicine specialist with extensive experience in exposure cases leading to pulmonary problems and qualified to give an opinion.

Jury awards over $3 million to injured worker in retaliation case – Illinois

In Jankowski v. Dean Foods, a worker who was injured at Dean Food’s Huntley milk processing facility, collected workers’ compensation, but refused work that exceeded his medical restrictions, was not offered any other light duty positions, and was fired. The jury found that Dean Foods discriminated against Jankowski in violation of the ADA by failing to accommodate his disability for one of the several open positions which he was able to perform and awarded $3,316,443 for lost wages and benefits and emotional distress.

Court erred in approving lump sum PPD award – Illinois

In Annoni v. City of Chicago, an appellate court said the employer could not be ordered to pay the worker a lump sum benefit unless the worker had sought such a lump sum pursuant to special statute, 820 ILCS 305/9. Workers’ compensation benefits are to provide a substitute for an injured worker’s lost wages, and as such, the Legislature has indicated a strong preference for period payments.

Parking lot injury not compensable – Illinois

In Walker Brothers v. IWCC (Ramsey), a restaurant posted a notice in the employee break room stating they could park in the Ace lot, which was near the restaurant. After meeting another employee who had a key to the restaurant, an employee slipped and fell as he walked to work. An arbitrator found that he failed to prove that he was in an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment, but the Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, and a circuit court judge affirmed.

On appeal, while the appellate court acknowledged employer “provided” parking lots are exceptions to the rule that injuries are not compensable when an employee slips and falls while traveling to or from work, the restaurant did not own or control the lot, nor did it pay for maintenance, and employees were not required to park there. Thus, the injury was not compensable.

Pre-existing fragile mental state exacerbated by workplace injury leads to permanent total disability – Missouri

An employee who endured “significant psychological trauma as a victim of physical and sexual abuse after her daughter’s rape and murder,” suffered head and neck injuries in an assembly line accident. When she returned to work where the plant was noisy, she suffered headaches and lapses of concentration and was unable to keep up with work demands. She was fired after working light duty for one week.

She filed a disability claim, which her employer eventually settled for $30,000, deeming her partially disabled. Later, a judge and the full state Workers Compensation Commission denied her claim for permanent disability, finding she did not “meet her burden of proving the nature and extent of any alleged preexisting psychological disability by a reasonable degree of certainty.” The appellate court disagreed and found the state fund liable for the woman’s permanent total disability, stating that she “met her burden” under state law “establishing that her preexisting permanent disabilities were serious enough to constitute a hindrance or obstacle to her employment or reemployment,” among other reasons.

Additional compensation denied to worker whose pain was not credible – Nebraska

In Oneyda Jordan v. Tyson Fresh Meats Inc., a chicken processing plant worker who underwent surgery to both hands for a compensable work injury sought additional compensation for her continued pain. An appeals court affirmed the denial by the workers compensation court, noting medical evidence proved she had reached maximum improvement and could work unrestricted. Further, based on testimony from co-workers and surveillance video that contradicted her testimony of extreme pain, the court rejected her argument that her pain supported a loss of earning capacity.

Subchapter S business owner benefits based on wages, not share of profits – Nebraska

In Bortolotti v. Universal Terrazzo & Tile Co., the sole stockholder and the president of a Subchapter S corporation, suffered a compensable injury. The IRS Schedule E showed self-employment wages of $3,950 and “qualified production activities income” of $186,873, and the owner testified that he took a weekly draw of $3,625. The case made its way to the Supreme Court that said wages are compensation for activities as a corporate employee and do not include net profit for an employee of an S corporation. It was the employee’s burden to provide evidence differentiating his wages as a corporate employee from his profits as a corporate shareholder, which he did not do. Based on an annual wage of $3.950, he was entitled to $49 per week in benefits, the minimum income benefit.

Volunteer not entitled to benefits – New York

In Matter of Mauro v. American Red Cross, a volunteer received her full salary from her employer while participating in events for the Red Cross during employment hours. She was hit in the nose by a hand cart while she loaded materials into her cart and filed a workers’ comp claim against the Red Cross. The appellate court affirmed the denial of benefits because there was no employment relationship between the volunteer and the charity.

First appellate decision to deal with medical marijuana and workers’ comp – New York

In Matter of the Claim of James Kluge, v. Town of Tonawanda et al., Workers Compensation Board, a police officer sustained a permanent partial disability and suffered from chronic pain. He was prescribed medical marijuana in 2017, which was denied by the comp insurer. He sought review of the denial of the variance request with a worker’s compensation law judge who overturned the denial. However, the Workers Compensation Board reversed finding that “it could not approve a variance for treatment already rendered.”

On appeal, the Court acknowledged that the Board had properly denied the variance request, but indicated it should have considered the merits of the request for prospective marijuana treatment, since the officer has a chronic pain condition necessitating ongoing treatment. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Disability cannot be apportioned between traumatic brain injury and pre-existing MS – New York

In Matter of Whitney v. Pregis Corp, a maintenance worker slipped on a patch of ice and suffered injuries to his back, hip, head and brain. He also was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and filed a motion for compensability, arguing that the MS was either directly induced or exacerbated by the fall. A workers’ compensation law judge found that MS was a pre-existing condition unrelated to the fall and the Board affirmed and apportioned 60 percent of the disability to his non-disabling and undiagnosed multiple sclerosis.

An appellate court overturned, noting there was no evidence the MS had affected his abilities to perform the duties of his employment prior to the accident and that the condition had not even been diagnosed until after the accident. Thus, apportionment, as a matter of law, was inappropriate in the case.

Sole remedy for deceased worker’s family is workers’ comp – North Carolina

In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Don’s Trash Co., an appellate court held that the auto liability insurer of a corporation that had temporarily borrowed an employee of a separate, but related corporate entity to drive one of its vehicles, need not defend a wrongful death action filed against the corporation. The “borrowed” employee was driving at the time of the fatal crash; therefore, he was the co-employee of the employee who was killed in the vehicular crash and the sole remedy of the deceased’s estate was under workers’ compensation.

Court rejects constitutional challenge to “Protz-fix” – Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania AFL-CIO v. Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the General Assembly’s revised impairment rating evaluation process, which mandates a physician’s use of the American Medical Association “Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment,” 6th edition (second printing April 2009) for determining impairment in workers’ compensation cases. The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO asserted that the new law also contained an impermissible delegation of authority to the AMA.

However, the Court noted the General Assembly can adopt as its own “a particular set of standards which already are in existence at the time of adoption.”

Immigration status irrelevant to comp benefits – Pennsylvania

In Bryn Mawr Landscaping Co. v. WCAB (Cruz-Tenorio), a worker was injured when he was struck in the head by a large branch. A neurologist diagnosed him with post-concussive syndrome and other issues and he received treatment from an orthopedic surgeon. Both submitted disability notes to the company. The claims adjuster acknowledged that he had a valid work visa.

The company issued a notice of temporary compensation payable for medical benefits only and began an investigation. Their neurologist and an orthopedic surgeon found that the issues had been resolved.

The employee filed a workers’ compensation claim, and a penalty petition, asserting that Bryn Mawr had violated the law by failing to issue a notice of compensation payable, had not paid him indemnity benefits, and interfered with his ability to obtain medical treatment. In turn,the company filed a termination petition alleging the employee was fully recovered and a suspension petition requesting a change in status from totally disabled to partially disabled because he could not lawfully work.

The case made its way to the Commonwealth Court that found the injured employee was not an undocumented worker nor was his loss of earning power caused by his immigration status instead of work injuries. Further, a judge had determined that the company’s medical experts lacked credibility and the court was bound by that decision. The injured worker was awarded benefits and attorney fees.

High court reverses trial court dismissal of mold exposure claim – Tennessee

In Williams v. SWS LLC, an employee began experiencing respiratory issues when her company moved to a new building. She missed time from work when she had two surgeries in January and July 2011, which included removing a portion of her lingual tonsil and later received a note from her doctor that said she had “clinical evidence of toxic mold exposure” in September 2011. She quit her job in April 2012.

Later she filed a workers’ compensation complaint alleging she had suffered injuries because of her workplace exposure to mold. The case revolved around whether this was a gradually occurring injury or occupational disease and whether the claim had been timely filed. Under the law, the worker has to provide her employer with notice of claim and a request for a benefit review conference within one year of injury. The company argued that since she had lost time from work for surgery to treat her allegedly compensable injuries, her last day worked before her surgery constitutes the date of injury. But the employee argued that the last day was the day she quit.

The Supreme Court’s Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel revived the claim finding there was a triable question as to whether it ought to be barred by the statute of limitations and whether this was a gradually occurring injury or occupational disease.

24/7 home health care not warranted – Virginia

In Dawson v. County of Henrico, a man who became disabled with a brain injury in a work-related vehicle accident failed to convince the Court of Appeals that he required 24-hour a day, seven days a week home health care provided by his fiancée or at her direction. His treating psychiatrist said he suffered from depression, fatigue, headaches, memory impairment, aggression, difficulty regulating emotions and cognitive difficulties and that he failed to “understand what he needs to do to take care of himself.” He recommended the home health care, but later noted he probably did not need care “every hour.”

An appellate court supported the commission’s conclusion that 24-hour home health care was not medically necessary, and affirmed the denial of the care.

Appellate court overturns Commission and denies care by spouse – Virginia

In Cumberland Hosp. & Ace Am. Ins. Co. v. Ross, a registered nurse sustained severe injuries, including traumatic brain injury and was awarded several benefits, including 24-hour home health care, which was provided through an agency. After a little over a year, the nurse filed a claim with the Commission requesting that the home health care be provided by her spouse. The agency hired the spouse, but fired him after three weeks for not properly providing activity notes.

The Commission found that the medical care was necessary and, therefore, did not apply the four requirements set forth in Warren Trucking Co. v. Chandler for care by a spouse. An appellate court said the issue here was not only if home health care was medically necessary, but rather whether the services provided by the spouse constituted such care; therefore, it was necessary to analyze the four requirements of Chandler. Specifically, did the services performed by this spouse in attending to the needs of the disabled nurse qualify as ‘other necessary medical attention’ within the meaning of Code § 65.2-603.

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

HR Tip: Gifts employees hate

A new survey of more than 1,000 employees by Snappy, the New York City-based employee engagement company, found that more than eight in ten U.S. employees have received a workplace gift-mostly from managers-that they didn’t want.

Here are some of their findings:

  • Think again if you plan to give a gift card. They’re considered transactional and impersonal and put a price tag on the employee’s value. It’s even worse if it’s to a store they don’t frequent.
  • Three in four workers would prefer to get a gift without their company logo on it. The gift is more about the company than the employee and they resent being walking billboards.
  • Pins and plaques are definitely a no-no.
  • Nine in ten workers who get a gift they don’t like will tell you they like it.
  • Some of the “best” gifts employers gave them included an espresso machine, a trip to Paris, an iPad and a television.
  • The gifts people are hoping to receive the most this year are a tech gadget (34%), a cool experience (28%), food/drink (25%), and apparel (13%).

To make gift giving effective, Snappy’s advice is:

  • Make it personal.
  • Make it meaningful.
  • Have fun and be creative. Don’t do the same boring thing year in and year out.

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

Early workplace injuries predictor of frequent filers

Workers injured in the first six months of their employment are more than twice as likely to have three or more lost-time injuries during their duration of employment than other workers, according to a recent study published in the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. For each year employed before the first lost-time injury, the probability of having three or more lost-time injuries decreased by 13%, according to the study.

The study included 7,609 lost-time claims at Johns Hopkins Health System and University from 1994 through 2017. The injuries occurred among 5,906 workers; 84% were health care workers, and the remainder were academic employees. Although only 49 workers (0.83%) had five or more claims, they accounted for 3.5% of claim costs, or $4.8 million. The workers in the study had an average length of employment of 15.7 years.

Other studies have shown that new employee risk of injury is higher than other workers. Earlier research from the Toronto-based Institute for Work & Health (IWH) found that employees in their first month on the job have more than three times the risk for a lost-time injury than workers who have been at their job for more than a year.

Neither study delved into the issue of “why.” Common speculation is that training and mentorship were inadequate or that hiring practices are the root of the problem. It makes sense because newness is the common thread. Workers performing unfamiliar tasks in a new work environment with less knowledge and awareness are at a more significant risk regardless of their age, according to the IWH.

Yet, assumptions should not be made and each company must analyze their own data. Begin by looking at the data on the injuries incurred in the first six months of employment. Was the hiring process rushed or inadequate in anyway? Was there a post-offer physical exam?

Assess the effectiveness of training and acclimation to the job. Were new workers given real-life practice, a clear message about safety, site-specific information, allowed to start in low-risk situations and advance to higher-risk work? While people learn differently, the more they can perform the work, the better they become.

Review the incident investigations to look for commonalities – location, department, job function/procedure, equipment and so on. How effective was the return-to-work experience?

How you intervene depends on what you learn. It may be that you need to shore up your training program, implement a mentorship approach, or alert the supervisor to provide additional oversight so the employee works more safely. If there are “red flags” such as the injured worker immediately hiring a lawyer, conflict with supervisor or other workers, insufficient detail about injury/accident, no witnesses, failure to keep medical appointments, and so on, you should consult your attorney. In most cases, the injuries of new employees are legitimate, but new employees with fraud “red flags” require special attention.

The message to employers is that there is an association between early employment injuries and risks for multiple injuries. Repeat claims are costly. A thorough analysis is an opportunity to develop preventive measures or cut loose a potential serial offender.

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