Legal Corner

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

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

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

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

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

Lunch break injury not compensable – Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unreasonable deviation from employment nixes benefits – New York

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Widow denied benefits for husband’s pancreatic cancer – Tennessee

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

Department-approved settlement not sufficient to compel treatment – Tennessee

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

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

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

Worker loses benefits for failure to attend FCE sessions – Virginia

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

Drivers failure to chock wheel nixes benefits – Virginia

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

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

Seven emerging risks and trends to watch

Often employers don’t give emerging trends the same importance as existing practices. Here are seven emerging trends to put on your radar screen:

  1. Temporary workersWhether it’s to meet peaks in demand, a screening process for temp-to-permanent employee, or to tap a unique skill or talent, temporary workers are a vital part of today’s workforce. They also present unique risks for employers. Temp workers are less likely to return to work following an injury and are almost three times as likely to suffer non-fatal occupational injuries than direct hire employees according to a study by University of Illinois at Chicago’s School of Public Health.

    Further, classification of workers as employees or independent contractors remains a thorny legal issue. Insurers are also scrutinizing classification of workers particularly in franchises, the gig economy, and trucking industry. Despite the administration change, OSHA remains committed to overseeing and enforcing temporary workers rights.

    Keeping temporary workers safe and understanding agency/employer responsibilities is a constant challenge. While there is a tendency to be laxer with temporary workers, they need to be vetted and trained as if they would be there permanently. Expectations need to be clearly communicated. Some employers have found “buddy systems” and visual identification effective.

  2. Medical and recreational marijuanaConflicting laws, inconsistent legal rulings, zero tolerance drug policies, differing opinions about the use of marijuana as a viable alternative to relieve chronic pain, and reimbursement issues make marijuana a hot-button headache for employers. Court decisions about reimbursement for medical marijuana have been all over the place. A handful of states have found, and continue to find, that it is reimbursable (CT, MN, NJ, NM, and NY).

    While many courts have ruled that employers with drug-free workplace policies can terminate an employee who tests positive for marijuana, Massachusetts companies cannot fire employees who have a prescription for medical marijuana simply because they use the drug, but must attempt to negotiate a mutually acceptable arrangement with each medical marijuana patient they employ.

    With a tight labor market, companies lament that too many applicants test positive for marijuana during pre-employment screening, causing some to relax the practice. Others grappling with marijuana look at job functions and do not hire someone in a safety-sensitive position if they have a medical marijuana card or prohibit certified users from performing certain safety-sensitive jobs while “under the influence” of medical marijuana. Post-accident drug testing is also challenging for employers as is modified duty for injured workers treating with medical marijuana.

    A new year is a good time to review your written drug policies, clearly communication expectations and company rules to all employees, and be sure supervisors know how to recognize signs of impairment. Employers are responsible for providing their employees a safe working environment and this is one of the more vexing areas. Don’t go it alone; consult with legal counsel and insurance carriers that can help navigate the complexity.

  3. Mental health and PTSDThe debate about mental health coverage under workers’ comp is not new, but continues to gain traction with rising incidents of workplace violence, PTSD, efforts to reduce the stigma associated with mental health, and general concern of stress in the workplace. Workers’ Comp compensability for mental-mental and mental-physical injuries, either by statute, regulation, and/or case law vary widely by state and many states are reexamining their statutes, particularly for first responders.

    Moreover, the effect of depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues on delayed return to work, increased claims costs, and workplace violence are being addressed in return to work efforts and employee assistance programs. Increasingly, mental health is also being incorporated into health and wellness programs.

  4. Ergonomics and wearablesA recent survey by Marsh Risk Consulting (MRC) found that companies are not doing enough to tackle emerging risks, including ergonomics and wearables. Ergonomics typically is one of the top three causes of workplace injuries, but advances in technology offer opportunities to manage and mitigate the risks. Wearables can measure body stresses and provide data, alerts and real-time monitoring to modify behavior and enable managers or other senior workers to make corrections before an injury occurs. They can also provide data for potential engineering and productivity improvements.

    While wearables are here to stay, they need to be integrated strategically. Some things to consider are how they complement existing safety efforts and culture, the cost-benefits, and the risks. Data privacy risks, ethical considerations, and liability exposures for employers all need to be considered when implementing programs using wearables. As with the introduction of any new technologies, employee acceptance is key.

  5. Robotic and human interactionAnother emerging risk needing more attention identified in the MRC survey is the rapid growth in collaborative and mobile autonomous robots that is increasing the threat of injury from human and robot interaction. Whereas robots used to work in isolation, technology has evolved so that many now work alongside humans. A common myth is that the collaborative robot is safe out of the box, yet the manufacturer does not control how it is programmed or used. Every collaborative robot system is unique and the risks must be assessed.

    In addition, employees may resist the introduction of such systems, particularly when they fear losing their job. Smart employers prepare employees for the future of work by systematically and intentionally reskilling and upskilling them.

  6. Alternatives for pain management and the opioid prescription drug crisis2018 was an active year for state legislation regarding prescription drugs in workers’ compensation and more is expected in 2019 to stem the opioid crisis. The industry has seen positive results and continues to seek new ways to address the problem.

    A Hartford survey on opioids in the workplace had troubling results. Over three-quarter of workers don’t feel trained to help colleagues navigate addiction, 64% of human resource professionals say they are unprepared to handle opioid addiction, and only 34% of workers feel the company has the resources to deal with the problem.

    Employers need to step up by educating employees about the risks of the misuse of opioids, identifying those at risk of misuse and getting appropriate help, assessing current workplace drug policies and scope of drug testing, and strengthening employee assistance programs. In addition, working to expand coverage of alternatives for pain management that offer a more holistic approach, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), mindfulness, physical and occupational therapy, relaxation training, and exercise will help employees gain confidence in their ability to manage their pain.

    Some employers use telemedicine to keep employees engaged with virtual face-to-face meetings between patients and psychologists. Medical marijuana may hold promise for the future, but science is too limited and it remains classified as a Schedule I drug under federal law. It behooves employers to stay abreast of new developments.

  7. Natural disastersThe country has seen its share of devastation this year and the recent dire report on climate change from the US Global Change Research Program suggests it will continue on an increasing scale. For those affected, the implications for workers’ comp are huge – expediting benefit payments and medical care to injured workers directly affected, workplace injuries during disaster recovery, and disruption of business operations. The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) states that when a natural disaster creates a temporary interruption of normal business activities, this can validate a change in an insured’s operations, and can prompt carriers to consider a change in governing classifications if the employer continues to pay its employees while they are unable to work.

    Businesses should always expect the unexpected. Staying ahead of risks during disasters requires an assessment of the unique risks that can potentially arise in your location and developing a comprehensive plan that addresses employees, infrastructure, and business continuity.

Employers that move beyond the familiar traditional issues and anticipate and address emerging risks become industry leaders.

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

 

The possibilities of telemedicine in workers’ comp

While more and more insurers are offering telehealth as part of their health plans, the highly regulated workers’ comp industry is just getting its feet wet. Telemedicine is the use of electronic communication technologies to provide medical services to injured workers without an in-person visit. This fast-paced, instant ability to connect with a medical professional can help a claim to start out right and stay on track. It can be utilized for a range of physician-led services, including initial injury treatment, specialty consultations and follow-up care.

There are several advantages:

  • Immediate attention to minor injuries
  • Fewer emergency room visits
  • More physician and specialist availability
  • Ideal for rural and remote areas
  • Removes transportation obstacles
  • Fewer missed appointments
  • “Stay-at-work” visits improve early return-to-work
  • Aid in management of chronic conditions
  • Initial assessment and evaluation for injuries when access to immediate medical care is limited, such as overnight shifts and remote travel
  • Lower costs

Yet, there are a number of barriers:

  • Employee uneasiness with receiving remote care from an unfamiliar provider
  • Physical examination limited
  • Jurisdictional and regulatory issues
  • Lack of physician fee schedules for telemedicine
  • Start-up technology costs
  • Cybersecurity threats
  • Lack of regulations and policies for licensing and privacy
  • Misdiagnosis

Telemedicine is designed to supplement, not replace, in-person care. For some injured workers, it may be a viable option. As this continues to take hold in workers’ comp, strategies to address the barriers are developing. The types of telemedicine services covered, provider requirements, and reimbursements vary across states and continue to evolve.

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

Legal Corner

ADA
EEOC settles suit with New York Con Ed for $800,000

New York City and Westchester County’s electricity and gas utility, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Inc., will pay $800,000 to resolve a disability discrimination suit under the ADA. The EEOC said Con Ed’s doctors violated the ADA by refusing to medically approve qualified applicants to begin employment because of their disabilities, even though they could perform the jobs for which they applied, and by performing medical exams of applicants without first giving them a conditional job offer. The EEOC said also the utility’s doctors imposed improper medical restrictions on some existing employees with disabilities that reduced their earnings and, in one case, led to termination.


Workers’ Compensation

Exclusive remedy bars health care worker from suing employer for patient attack – California

In Mendiola v. Crestwood Behavioral Health, a health care worker contended her employer did not inform staff about a patient who had a history of attacking women and had misrepresented her job duties. The court said that all of her claims, whether based on misrepresentation or concealment, were related to workplace safety and, thus, were covered by the exclusive remedy of workers’ comp.


Insurance companies can recoup benefits from third-party award – California

In Duncan v. WalMart Stores Inc., an employee of a marketing firm fell and injured herself while on business in WalMart. The marketing firm’s insurer, The Hartford, paid roughly $115,000 for medical care and $37,000 in indemnity benefits. The individual successfully sued WalMart and WalMart was ordered to pay her $355,000, which went toward reimbursing her for medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Then,The Hartford sought to take $152,000 from her award.

Her attorneys argued that she hadn’t been awarded wage-loss benefits, so The Hartford wasn’t entitled to take money to reimburse the indemnity benefits it had paid. However, the court followed the legal precedent that allows employers and carriers to seek reimbursement for their workers’ compensation expenses “totally separate and apart from the injured worker’s actions.” The court wrote that allowing insurance companies to recoup their expenses before workers get a chance to see the award is “consistent with the overall purpose of the workers’ compensation system” because of the quid pro quo the system is founded upon.


Exempt corporate officer of subcontractor cannot sue general contractor – Florida

In Gladden v. Fisher Thomas, Inc., an officer of a Florida corporation, who elected to be exempt from workers’ compensation coverage and who was hired by a subcontractor on a construction project, may not sue the general contractor and other subcontractors in tort for the serious injuries he sustained when he fell from the second floor. The trial court concluded the officer was an “employee” under the Workers’ Compensation Law at the time of the accident, notwithstanding his exemption. The defendants were, therefore, entitled to workers’ compensation immunity.

Upon appeal, the court noted that electing the corporate officer exemption did not remove the officer from the entire workers’ compensation scheme and open the door to actions in tort against individuals and entities who would otherwise be entitled to workers’ compensation immunity.


Standards for expert witness testimony in FELA same as personal injury cases – Georgia

In Smith v. CSX Transportation, the Court of Appeals ruled that the same statutory standard for evaluating the reliability of an expert witness applies in cases brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) as in any other personal injury case. An employee, who had filed workers’ comp cases for a back injury, a right knee injury and carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands over his 32-year career, filed suit against his company when he developed pain in his shoulders.

He claimed the company had violated the FELA by exposing him to “harmful repetitive motion, cumulative trauma, awkward work postures, vibration and other harmful conditions” that resulted in injuries to both shoulders. His claim was supported by a doctor whom the judge determined did not present reliable evidence.

The Georgia Court of Appeals said it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to exclude the doctor’s testimony from evidence. Although FELA relaxes the standard of causation that would otherwise apply in personal injury cases, the court said that doesn’t mean the standard for evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony is similarly relaxed.


Second Injury Fund shares in the liability for back injury – Missouri

In Barnes v. Treasurer, an employee of an airport parking and shuttle company injured his back in 2009 and returned to work without restrictions. He asked to receive additional care, but was refused and began seeing a chiropractor and neurosurgeon, who recommended surgery. When the company refused to pay, he went through his private insurance, but only received authorization for one-level fusion, even though the doctor had recommended a two-level fusion. Following the surgery, the doctor imposed strict limits on his activity and the company eventually terminated him and he has not worked since.

This was not the first time he had injured his back; in 2000, at another employer, he suffered a back injury in a motor vehicle accident. There were two experts who opined that the permanent and total disability was a result of the last work injury, and there was one expert who opined that at least some of the disability was attributable to the 2000 accident. While a judge ruled that the company was liable for 100% of the costs, the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission disagreed, finding he was disabled by the combined effect of his pre-existing disabilities and the 2009 back injury.


Benefits allowed for staph infection related to epidural injections for lumbar injury – Mississippi

In Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC v. Scott, an appellate court noted weighing of the evidence, including expert testimony, was the responsibility of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The Commission had given greater weight to the testimony of the employee’s medical expert who opined that, more likely than not, the worker’s staph infection was causally connected to epidural injections the worker received as treatment for a work-related back injury, and, thus, the decision to award benefits will stand.


Standards for evaluating appropriateness of vocational rehabilitation plans set by high court – Nebraska

In Anderson v. EMCOR Group, an injured employee had reached maximum medical improvement and was entitled to a vocational rehabilitation evaluation. The counselor determined that the company had no jobs appropriate for the worker and an Internet search of appropriate jobs revealed a much lower pay scale. The counselor, therefore, recommended a vocational training program. The Workers’ Compensation Court ordered the implementation of the plan, the company appealed, and the case ended up in the Supreme Court.

The Court noted that the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act is the restoration of an injured employee to gainful employment, although, it acknowledged it has never defined what it means to restore a worker to suitable or gainful employment. Having cited Alabama case law in previous decisions, the Court adopted the definitions used in Alabama, which provide that “restore” means “to put back.” Since the plan was geared toward putting the injured worker back to employment paying wages similar to those earned prior to the injury and in a field that would be compatible with his age, education and aptitude, the Supreme Court said approval of the plan was not “clearly wrong.”


Worker with PTSD entitled to further disability – New York

In the Matter of Perez v. SN Gold Corp, an employee of a jewelry manufacturer was robbed at gunpoint. It was found he was entitled to PTSD benefits. Later, a WC judge and The Workers’ Compensation Board found the employee had a further causally related disability. The company appealed, but the court found substantial evidence to support the finding and noted it found no error in the exclusion of the independent medical examiner’s report at the proceedings because the company had failed to comply with the law, which required that a copy of an IME report be provided to a worker’s treating doctor on the same day that the worker, the board and the employer’s insurance carrier receive it.


Property owner and general contractor liable for fall from scaffold – New York

In Yaucan v. Hawthorne Village, a New York appellate court ruled that a property owner and general contractor were liable under Labor Law Section 240(1) for a construction worker’s fall from a scaffold, and that they were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the worker’s Section 241(6) claim. The injured employee who fell from the third floor claimed the scaffolding shifted when it was hit by a large piece of material and, although he wore a safety harness and lifeline, it was too long to stop him from hitting the ground. The court said the employee was entitled to summary judgment on his Section 240(1) claim, since he established that he was not provided with adequate safety equipment to prevent him from falling and it was the owners and general contractor’s duty to provide the safety devices necessary to protect workers from the risks inherent in elevated work sites.


Time limits for filing claims against guaranty fund upheld – North Carolina

In Booth v. Hackney Acquisition Co., an employee who died from lung cancer in 2008 worked for a company whose Workers’ Comp carrier was declared insolvent in 2003. His widow asserted the cancer was caused by his exposure to welding rod fumes during the course of his employment and filed a claim with the Insurance Guaranty Association. There are two sections of the statute that set time limits for such claims, but the widow contended the statutes violate principles of due process and equal protection for workers with occupational diseases that do not manifest within the time limits. The Court of Appeals, however, found both sections constitutionally valid, since they further the state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the guaranty fund.


Ambulatory surgery centers subject to same fee schedules as hospitals – North Carolina

The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASC) are not separate and legally distinct from hospitals, overturning a Wake County Superior Court decision that invalidated a new Medicare-based fee schedule for ASCs.


Employer who alleged violation of safety rules led to fatality must pay benefits to widow – Pennsylvania

In M.A. Beech Corp. v. WCAB (Mann), a bridge inspector suffered a fatal injury when he was pinned between an aerial lift and the beam of an overpass. While the company contended that the use of the lift had been a violation of the company’s safety rules, lower courts awarded benefits to the injured employee’s widow.

Upon appeal, the Commonwealth Court noted a company that relies on an alleged violation of safety rules must prove that the worker’s injury was caused by the violation of the rule, that the worker knew of the rule, and that the worker was engaged in an activity that was wholly foreign to his employment. The court did not find sufficient evidence that a safety rule was violated and also noted it was appropriate to grant benefits to the widow, since her husband was attempting to perform his duties as an inspector at the time of his fatal accident.


Widow receives benefits for unknown occupational exposure – Tennessee

The Supreme Court’s Workers’ Compensation Panel upheld an award of death benefits to a steelworker’s widow whose husband went to Stockertown, Pennsylvania, to work on an installation project at a cement plant and suddenly became very ill. Although he sought treatment at a walk-in clinic, his condition deteriorated and he was hospitalized and went into a coma. Doctors suspected he had pneumonia and septic shock, a serious infection that affects organ function and transferred him to another hospital, but en route he had a heart attack. He died a month later.

The widow petitioned for death benefits, arguing her husband had inhaled something on the job that caused his sudden decline and the treating physicians supported her argument. The trial court ruled, and the Supreme Court of Tennessee Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel upheld in the widow’s favor.

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

OSHA watch

Deadline for electronic injury, illness reports was Dec. 31, next date is Jul 1, 2018

OSHA delayed the OSHA 300A upload compliance date until Dec. 31, 2017 for employers to electronically submit injury and illness data for 2016 calendar year. However, OSHA will require 2017 Injury Data to be reported by July 1st, 2018.

If you want to be able to more easily and efficiently manage reporting work related injuries and OSHA recordables, please feel free to look at our Free OSHA Software at http://www.stopbeingfrustrated.com/osha-logs.html

Crane operator certification requirements delayed until 2018

As expected, the crane operator certification requirements were delayed by one year, when a final rule was published in the Nov. 9 Federal Register – just one day before the regulation was set to go into effect. “The agency intends to propose removing the capacity component of certification,” according to the Federal Register notice.


New fact sheets available on protecting workers in the shipyard and maritime industries

Four new fact sheets on protecting workers from common hazards found in the shipyard and maritime industries are available:

Enforcement notes

California

  • Six employers cited over $240,000 for exposing workers to Valley Fever on a solar project construction site in Monterey County. General contractor and subcontractors McCarthy Building Cos. Inc., Papich Construction Co. Inc., Granite Construction Co. Inc., Sachs Electric Co., Dudek, and Althouse and Meade Inc. were cited.

Florida

  • Tampa Electric Co. faces over $28,000 in fines for exposing workers to a hazardous release of a chemical refrigerant. Citations were also issued to Largo-based security services provider Critical Intervention Services, for not developing or implementing a written hazard communication program and failing to provide information and training on hazardous chemicals in the workplace. The company faces $25,350 in proposed penalties.

Georgia

  • Buford-based auto parts manufacturer, Elringklinger USA Inc., was cited for exposing workers to electrical, fall, and noise hazards and faces fines of $308,906. The investigation followed two incidents, one involving an amputation of an index finger. Citations included failing to install machine guarding, preventing unauthorized employees from performing tasks that require the control of electrical hazards, and protecting workers from excessive noise exposure.

Indiana

  • A 59-year-old worker was killed at the Amazon warehouse in Plainfield, when his head was crushed by a forklift. In its four-charge complaint, the Indiana DOL cited failure to train employees on lock-out tag-out procedures, as well as failure to follow those procedures and fined Amazon $28,000.

Massachusetts

  • Lynnway Auto Auction Inc. faces fines of $267,081 for electrical, struck-by, and other hazards at its auto auction facility in Billerica. Five people were struck by a sport utility vehicle and died as a result of their injuries. Inspectors also conducted a joint employer inspection, and determined that temporary workers from TrueBlue Inc. – doing business as PeopleReady – were also exposed to struck-by hazards. The agency cited the Dover, New Hampshire, staffing firm for one serious violation for a struck-by hazard, and proposed a penalty totaling $12,675.

Mississippi

  • New Albany-based Custom Nonwoven Inc., a subsidiary of Korea Synthetic Fiber, faces penalties of $220,544 for willfully exposing its workers to unguarded machines, electrocution, and burns from exposed electrical wires and control cabinets, and falls from walkways that were not equipped with guardrails.

Missouri

  • Anderson Foot and Ankle Clinic, a Rolla-based podiatry clinic, was cited for potentially exposing employees to infectious materials, and for violations of the hazard communication standard and faces penalties totaling $93,074.

Nebraska

  • A Dorchester-based Farmers Cooperative faces $373,911 in proposed penalties for failing to protect workers from grain bin entrapment and engulfment hazards. The cooperative was cited for two willful, one repeat, and four serious safety violations of the agency’s grain handling standards.
  • Bimbo Bakeries USA faces $122,625 in proposed penalties for exposing workers to multiple hazards at its Bellevue commercial bakery. Investigators cited the bakery for three repeat and three serious violations including lack of machine guarding, failing to provide fall protection, and using a damaged electrical panel box.

New York

  • Trade Fair Supermarkets faces $505,929 in proposed penalties for exposing employees to safety and health hazards at three of its locations in Queens. Inspectors found blocked exit routes, saw blades without safety guards, and a lack of eyewash stations needed in the event of exposure to corrosive substances. The company also failed to train employees on, and provide safety data sheets for, hazardous chemicals used in the stores.

Wisconsin

  • Didion Milling Inc., a corn milling facility faces over $1.8 million in penalties following a fatal grain dust explosion that killed five workers and injured 12 others. Inspectors found that the explosion likely resulted from Didion’s failures to correct the leakage and accumulation of highly combustible grain dust throughout the facility and to properly maintain equipment to control ignition sources. Cited for 14 willful violations, the company was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

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

HR Tip: Important information about Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements (MSA)

MedLearn article reissued

On November 8, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reissued this MedLearn article to clarify information. Initially, SE17019 was issued on 09/19/17 and addressed acceptance of payment for services from a patient’s Liability Insurance Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (LMSA), No-Fault Insurance Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (NFMSA), or Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA).

The revised MedLearn article now generally references Medicare Set-Asides (MSAs); there is no longer any specific reference to a WCMSA, LMSA, or NFMSA; instead, the term “Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (MSA)” is utilized. However, the article does not limit the discussion to WCMSAs, even though a formal review process only exists for WCMSAs and goes on further to let providers know that Medicare is always secondary to liability, no-fault, and workers’ compensation insurance.


Opioid reserves in Medicare set-asides excessive

While the workers’ comp industry has made significant strides in reducing unnecessary opioid use, it is not the case with MSA’s according to new report from the California Workers’ Compensation Institute. A startling 70% of closed workers’ compensation claims in California include cash for future pain prescriptions, requiring funding for decades of opioid use, according to researchers. They also found the prescriptions were often at dangerously high dosage levels and written in conjunction with other high-risk drugs.

Although the report was based on California data, researchers have no reason to believe this problem is any different in any other state. With little oversight, the federal program allows comp claims to close with cash set aside to pay for future drugs and is clearly a matter the industry and government must address.

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

13 point claims annual checkup

The beginning of the year is a good time to take a step back and look at your Workers’ Compensation program to assess strengths and weaknesses. A key aspect of a successful program is proactive management of claims. Every $1 in claim costs represents $2 or $3 in premium costs. Here are 13 points to evaluate:

  1. How quickly are claims reported?Reporting sets everything in motion – medical treatment, incident investigation, recovery at work, and so on. If claims are not reported quickly – within 24 hours or less – return to work is delayed and the cost of the claim and potential for litigation increase.
  2. When a claim is first reported and while it is open, do you provide relevant information about the injured employee to the adjuster?The more information an adjuster has, the more efficiently a claim can be managed. Information on job description, co-morbidities, recovery at work options, prior workers’ comp claims, workplace disputes, and so on will expedite the process. In addition, any changes that occur need to be immediately reported to the adjuster. For example, if you are contacted by an attorney, when the employee returns to work, the employee is not cooperative about recovery at work, or there is a change in medical information or providers.
  3. What is the relationship with the claims adjuster(s)?Regardless of company size, employers who take a hands-off approach and do not properly monitor claim adjusters will likely experience higher claim costs. Workloads are heavy and mistakes do happen. Having a designated adjuster who can work collaboratively with your staff will increase the efficiency of claims management and expedite closure.
  4. How many claims involve lost time?Lost time claims are the most expensive workers’ compensation claims and have the greatest impact on an employer’s premium. Countrywide, roughly 25% of all claims are lost time cases. You want to do better. Taking the time to analyze the claims and assess trends will help you focus your loss control efforts on the underlying issues.
  5. How often are open claims and reserves reviewed?It’s common sense that the longer a claim is open, the more it is going to cost. Excessive time lags in care or claim duration is a red flag that a case is spiraling out of control. Today, claims are more complex, often involving co-morbidities, narcotic drugs, an aging workforce, and expensive medications. Do claims ultimately close within 10 – 15% of the reserved amount? At a minimum, open claims and reserves should be reviewed quarterly.
  6. How are legacy claims managed?Lost time claims can be active for years and if not aggressively managed, the cumulative costs will continue to grow. Are they forgotten? Has any effort been made to contact the employee and explain why it is in their best interest to settle?
  7. How many claims are litigated?There is no question that litigation leads to increased claims costs and often times leads to a worse medical outcome for the injured worker. A 5% litigation rate is very good, 10-15% is good, and anything over 20% should be considered a red flag warranting further analysis. Litigation can start because the injured worker is afraid. Fear of the unknown. Fear for the job. Fear about their injury. Take the time to explain things to injured workers. An advocacy-based model can help (see next question).
  8. Have you moved to an advocacy-based approach to claims?An employee’s perception that an employer doesn’t take the employee’s concerns seriously will escalate a claim and increase the length of a disability. Advocacy-based claims models emerged as “buzz” in the industry in 2016. At its core is a focus on people. It’s treating your injured employee like a customer – helping them every step of the way and advocating for them when bumps occur. Here’s how:
    • Change the script. Don’t focus on how the claim will be investigated or all the insurance jargon. Begin with empathy, concern, compassion, and how you will help them through the process.
    • Designate someone to contact the worker on a regular basis. Don’t rely on the insurance company to be the prime contact; designate a supervisor, risk manager, or HR representative to maintain contact throughout the claim process. Monitor how often the contact occurs.
    • Make medical care easy. Having the support of occupational doctors and therapists and a triage nurse, who share the same objective of improving the injured employee’s health for a recovery at work, eases the process.
    • Don’t have a blanket approach. While one employee may respond well to several texts or phone calls in a week, another may find it disturbing and feel the employer does not trust them. Find a balance that works and set the right tone for maintaining communication.
    • Engage in the recovery at work conversation early. Be sure the employee and the treating physician know the options available and that the supervisor is on board. Involve the employee in the process – find out what they are comfortable with and what they worry about.
  9. Are payments to injured workers sent on an accurate and timely basis?Injured workers who aren’t paid in a timely fashion are fodder for eager attorneys. Designate someone to advocate for them and get it resolved.
  10. How effective are your medical cost controls?While state statutes differ with respect to the extent to which employers can direct injured workers to certain medical providers, the medical management of a workers’ comp claim is essential to reducing costs. Evaluate your relationships with medical providers and medical bill review processes to be sure they are working for you and your injured employee. Monitor the medical progress reports to be sure the treatment is appropriate and be wary of physician dispensing.
  11. How many emergency room visits did you pay for?Treatment at an emergency room is not only one of the most expensive places to get medical care, but also likely to derail a rapid return to work. While often used for convenience, it should be a last resort and used for critical, emergency situations only.
  12. Do you investigate potentially fraudulent claims?While only a small percentage of claims are fraudulent, they do occur. It doesn’t have to be costly surveillance; often times social media activity will tip off employers that something is amiss.
  13. Have subrogation opportunities been identified and pursued?Subrogation is the right to recover Workers’ Compensation benefits paid to the employee because of the negligence of another person or entity. While subrogation laws vary by state, there are common occurrences that should be on the radar screen for potential third-party liability. These include: automobile accidents, slips and falls due to defective premises, defects in machinery or other products, or involvement of dangerous chemicals or other substances. While the process can be complicated and expensive and often the decision to subrogate is in the hands of the insurance company, it behooves employers to immediately notify agents and insurance carriers of the involvement of a negligent third party.

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

What employers should expect from an insurance agent

My fellow Institute of WorkComp Professionals educator wrote this article to summarize items that an employer should expect from their insurance agent when it comes to helping the employer to manage their workers compensation insurance program.

By Kevin Ring
Institute of Work Comp Professionals
Editor’s note: Kevin Ring, CWCA, CWCA, MWCA, is Lead Analyst at Institute of WorkComp Professionals, Asheville, NC of which we are a member. It trains and certifies independent insurance agents and their support staff to navigate the complicated workers’ compensation system and act as advocates operating between employers and their insurance companies.
Most workers’ compensation discussions focus on the roles of four active players: injured worker, physician, employer, and insurance company. But what about the insurance agent? Far too often, agents step into the background. There is something wrong with this picture. Workers’ compensation is one coverage area in which insurance agents can effectively demonstrate their value.

Here’s how we work to make a difference for the employers we serve:

Ensure the employee classifications are correct
With an average of 500 to 600 available job classifications, it’s easy for mistakes to occur. For example, a clerical employee (low workers’ comp rate) can be misclassified into one with a higher rate, which increases the cost. This is just one; many others can occur.

In fact, it’s even easier for mistakes to perpetuate themselves. An insurance agent calls on a prospect and asks to submit a quote and the owner agrees, thinking it’s a good idea to shop around. To get the necessary information, the agent asks to see the existing policy, copies the information, and goes back to the office to prepare the quote. If there are mistakes, they keep showing up.

Who is responsible for finding mistakes and correcting them so the employer only pays what is owed? Frankly, it’s the insurance agent who has the account. We’re trained how to find and correct mistakes so employers are not exposed and pay more than necessary.
Help employers develop a physician relationship
When it comes to reducing workers’ comp costs, particularly medical expenses, the importance of employers having a relationship with physicians with work-related injury and illnesses expertise cannot be overstated.

Too often, when an injury occurs, injured employees are sent to their personal doctor, an emergency room, or a nearby walk-in clinic. This can lead to higher costs, delayed return to work, and an increase in the experience mod, which lasts for three years.

If this is to change, it starts with having the right physician relationship. We can help an employer identify physicians with expertise in occupational medicine, go with the employer to interview doctors, develop options for alternate duty, help make sure the selected physician understands the business, the types of work performed, and any other employer expectations so that the physician is prepared when injuries occur.

 

Help an employer develop a process of what to do when employees are injured
What happens when an employee suffers an injury? Depending on the extent of the injury, in many cases employees are sent home and told to take it easy for the day, go to their own doctor, to the emergency room, or walk-in clinic. When you think about it, this is the only time employers give workers a blank check and tell them to go where they please without vetting the vendor.

It’s not good business because the employer has no control over the quality, cost, or outcome of the service. To change this, our task is to help the employer create a process that assures injured employees will receive proper care so they can return to the job as soon as appropriate.

Such a process may come as a surprise to employers who assume the insurance company is in charge. Actually, it’s more like opening the door and letting the fox in the hen house. Since employers are writing the check for their workers’ comp, they need to take charge of the process.
Analyze data to understand and foresee injuries
There’s a wealth of information in workers’ comp loss run reports, as well as OSHA reporting forms. Proactive agents work with employers to identify problem areas, which are often indicators that a larger, costly injury will occur, if changes are not made.
Serve as an effective conduit between the employer and the insurance company
When it comes to insurance, most employers are ill-equipped to have informed conversations with insurance companies. So, they reach out to their insurance agent when there’s a problem.

Today, insurance companies are all about reducing risks. It’s the agent’s role to position the employer in the best possible light with the insurance company to ensure competitive pricing and policy offerings.

Since the insurance agent knows both the employer and the carrier, it’s the agent who is best able to serve as the intermediary between the employer and the insurance company.
Help employers understand the technical nature of insurance language
Like the law, words have meaning in insurance. No one can feel comfortable with insurance unless they learn its language. Therefore, employers immediately file away insurance policies without even looking at them. They drag them out only when there’s a loss.

It doesn’t take a cynic to suggest that some insurance agents may like it this way. It gives them more control. But we recognize that a “secret language” is a barrier in the client relationship. It’s also an opportunity to help employers understand insurance by communicating its complexities simply and clearly. And, it’s worthwhile. No employer wants to be blindsided because they didn’t understand something, particularly when high costs are involved.
Help employers prepare for the workers’ comp premium audit so they pay only what they owe
Employers tend to view a workers’ comp audit as a minor inconvenience. The big question can be where to put the auditor. All of which suggests the annual audit is a low involvement event.

Now, compare this with an IRS audit, when all the stops are pulled out weeks in advance, and carefully choreographed by the accounting firm. No responsible business owner would go into an IRS audit the way most approach a workers’ comp audit that involves substantial sums of money.

It’s in an employer’s best interest to expect the insurance agent to help them prepare for a workers’ comp audit, particularly since auditors work for the insurance company. The agent understands the insurance language and knows the rules. During the weeks leading up to an audit, the agent can review the payroll records, check for incorrect job classifications, determine whether severance pay is excluded from comp, among others. If they find mistakes, they can correct them before the audit takes place.
Review information on employee injuries prior to the “magic moment”
This is the date the insurance company reports the employer’s information to the rating bureau for inclusion on the experience mod. It occurs 18 months from the inception of the account and every 12 months thereafter. Here’s what the report includes:

  • What has been paid thus far on employee injuries
  • What the insurance company has “reserved” (the estimated funds needed to ultimately resolve an employee injury.)

It’s important to review this data carefully. For example, if the reserves are higher than they should be, the employer’s experience mod will go up, which increases the company’s workers’ comp expense. Higher mods can render a business less competitive or, in the case of construction firms, ineligible to bid on certain jobs. The goal is also to make sure cases are not opened that should be closed, and that the reserves are relatively accurate.
Help the employer build a “recovery-at-work” program, so injured employees can be at work, rather than sitting at home
This is also known as “light duty,” “transitional duty,” or “return-to-work.” However, the term recovery-at-work more accurately describes what should happen and lets the injured worker know what to expect.

The recovery-at-work model sends injured employees the message that they are both valued and they can still be productive. Aided by transitional duty job descriptions, the physician can determine if the employee can return to work, along with job restrictions.

If the injured worker is back to work before lost time wage benefits begin, there is less negative impact on the experience mod. This can be a significant cost savings since the average lost time claim in 2016 was $53,000. But it’s also true that injured employees recover faster if they are at work.

Some managers still say, “Give me a whole man or no man.” But, happily more recognize the value of recovery-at-work. The insurance agent can help employers make it work best by identifying appropriate work activities based on physician restrictions, if any.

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

EEOC ordered to reconsider wellness rules

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) rules about the fees employers can assess workers who do not participate in wellness programs were ruled arbitrary by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Aug. 22. Rather than vacate the rules, the court sent them back to the agency for redrafting. The court’s decision does not vacate the EEOC rules and employers are obligated to comply with existing rules, but should be alert to future changes.


Work conditions ‘unpleasant, potentially hazardous’ for more than half of Americans: study

Nearly 55 percent of American workers claim they encounter “unpleasant and potentially hazardous” conditions on the job, according to a study from nonprofit research institute RAND Corp., Harvard Medical School, and the University of California, Los Angeles. Nearly 1 in 5 workers reported exposure to a “hostile or threatening social environment at work” and 1 in 4 said they do not have enough time to complete job tasks.


National survey on fatigue indicates it is a hidden, but potentially deadly workplace epidemic

Some 43 percent of Americans say they do not get enough sleep to mitigate critical risks that can jeopardize safety at work and on the roads, including the ability to think clearly, make informed decisions, and be productive, according to a new National Safety Council survey-based report, Fatigue in the Workplace: Causes & Consequences of Employee Fatigue. An estimated 13 percent of workplace injuries could be attributed to fatigue.


CDC launches website on worker wellness programs

To help employers start or expand employee health promotion programs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has created the Workplace Health Resource Center website.


New app from NIOSH: Lifting Equation Calculator

In an effort to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders, NIOSH has released a mobile app based on the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation, an internationally recognized standard for safe manual lifting.


Updated ergo guide from NIOSH offers strategies for preventing MSDs

The NIOSH Musculoskeletal Disorders Research Program has updated its guidance document on the formation and function of ergonomics programs. Intended for both workers and employers, it provides strategies for identifying and correcting ergonomic hazards, as well as references, forms and questionnaires.


Guide offers best practices for safely using bleach to clean and sanitize

A new safety guide published by the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Occupational and Environmental Medicine Division offers best practices for workers exposed to bleach, including janitors, housekeepers, environmental engineers, and hospital, restaurant, maintenance and agricultural workers.


FMCSA, FRA withdraw rulemaking on sleep apnea

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration have withdrawn an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on obstructive sleep apnea. “The agencies … believe that current safety programs and FRA’s rulemaking addressing fatigue risk management are the appropriate avenues to address OSA,” FMCSA and FRA stated in a notice published in the Aug. 4 Federal Register.


Operation Safe Driver Week set for mid-October

Law enforcement officers are expected to keep a particularly sharp eye on the roads Oct. 15-21 during the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s Operation Safe Driver Week. Officers will be looking for commercial motor vehicle and passenger vehicle drivers engaging in dangerous behaviors such as speeding, texting, following too closely and not wearing seat belts.


Opioids updates

  • One in 12 US physicians received a payment involving an opioid during a 29-month study of pharmaceutical industry influences on opioid prescribing, according to researchers who will publish their findings in September’s American Journal of Public Health. During the study, 375,266 non-research opioid-related payments were made to 68,177 physicians, totaling $46,158,388.
  • A study from the Worker’s Compensation Research Institute examines the prevalence and trends of longer-term dispensing of opioids in 26 state workers’ compensation systems. It also documents how often the services (i.e., drug testing, psychological evaluation, and treatment, etc.) recommended by treatment guidelines were used for managing chronic opioid therapy.

Study casts doubts on effectiveness of marijuana in combatting chronic pain

Research funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was published on the Annals of Internal Medicine website. Limited evidence suggests that cannabis may alleviate neuropathic pain in some patients, but insufficient evidence exists for other types of chronic pain. There was also sufficient evidence to conclude that cannabis use among the general population probably increased the risk of car accidents, psychotic symptoms, and short-term cognitive impairment. It was noted more research is needed.

CSB releases animated video on Louisiana refinery fire

The Chemical Safety Board has released an animated video that examines the cause of last year’s ExxonMobil refinery fire, which severely burned four workers in Baton Rouge, LA.

State News

California

  • New regulations aimed at preventing incidents such as the 2012 Chevron Corp. fire at oil refineries will take effect Oct. 1.
  • Ratings bureau proposes small workers’ comp premium increase for 2018.
  • Workers’ comp bill safeguarding pregnant women put on hold.

Florida

  • NCCI recommends comp premium decrease of 9.6% effective Jan. 1, 2018.

Illinois

  • The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) recommends a 10.9% workers’ compensation premium rate decrease for Illinois.
  • Governor vetoes state-funded comp insurance plan.

Minnesota

  • Effective August 1, patients with post-traumatic stress disorder can purchase medical marijuana.
  • Department of Labor and Industry adopted the final rule from the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration about walking-working surfaces and personal fall-protection systems.

New York

  • Employers should prepare to comply with the Paid Family Leave that goes into effect Jan. 1, 2018.

Pennsylvania

  • The Compensation Rating Bureau filed an emergency 6.06% loss cost increase in the wake of a state Supreme Court decision that blocks impairment rating evaluations.

 

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

Things you should know

Return to work more likely with less-invasive back surgery

A recent study of 364 Ohio workers diagnosed with degenerative spinal stenosis who underwent back surgery found that those who underwent primary decompression, a surgical procedure to alleviate pain caused by pinched nerves, had higher return to work rates than those who had the more-invasive, more-expensive fusion surgery. The study was published in July’s Spine medical journal.


Ohio adopts rule requiring initial conservative back treatment

The Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation’s new spinal fusion rule requires workers to first undergo at least 60 days of comprehensive conservative care, such as physical therapy, chiropractic care and rest, anti-inflammatories, ice and other non-surgical treatments before lumbar surgery. Conditions that require immediate intervention, such as spinal fractures, tumors, infections and functional neurological deficits, are exceptions to the rule.

DOL will again issue opinion letters on FMLA, FLSA and other laws

The U.S. Department of Labor will again issue opinion letters to assist employers and employees in interpreting laws like the FMLA and Fair Labor Standards Act. The DOL has established a new webpage to submit requests for opinion letters and to review old opinion letters.

New I-9s must be used beginning Sept. 18, 2017

USCIS released a revised version of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, on July 17. Employers can use this revised version or continue using Form I-9 with a revision date of 11/14/16 N through Sept. 17. On Sept. 18, employers must use the revised form with a revision date of 07/17/17 N. Employers must continue following existing storage and retention rules for any previously completed Form I-9. Changes to the form are considered minor.

Free safe driving kit from National Safety Council

The Safe Driving Kit, sponsored by Wheels, Inc., aims to create safer roads and protect employees through multi-media resources and engaging materials. The kit addresses the key contributors to car crashes, including distraction, alcohol, other drugs, fatigue and seatbelt use. It also brings attention to lifesaving technology that helps prevent crashes.

Workers’ comp making more progress in reducing opioid prescriptions

According to research released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the average days’ supply per opioid prescription increased from 13 days in 2006 to almost 18 days in 2015. Meanwhile, nearly half of the states included in a study of opioid prescribing in workers’ compensation cases have seen reductions in the frequency and strength of opioids given to injured workers, according to a study released in June by the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Workers Compensation Research Institute.

More than 1,000 unsafe CMVs pulled from service during ‘Operation Airbrake’

Brake violations prompted the removal of 1,146 commercial motor vehicles from service as part of a recent unannounced, single-day inspection blitz across the United States and Canada on May 3. According to the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), 12 percent of CMVs inspected were taken out of service for brake violations, and 21 percent were removed for other violations.

More than half of workers aren’t trained on first aid, CPR: survey

About 10,000 cardiac arrest situations occur in the workplace each year, yet only 45 percent of U.S. employees have been trained in first aid – and only 50 percent of workers know where to find an automated external defibrillator – according to the results of a survey recently conducted by the American Heart Association.

‘Sleeping in’ on weekends may be bad for your health: study

Going to bed later and waking up later on weekends than during the week – also known as social jet lag – may be linked to poor health and higher levels of sleepiness and fatigue, according to the preliminary results of a study conducted by researchers at the University of Arizona. Results showed each hour of social jet lag was linked to an 11.1 percent increase in the chances of developing heart disease. In addition, participants who experienced social jet lag were 28.3 percent more likely to report their health as “fair/poor.” The study abstract was published in an online supplement to the journal Sleep.

Safety measures lacking on plastic injection molding machines, peripheral equipment: study

Factories with plastic injection molding machines that interact with peripheral equipment – such as robots or conveyors – could do more to improve safety, Canadian scientific research organization IRSST concluded in a recent study. The study was published in May along with a technical guide.

State news

New rule requires preauthorization of all compounds, regardless of price – Florida

  • To clear up a “misunderstanding” among stakeholders, the Florida Division of Workers’ Compensation has clarified that all compounded drugs, regardless of cost, are now subject to preauthorization.

Legislators pass budget without workers’ comp reform – Illinois

  • While the state faces one of the highest workers’ compensation insurance rates in the country, legislators were unable to reach a consensus on reforms.

Prescription drug monitoring program implemented – Missouri

  • Missouri was the only state that lacked a prescription drug-monitoring program prior to last month when the governor signed an executive order directing the Department of Health and Senior Services to create a prescription drug-monitoring program.

Workers’ comp rules tightened – Missouri

  • The new legislation redefines “maximum medical improvement (MMI)” as the point when the condition of an injured employee can no longer improve, and bans any claims for benefits beyond that time period. It also puts more emphasis on the employee proving an employer discriminated against them after they filed a workers’ compensation case.

4.5% decrease in workers’ comp for businesses – New York

  • The New York Department of Financial Services has approved the 4.5% workers compensation premium rate decrease recommended by the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board effective Oct. 1.

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