Things you should know

EEOC issues FY 2018 Performance Report

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

Non-fatal injuries and illnesses decline – BLS report

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

Recreational and medicinal marijuana – midterm results

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

Crashes up in states with legalized marijuana

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

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

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

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

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

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

State News

California

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

Florida

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

Illinois

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

Massachusetts

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

Minnesota

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

North Carolina

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

Tennessee

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

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

Legal Corner

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

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

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

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

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

Lunch break injury not compensable – Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unreasonable deviation from employment nixes benefits – New York

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Widow denied benefits for husband’s pancreatic cancer – Tennessee

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

Department-approved settlement not sufficient to compel treatment – Tennessee

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

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

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

Worker loses benefits for failure to attend FCE sessions – Virginia

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

Drivers failure to chock wheel nixes benefits – Virginia

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

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

OSHA watch

Final rule on crane operator certifications issued

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

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

New publication on lockout/tagout and temporary workers

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

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

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

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

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

Enforcement notes

California

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

Florida

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

Georgia

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

Massachusetts

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

Nebraska

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

For more information.

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

HR Tip: Are you still doing annual performance reviews?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Seven actions to improve existing work comp practices and boost employee engagement in 2019

There’s been a lot of good news about workers’ comp in the past few years. In most states rates have declined, employers are reporting fewer claims and workplaces continue to be safer. Becoming complacent is tempting but there are trouble spots and emerging risks, and historically rates are cyclical. It makes sense to have an eye on the future.

Further, 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.

Here are seven actions to consider for 2019:

  1. Analyze your risks and exposuresSuccessful businesses continually evolve. Changes to business operations, automated work processes, new technologies, growing number of telecommuters, more temporary employees, mergers and acquisitions, and other factors affect the company’s risk profile. While there’s invaluable information in workers’ comp loss run reports, as well as OSHA reporting forms, it’s also important to evaluate leading indicators, such as training, near miss reporting, employee engagement in safety, and equipment maintenance and upgrades. Savvy employers focus on emerging trends and threats, identifying what incidents happen often and which ones are severe, assessing new exposures, evaluating what works, and proactively preventing incidents.

    This process not only helps to determine where resources are needed to reduce injuries and keep employees safer, it also enables employers to work more efficiently and strategically position themselves with insurance companies. With robust data and an accurate picture of exposures, companies can present themselves in the best light and differentiate their risk profile. It’s not only about getting the best rate today, but positioning for the future.

  2. Strengthen the personal connection in claims managementTrust is a key factor in avoiding litigation and achieving a successful claims outcome. Language and cultural barriers, as well as unconscious bias, can lead to unintended miscommunications and failure to manage expectations, which causes claims to spiral out of control. It goes beyond translation, which alone can be difficult when medical language is involved. The claims manager should guide the process, identify and overcome barriers, advocate, and build trust. Advocacy-based claims management yields positive results.

    No two injured employees are the same. Good diversity training that accounts for cultural, demographic, and gender variations helps identify the nuances of managing the injury. Travelers started a Cultural Advantage program four years ago, which connects injured workers with claims and case professionals of similar backgrounds to help alleviate misunderstandings that delay recovery. The initiative produced a 24 percent improvement in injured workers returning to work within 30 days and a 23 percent reduction in attorney representation.

    And there are groups that often evade the radar screen. For example, childcare issues can complicate recovery of injured working moms. Taking the time to understand the needs of the individual employee can significantly improve claim outcomes.

  3. Measure the success of medical care and return to workWhile growth in medical costs in workers’ comp has moderated, they still represent the lion’s share of most claims. Controlling costs can seem daunting with the ever-changing evolution in healthcare and the varying state laws.

    There is a great variety in quality of care, clinical outcomes, and costs among physicians. Claims that don’t apply evidence-based medicine are open 13.2 percent longer and 37.9% higher in medical costs according to a report in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. If you have an established relationship with an occupational health physician, year-end is a good time for a review, which should include an evaluation of the agreed-upon outcome metrics, the satisfaction of workers, and the relationship with the employer and claims/case manager.

    Some outcome metrics often evaluated include average cost per claim, percentage of injuries that become lost time claims, days away from work, wait time for appointments, percentage of workers referred to specialists, surgery, physical therapy, percentage of workers returned to work with disability duration guidelines, and the cases with subsequent litigation. You’d have your head in the sand if opioid prescriptions were not part of the discussion.

    It’s also a good time to assess the effectiveness of the return to work program. An open discussion with the treating physicians can reveal weak or troublesome areas.

    It also may be time to look at emerging trends. A number of employers value nurse case managers, who guide injured employees’ medical treatment and return-to-work efforts. Serving as a liaison between all parties involved in the claim, including doctors, the injured worker, the employer and the insurance company, they can significantly reduce the duration and cost of claims. They can be particularly helpful when an injured worker has comorbid conditions that lengthen the duration of a claim.

    Another emerging trend to consider is telemedicine that, in some cases, offers convenient, quicker, and more-accessible options for care. See the article, The possibilities of telemedicine in workers’ comp.

  4. Examine your trainingMost manufacturers are now looking at a workforce that is 35% millennials and could grow as high as 75% by 2025. Yet, they work alongside baby boomers, Gen X, and Gen Z and each generation has unique learning styles and preferences. However, there is agreement on the complaints about training. It’s boring, there’s an overload of information, it’s not relevant, it’s all about rules and what not to do, it’s only done to meet regulatory requirements, it’s untimely, it’s generic and so on.

    To be effective, it must be personalized and kept simple to maximize retention. Training is worthless if it doesn’t stick. Stereotype thinking often guides decisions, such as baby boomers prefer classroom learning with interaction and millennials prefer fast-moving interactive activities such as games and social networks. It’s best not to pigeon-hole workers and to assess the effectiveness of your program on an individual basis.

    Do employees find it engaging and relevant? Did they acquire and retain the knowledge? Has their on-the-job behavior changed? Were the desired outcomes obtained? What are the key motivators? While “the stick” used to be sufficient to motivate learning, today “the carrot” of fun and rewards dominates.

    Making time for learning is also a challenge for employees. Microlearning, which delivers training in short “bursts,” is a growing trend. It generally stresses specific skills and can utilize short messaging and videos via a mobile device. It avoids technical language or other unfamiliar terminology and focuses on specific employees and specific responsibilities. A blended approach of delivering training on multiple platforms may be the best solution.

  5. Don’t let up on distracted drivingWhile workers’ compensation has experienced a long-term decline in overall claim frequency, the story is quite different for motor vehicle accidents (MVA). For the past five years, MVAs in workers’ comp and in the general population have been on the rise, anecdotally coinciding with the growth of smartphones. This troubling trend is compounded by the severity of the injuries, costing 80 to 100 percent more than the average claim according to the National Safety Council.

    Every employee is affected…from professional drivers to employees who may drive a few times a year for errands or community service projects. While there is growing awareness of the risk of distracted driving, a “not me” attitude remains prevalent because people believe they are better drivers than those around them.

    Is your policy strong enough? Is it enforced? Is it effective? How often is it reiterated to employees? The mobile telephone culture is deeply embedded in everyday routines. Getting employees to take seriously the dangers of distracted driving takes a persistent commitment from employers.

  6. Raise the awareness of safety risks to womenWomen in the workplace encounter particular safety risks, including ill-fitting personal protective equipment and workplace violence, that are not always recognized according to experts at the American Society of Safety Professionals’ Women’s Workplace Safety Summit. In spite of the growth of women in male-dominated industries, many women are faced with wearing personal protective equipment that was designed for men. Simply making smaller sizes available often doesn’t work. By purchasing PPE products specifically for women, injuries will be reduced and job satisfaction improved.

    While workplace violence solutions are difficult and more can be done for all employees, workplace violence (such as patient-on-nurse violence in the healthcare field) is a category that disproportionately affects women. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 70% of the workers who experienced trauma from workplace violence (days away from work) were women, and 70% worked in the health care and social assistance industry. In analyzing workplace violence vulnerabilities, gender differences should be one of the examined variables.

  7. Evaluate work-from-home policiesFlexible work policies often top employee wish lists when they look for a job, and employers have responded. Attraction of talent and retention levels are two key factors to examine when implementing or evaluating telecommunicating policies.

    Equally important are the complicated workers’ comp coverage issues that arise. Even if your company offers limited remote working arrangements, a telecommuting policy is crucial. It outlines the obligations of both parties and addresses work hours, equipment, time management, reporting, and work area setup. Some employers are also including proof of presence in work area, such as geo-tracking or equipment tracking, and periodic home inspections, when allowed by law.

    There is a common thread in each of these issues: employees want to feel valued. Employers who take a strategic approach to workers’ comp demonstrate they truly care about the health and well-being of their employees.

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

Legal Corner

ADA
PA company faces charges of hiring bias against applicants in drug treatment

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Clearfield-based Appalachian Wood Products Inc., a major supplier of cabinet components to the kitchen and bath industry. The suit alleges that the company unlawfully barred job applicants from certain positions if they were taking prescribed medications for drug addiction treatment without evaluating whether the medications affected their ability to perform the job safely. Also, unlawfully, the company required applicants to disclose their use of medications prior to making conditional offers.

FMLA
Retaliation claim by fired auditor can go to trial

In Batson v. The Salvation Army, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled an employee who was fired after returning from medical leave and unsuccessfully applying for a position she previously held can go to trial on her retaliation claim under the FMLA. The employee, who had multiple sclerosis, was promoted to an audit manager position when the audit secretary became ill. When the audit secretary died, the new position was eliminated and around the same time the employee took FMLA leave.

When she returned to work, she was told her position was eliminated but she could apply for her old position as a senior auditor, which she did and was the only one to meet the application deadline. At the same time, a new audit secretary was hired. When she was interviewed, she was asked many questions about her health. In making the decision not to hire her, the new audit secretary noted she performed poorly in the interview, and she had “recent performance issues” as an audit manager.

The court, however, found that the health-related questions during the interview suggested the audit secretary was concerned about the need for FMLA leave, not her interview performance and had no experience supervising the applicant. Emails also suggested the audit secretary decided not to hire her because of her illness but recognized the need to come up with an alternative justification.

Employer takeaway: Under the FMLA, if a position was eliminated for legitimate reasons, reinstatement rights no longer exist. However, several mistakes were made in this process. The employee was told she could apply “as a formality” for a recently posted senior auditor position (her former position) and would be transferred and she was the only applicant to apply before the deadline. The focus on health-related questions during the interview was inappropriate and the emails during the selection process were incriminating.

Workers’ Compensation
Exclusive remedy defense can be added to case after several appeals – Illinois

In Hiatt v. Ill. Tool Works, an employee of Western Plastics was seriously injured when both his arms got caught in a metal roller and had to be amputated. He filed suit against multiple parties, including Illinois Tool Works (ITW), which sold products to Western and was housed in the same building. All suits were settled or dismissed except for the ITW case, which went on for five years and involved seven amended complaints and over 40 dispositions.

The employee claimed that ITW was engaged in a joint venture with Western and had knowledge that the machine involved in the incident was dangerous. ITW moved for summary judgment, which was granted by a trial judge, but reversed by the Appellate Court. The trial judge, on her own initiative, raised the exclusive remedy defense.

The case went through more appeals and ITW raised the exclusive remedy defense for the first time, while the employee argued the law-of-the-case doctrine, which limits re-litigation of a previously decided issue in the same case. The Appellate Court noted that its prior decision had not explicitly said ITW could not raise an exclusive remedy defense on remand and that ITW, as a member of the joint venture, is an agent entitled to the same immunity afforded to the employer by the exclusive-remedy provision.

PTD granted to worker unable to find work – Mississippi

In Harris v. Stone County Board of Supervisors, the Court of Appeals reinstated permanent total disability benefits to a maintenance worker who could not find a job after reaching maximum medical improvement for a knee injury. A functional capacity examiner found that he was able to work full-time, mostly sitting; however, he had done manual labor all his working life. A vocational rehabilitation counselor noted very limited job skills and found 12 low paying jobs, which the worker applied for without success.

After several appeals, a Court of Appeals noted a worker is presumed to be permanently and totally disabled (PTD) if he reports to work after reaching MMI but is not reinstated. The employer failed to meet its burden to prove otherwise.

Physician assistant does not meet definition of physician in workers’ comp – Nebraska

In Bower v. Eaton Corp., an employee who injured his shoulder underwent four surgeries and the company accepted responsibility for three of the surgeries. The employee appealed an award of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court that concerned a number of issues, including his impairment rating.The Supreme Court held that the Workers’ Compensation Court appropriately failed to consider the medical report as evidence of the worker’s impairment. The medical report which indicated the injured worker suffered a 15 percent permanent impairment to the right upper extremity was signed by an orthopedic surgeon’s physician assistant and not by the surgeon.

Injury incurred while scanning parking pass at kiosk not compensable – New York

In a divided decision, Matter of the Claim of Shelly A. Grover v. State Insurance Fund, Workers’ Compensation Board, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court ruled that an employee’s injuries sustained while stopping to scan her employee parking pass were not compensable. The privately-owned parking garage that she was accessing is located underneath the building where she worked. The garage is open to the public, but there is a section of the garage exclusively dedicated to employees located in the building.

Although a law judge found the injuries compensable, the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the incident did not arise out of and in the course of her employment and the Appellate Court agreed. The Board found that the parking garage was utilized by members of the public, as well as other businesses located within the same building as the employer. The Board further noted that the employer did not own or maintain the garage.

Special employer liable for half of comp benefits – New York

A truck driver worked for Eaton’s Trucking Service, which exclusively hauled cargo for Quality Carriers. Eaton operated under Quality’s logo and license without which Eaton could not have conducted its hauling operation. When the driver filed a claim for injuries to his right hand, wrist, arm and shoulder, he identified both Eaton and Quality as his employer. Following a hearing, a WCLJ determined that the driver had an occupational disease of right carpal tunnel syndrome and found that Eaton was his general employer and Quality was his special employer, and that each was liable for 50% of the workers’ compensation awards. The Board upheld that determination.

Upon appeal to the Supreme Court’s appellate division, the court noted that while Quality did not control the day-to-day oversight of the driver, Eaton and the driver operated entirely under Quality’s authority and pursuant to its policies. The Court also stressed that when there is a general and special employer, the Board is empowered to make an award against either or both of the employers.

Ordinary supervision does not warrant claim of mental injury – New York

In Matter of Lanese v. Anthem Health Servs.,a registered nurse case manager alleged that she suffered a relapse of preexisting depression and anxiety and had to stop working as a result of harassment and bullying by her managers. The court found, however, that she was receiving normal oversight and monitoring to assist her in correcting deficiencies and improving her performance that were no greater than what other workers experienced in the normal work environment.

Work Comp case file can’t be sealed from public access – North Carolina

In Mastanduno v. National Freight Industries, an employee asked the Industrial Commission to keep the information related to his workers’ compensation claim out of the public record, which includes a searchable online data base. He was concerned the information would affect his ability to obtain a visa, his insurance premiums, his qualifications to adopt a child, and his eligibility to secure a line of credit, as well as expose him to identity theft and cyberbullying.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the request, noting the general statute specifies that all commission records, aside from awards issued by the Commission, are not public and the exclusion of awards meant that the General Assembly intended for awards of the Industrial Commission to be public.

Employee’s fall on premises after clocking out is compensable – Pennsylvania

In Wegmans Food Markets v. WCAB (Tress), a cashier had finished her shift and was walking across the store to pick up a hamburger, which she had ordered from the store’s pub. She slipped and fell and was injured.

The Commonwealth Court noted that in order to be compensable the fall must have occurred on the employer’s premises, be caused by a condition of the premises, and be required by the nature of the job to be on the premises. In this case, the first two were clearly met and the court noted that getting to and from the work station is a necessary part of employment. In Pennsylvania, injuries that occur on the employer’s premises while the worker is coming to or leaving work are in the course of employment if they occur within a reasonable period of time before or after the worker’s shift.

Supreme Court reduces burden of proof in firefighter cancer cases – Pennsylvania

While the state had created a presumption of an occupational disease for firefighters with cancer, the Commonwealth Court read the language as requiring firefighters to prove they had industrial exposure to known carcinogens that caused the form of cancer. In a recent decision, City of Philadelphia Fire Department vs Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Sladek), the Supreme Court lowered the burden of proof, noting that a cancer-stricken firefighter has the burden of proving the “occupational disease” but did not have to prove that an identified Group 1 carcinogen actually caused the cancer. This involves showing they spent four or more years working as a firefighter after passing a physical examination that they were cancer-free, as well as direct exposure to a Group 1 carcinogen.

Gradually incurred injury not an injury by accident and not compensable – Virginia

In Daggett v. Old Dominion Univ., an appellate court upheld the denial of benefits, noting that an injured employee must demonstrate an “identifiable incident” or “sudden precipitating event” to receive workers’ comp benefits. In this case, a shoulder injury was a result of repetitive trauma. On the day of the alleged injury, the employee repeated the same combination of movements to rotate and move 14 smart boards, each weighing between 28 and 48 pounds.

Employer must protect workers’ family from asbestos exposure – Virginia

In Quisenberry v. Huntington Ingalls, a divided (4-3) Supreme Court ruled that an employer has a duty to protect its employees’ family members from potential exposure to asbestos fibers that employees may carry home on their work clothes. The daughter of a former employee, who regularly laundered her father’s clothing, died from mesothelioma and her son filed a wrongful death suit.

In reaching its decision, the court noted there does not need to be actual interaction between the parties, so the fact that the alleged harm occurred at a location removed from the employer’s business and after hours was irrelevant. Because the shipyard owed the duty to the family members, it was susceptible to tort liability.

Bus driver’s failure to wear seat belt nixes benefits – Virginia

In Mailloux v. American Transp., a bus driver, who sustained serious injuries in an accident in which his bus was struck from behind, causing it to careen against a guard rail and flip over, ejecting the driver, was found to have violated his employer’s safety policy and disqualified from receiving benefits. The appellate court showed that he did not sustain the injuries while in the driver’s seat, but only after being ejected from the vehicle, and that the driver was aware of the employer’s safety policy requiring seatbelt use at all times. Thus, the proximate cause of the driver’s injuries was his failure to use the seatbelt and he was not entitled to benefits.

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

OSHA watch

OSHA softens hard line on workplace safety incentives and post-incident drug testing

See post – Much needed clarification from OSHA on anti-retaliation

FY 2018 preliminary list of top ten violations

See second article above – Preliminary list of top ten OSHA violations includes eye and face protection for first time

Employers targeted in record-keeping crackdown

Under this site-specific program, inspections will target employers the agency believes should have provided Form 300A data, but did not for the calendar year 2016, which had to be electronically submitted by Dec. 15, 2017. It will target high injury rate establishments in both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors for inspection, but will not include construction worksites.

Regulatory agenda update

Released in October, the regulatory agenda had few surprises. Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in Construction and Shipyard Sectors, Crane Operator Qualification in Construction, Rules of Agency Practice and Procedure Concerning OSHA Access to Employee Medical Records, and Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses are in the final rule stage.

National Emphasis Program (NEP) on trenching and excavation safety

The updated NEP on trenching and excavation safety became effective October 1. It provides education and prevention outreach during the first 90 days of the program, and will respond to trench-related complaints, referrals, hospitalizations and fatalities. Enforcement activities will begin once the outreach program expires. State Plans are expected to follow suit.

Regional Emphasis Program (REP) addresses ammonium hazards in farming industry

Covering seven states, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, this REP addresses hazards from exposure to fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate (FGAN) and agricultural anhydrous ammonium. The program began Oct. 1, 2018 with three months of education and prevention outreach and enforcement will follow and continue until Sept. 30, 2019, unless the program is extended.

Fact sheet on initiating a naloxone program

NIOSH has published a new fact sheet Using Naloxone to Reverse Opioid Overdose in the Workplace. It provides a series of steps for employers to consider when deciding whether to make the overdose reversal medication available in the workplace.

Revised webpage makes state plan information easier to find

A redesigned State Plans webpage has a new color-coded, interactive map to simplify finding contact and jurisdictional information for each state. Users can also access frequently asked questions and details about State Plan activities.

Rejection of OSHA inspection upheld – Georgia

In an unpublished decision, United States of America vs. Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc., the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a poultry plant could not be compelled to submit to a company-wide inspection after a worker suffered an electric shock injury. The company reported the incident in a timely manner and when the inspectors requested access to the entire facility, rather than just the hazards involved in the incident, the company refused.

OSHA argued it had the right to expand the scope of the inspection based on (1) a National Emphasis Program (“NEP”) on poultry processing facilities and (2) the company’s recordkeeping forms, such as the 300 Logs. An magistrate judge held that OSHA did not have reasonable suspicion of the other hazards based on the 300 Logs and that Mar-Jac had not been selected by neutral criteria under the NEP. Upon appeal, the decision was upheld. The court concluded that the mere recording of work-related injuries or illnesses does not mean that they were the result of a violation of an OSHA standard, rule or regulation.

Cal/OSHA issues notice of emergency regulation for electronic submission form 300A by December 31, 2018

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

30-day time limit for employer to challenge safety citation – California

In RAAM Construction v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, an appellate court ruled that a contractor has 30 days from the date of a decision by the Appeals Board to bring a challenge, without extra time to account for the mailing of the decision. RAAM argued that its petition was timely, since it was filed within 30 days of learning of the denial, but the court said the trigger of the time period is the filing of the order, not the date of service.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Cal/OSHA issued two willful-serious accident-related citations totaling $225,500 in proposed penalties to Rancho Santa Margarita-based house-framing contractor, Circle M Contractors Inc., for failure to train workers on nail guns and failure to ensure safe operation of these tools after a carpenter was seriously injured. A review of the employer’s injury log showed 34 instances of nail gun injuries suffered by employees since 2016.

Florida

  • C.W. Hendrix Farms Inc. was cited for failing to protect workers from recognized hazards after lightning struck and killed an employee at the Parkland farm. The company faces a penalty of $12,934, the maximum amount allowed.
  • Kasper Roofing & Construction Inc. was cited for exposing employees to fall and other hazards after an employee suffered fatal injuries at a Maitland worksite. The Orlando-based roofing contractor faces $134,510 in penalties, the maximum allowed by law.

Georgia

  • An administrative law judge with the OSHRC vacated a violation stemming from an incident at a chicken processing plant, Norman W. Fries Inc. d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, in which an employee’s arm was fractured when it got caught under a conveyor belt. The judge found inspectors failed to prove that the company did not ensure that conveyor belts were protected by a metal frame to prevent such injuries.

Massachusetts

  • Springfield Terminal Railway was ordered to pay $85,000 to an employee who was subjected to retaliation after reporting a work-related injury at its facility in Andover.
  • An administrative law judge with the OSHRC vacated in part and affirmed in part violations following a 2015 fatality at a pharmaceuticals plant in South Easton. Pharmasol Corp. successfully contested a serious violation under the general duty clause for underride hazards.

Missouri

  • An administrative law judge with the OSHRC affirmed a citation against Kansas City-based Adam Ham Construction LLC for violating residential fall protection requirements and assessed a $3,741 penalty. The owner did not follow through in contesting the citations.
  • Blue Springs-based Arrow Plumbing LLC admitted to willfully violating the safety standards to require and enforce the use of trench boxes or other trench protection techniques at a home construction site in Belton. An employee was killed when an unprotected trench collapsed on him. Along with its successor company R2 Plumbing LLC, it agreed to implement several safety enhancements and it will pay a civil monetary penalty of $225,000.

Pennsylvania

  • Harmony-based Insight Pipe Contracting LLC was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program and faces $331,101 in fines following a safety inspection initiated after an employee suffered a fatal electrocution at a worksite in Johnstown. Violations included failing to develop and implement procedures for confined space entry, train employees on confined space hazards, conduct atmospheric testing before permitting entry into a sewer line, use a retrieval line, and complete proper permits.
  • Toy Factory TX LLC was cited for workplace safety violations after an employee suffered an arm amputation while cleaning machinery at the company’s Elysburg plant. Proposed penalties of $112,523 relate to hazardous energy and lockout/tagout violations.

Wisconsin

  • Dura-Fibre LLC, based in Menasha, settled a whistleblower suit and will pay a machine operator $100,000 in back wages and compensatory damages after it terminated him for reporting injuries he and a co-worker sustained.
  • Superior Refining Company LLC, based in Superior, was cited for failing to control the use and release of highly hazardous chemicals after an explosion and fire injured several employees. The company faces $83,150 in proposed penalties for eight serious violations of the process safety management procedure.
  • JBS Green Bay Inc. was cited for machine guarding violations when an employee suffered serious injuries after becoming caught in an unguarded machine. The Green Bay-based company was cited for one willful and 10 serious violations, and faces proposed penalties of $221,726.

For more information.

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

HR Tip: 12 tips to keep your holiday party under control

The holiday season is a time to spread cheer and a festive spirit, but some celebrations morph into legal nightmares or workers’ comp claims for employers. Here are 12 tips for a party that is fun and safe:

  1. Charge your leadership team with setting the tone for responsible and professional behavior.
  2. Limit or do not serve alcohol. Do not have an open bar. Close the bar at least one hour before the end of the party. Be sure that alcohol is served by a professional bartender or at a licensed establishment that knows when to stop serving an individual. Serve plenty of food. Arrange for no-cost transportation for any employee who should not drive home.
  3. Be sure workers understand that attendance is voluntary. This should be clearly stated in the invitation and all related communications.
  4. Hold after work hours and off site, reducing the likelihood the party will be perceived as work related.
  5. Don’t encourage attendance by either implying attendance will help the employee advance or that failure to attend sends the message the worker isn’t a team player.
  6. Avoid presentation of awards, bonuses or other recognition that suggest employees are there for business reasons.
  7. Be cautious about inviting vendors, clients or others with whom you have a business relationship.
  8. Invite spouses and significant others.
  9. Remind employees that normal workplace standards of conduct are to be respected. Parties, particularly when alcohol is served, can lead to sexual harassment or discrimination claims. Treat any discrimination or harassment claims seriously and conduct appropriate investigations.
  10. Don’t allow employees to post company party images/comments on social media outlets without having a policy in place.
  11. Be sensitive of language and decorations – don’t call it a Christmas party or invite “husbands and wives.”
  12. Discuss your exposure with your insurance agent.

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