Occupational health and safety risks now top cost disruptor

Employers looking to boost the bottom line would be smart to closely examine the costs of their health and safety incidents. While high-profile disruptions such as cyber-attacks, IT outages, or extreme weather get more attention, health and safety incidents are the leading financial loss drivers for businesses around the globe, according to the BCI 2019 Horizon Scan. The eighth report in the series analyzes the risks and threats recognized by 569 organizations worldwide, comparing them against the impact of actual disruptions in the past year.

Employers perceive occupational and health issues to be low risk (ranking #12) in the coming 12 months; yet, it was the most frequent and costliest cause of disruption in the past 12 months. It cost companies $1.1186 billion, almost four times the $307 million for IT disruptions and eight times the $144 million for cyber-attacks. Further, the report notes that there is a likely relationship between the health and safety incidents and the high costs of reputational damage.

Howard Kerr, CEO at the BSI, commented: “It’s easy for business leaders to be kept awake at night by high-profile risks such as cyber-attacks, technology disruptions and IT outages, but they must not ignore the smaller, more frequent risks that steadily erode the bottom line. Organizations that don’t take all threats they face seriously, or otherwise develop plans to manage them, are exposing themselves to not only reputational loss, but also what can become quite severe financial costs. Achieving true organizational resilience means identifying not only the big risks, but also the under-rated issues that may just seem like ‘business as usual’ and can easily be missed.”

This disconnect can stem from a failure to understand the true costs of injuries, general acceptance of injury rates as a cost of business, an unfounded belief that there is a trade-off between profits and measures to keep the workplace safe, other priorities, and so on. While many executives give lip service to “safety pays” and the value of caring for their employees, they also feel the pressures to increase profits by cutting costs. Yet, safety and profitability can coexist.

Culture comes from the top down and management commitment is the key performance indicator. Executives may believe that the mantra “we want you to go home safe each day” reflects the company’s culture but it is often viewed skeptically as drivel by employees, who feel that production trumps safety. It takes a lot more than words to demonstrate a real commitment to safety.

Management commitment to safety includes financial investment, amount of time and team members involved, technologically advanced tools such as wearables, training hours, capital projects for high-risk issues and so on. Committed leaders are familiar with the major risks and risk mitigation efforts in their facilities.

Successful executives often require a report on every serious injury and review it with the leadership team. This sends the message to mid-management that safety is an integral part of operations. They also develop a set of leading indicators that encourage a continual focus on risk reduction.

The BCI report illustrates that the cost of injuries slowly erodes the bottom line, but falls under the radar. Workers’ Comp is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the cost of an injury. There are many indirect costs such as lost productivity, hiring and training replacement employees, higher overtime, incident investigation, repairing damaged equipment or property, lower morale, and implementation of corrective measures. There also can be legal and administrative expenses and higher Workers’ Comp premiums for at least three years.

The National Safety Council provides helpful information on the ROI of safety at an aggregate level. But employers can take a deep dive and analyze the costs associated with two or three injuries in their organization. It’s worth the effort to quantify all the related figures. The results not only paint a clear picture of the economic value of improving safety to top management, but also help employees understand the costs come out of profits and affects their wages, bonuses, and benefits.

Unless there is a catastrophic event, health and safety incidents do not have the immediate, malicious impact that an IT disruption or cyber-attack can create. But they are highly costly and disruptive and will slowly erode the bottom line. Failure to recognize that this is not “business as usual” will have serious consequences for the longevity and resiliency of the company.

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

OSHA watch

“Good-faith” employers get grace period to comply on crane operator documentation requirements

The requirement that employers must evaluate their operators before allowing them to operate cranes independently is being enforced, but employers making good-faith efforts to comply have a 60-day grace period, according to the enforcement guidance effective on Feb. 7. Employers who have evaluated operators in accordance with the final rule, and are making good-faith efforts to comply with the new documentation requirement are offered compliance assistance, in lieu of enforcement. The grace period ends April 15.

New bulletin for workers wearing devices containing lithium batteries

A new Safety and Health Information Bulletin warns employers and workers of potential fire and explosion hazards stemming from lithium batteries used to power small or wearable electronic devices.

New video on ammonium nitrate emphasis program

A new YouTube video deals with inspections under the ammonium nitrate emphasis program.

Employers urged to prevent worker exposure to carbon monoxide

Employers are reminded to take necessary precautions to protect workers from the potentially fatal effects of carbon monoxide exposure. To reduce the risk of exposure, employers should install an effective ventilation system, use carbon monoxide detectors, and take other precautions as described in the Carbon Monoxide Fact Sheet.

Other resources include videos (in English and Spanish), QuickCards (English) (Spanish)and a fact sheet on portable generator safety.

Alert to Nebraska employers: Increase in amputation injuries

A review of Nebraska workers’ compensation claims found 42 employees suffered amputation injuries in 2018, and employers failed to report more than 65 percent of those injuries within 24-hours, as required. The National Emphasis Program for Amputations targets inspections at workplaces with machinery and equipment that cause, or are capable of causing, amputations. Information and resources are available to help employers identify and eliminate workplace hazard.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Solus Industrial Innovations, a plastics manufacturing plant in Rancho Santa Margarita was cited for willfully, knowingly and intentionally maintaining an unsafe and hazardous work environment after two workers were killed in an explosion caused by a water heater that was never intended for commercial use. The case was referred to the local district attorney’s office and a $1.6 million judgment was obtained in a civil case.
  • Platinum Pipeline Inc., based in Livermore, received a $242,600 fine after a worker died when a trench built for a storm drain project collapsed.
  • A joint venture of Shimmick Construction Co. Inc., of Oakland and San Francisco-based Con-Quest Contractors Inc. faces a $65,300 fine after a worker was fatally struck by a steel beam in 2018 while working on a light rail tunnel project in San Francisco.

Connecticut

  • The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ordered Eastern Awning Systems Inc., a manufacturer of retractable fabric patio awnings based in Watertown, and its owner Stephen P. Lukos to pay a total of $160,000 to two discharged employees who filed safety and health complaints. The judgment also requires the employer to provide neutral letters of reference for the two discharged employees, and to post the judgment and notice of employees’ rights prominently at the workplace.

Florida

  • Inspected under the Regional Emphasis Program for Falls in Construction, Crown Roofing LLC was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at two separate residential worksites in Port St. Lucie and Naples. The Sarasota-based contractor faces penalties of $265,196. It has been inspected 17 times in the past five years and 11 inspections have resulted in repeat violations.
  • OSHRC affirmed two serious violations, and reinstated one stemming from an inspection of gas line work – overturning an administrative law judge’s decision – and increased the fine from $5,500 to $9,000 against Dade City-based Florida Gas Contractors Inc.

Georgia

  • Hilti Inc., a hardware merchant wholesaler, was cited for exposing employees to struck-by hazards after an employee was injured while operating a forklift at a distribution center in Atlanta. The Plano, Texas-based company faces penalties of $164,802.
  • Eye Productions Inc., a motion picture company, was cited for failing to provide adequate head protection during stunts while filming the “MacGyver” show in Chattahoochee Hills. Proposed penalties total $9,472.

Massachusetts

  • In Secretary of Labor v. HRI Hospital Inc. d/b/a Arbour-HRI Hospital, an administrative law judge vacated a citation that HRI Hospital Inc., based in Brookline, failed to adequately protect its employees from being physically assaulted by patients.

Minnesota

  • In Secretary of Labor v. SJ Louis Construction of Texas Ltd. (a division of SJ Louis Construction Inc., of Rockville, Minnesota), the ALJ determined that SJ Louis, an underground utilities contractor, failed to construct a trench in Cypress, Texas, in compliance with regulations and failed to provide employees proper egress. A penalty of $36,000 was assessed.

Pennsylvania

  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District has entered a consent judgment ordering Blown Away Dry Bar and Salon, based in Kennett Square, to pay a $40,000 settlement to a fired hair stylist. Investigators determined the defendants retaliated against the employee when her husband reported workplace safety and health hazards to OSHA, a violation of the (OSH) Act.
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a general duty clause citation against Brooke Glen Behavioral Hospital’s facility in Fort Washington for exposing its employees to workplace violence, as well as a $12,471 penalty.
  • KidsPeace Inc. was cited for exposing employees to workplace violence hazards at two behavioral and mental health facilities in Orefield. The company faces proposed penalties totaling $29,010.

Tennessee

  • Hankook Tire Company received 11 citations and faces $85,200 in penalties for failure to conduct periodic crane inspections, provide adequate personal protective equipment for workers handling hazardous chemicals, ensure that proper lockout/tagout procedures were followed, and guard machinery.

For additional information.

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

OSHA watch

Maximum penalty of repeat or willful violation rises to $132,598

The cost of non-compliance is on the rise with the annual adjustment for inflation, effective January 24, 2019. The chart below shows the 2019 increases for each type of violation:

Violation Type/Description CFR Citation 2018 Max Penalty 2019 Max Penalty
Serious 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(3) $12,934 $13,260
Other-than-Serious 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(4) $12,934 $13,260
Willful 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(1) $129,336 $132,598
Repeated 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(2) $129,336 $132,598
Posting Requirement 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(6) $12,934 $13,260
Failure to Abate 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(5) $12,934 $13,260

Reminder: Feb. 1 was deadline for posting Form 300A

Each year, from Feb. 1 to April 30, OSHA’s Form 300A, which summarizes job-related injuries and illnesses logged in the prior calendar year, must be displayed in a common area where notices to employees are usually posted. Details can be found in our January 2019 issue.

Final rule on electronic recordkeeping issued

As expected, the final rule eliminates the requirement for establishments with 250 or more employees or those with 20 to 249 employees in certain industries with historically high occupational injury and illness rates to electronically submit information from Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) and Form 301 (Injury and Illness Incident Report) each year. These establishments are still required to electronically submit information from Form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses). The final rule also requires covered employers to electronically submit their Employer Identification Number with their information from Form 300A.

The deadline for electronic submissions is March 2, 2019. More information.

A lawsuit has already been filed by the Public Citizen Health Research Group, the American Public Health Association and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists arguing the final rule violates of the Administrative Procedure Act.

FAQs on silica standard for general industry published

The FAQs, which include answers to 64 questions organized by topic, provide guidance to employers and workers on the standard’s requirements, including exposure assessments, hazard communication and methods of compliance.

Free compliance assistance resources on falls offered online

To help employers prepare for the sixth annual National Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction, set to take place May 6-10, the following resources are online:

Requirements for trainers in Outreach Training Program revised

Among the 18 changes, which are scheduled to go into effect April 1, is eliminating the 90-day grace period after a trainer card expires, as well as updating the trainer code of conduct and responsibilities.

New safety resource on safe operation of tractors

A new rollover protection brochure provides information in English and Spanish on the safe operation of tractors. It emphasizes the importance of using rollover protective structures and seat belt systems to help reduce worker injuries.

Enforcement notes

California

  • US Postal Service faces fines of $149,664 for not addressing worker safety in high-heat conditions after a mail carrier was found dead in a postal vehicle on a record-setting 117-degree-Fahrenheit day in July.

Florida

  • Compass Group USA Inc., operating as Chartwells Dining, was cited for exposing employees to burn and chemical hazards at its cafeteria in Coral Gables. The company faces $134,880 in penalties for exposing employees to hazards associated with exit routes, failing to provide suitable facilities for quick drenching for employees who work with cleaning chemicals, and for not providing effective training to the employees working with the chemicals.
  • Inspected under the REP for Falls in Construction, Ad-Ler Roofing Inc. was cited for exposing employees to dangerous falls at a Naples residential worksite, one month after similar violations were found at another worksite. The Fort Myers-based contractor faces penalties of $91,466.

Missouri

  • New Haven-based Franklin County Construction LLC faces $56,910 in penalties after an employee suffered fatal fall injuries when a roof truss collapsed.

Nebraska

  • Hastings-based Noah’s Ark Processors is facing $182,926 in penalties after an employee suffered severe burns caused by exposure to anhydrous ammonia at one of its meat processing facilities. Sixteen serious violations were issued relating to process safety management (PSM) program deficiencies, failing to guard roof openings, and electrical safety and lockout/tagout violations.
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a serious violation and $11,408 penalty after an employee was hospitalized due to an arc flash. Jacobs Field Services’ policy of permitting employees to remove portions of their personal protective equipment after they had determined the load side – but not the line side – of an electrical disconnect box was de-energized violated the statute.

New York

  • St. Louis, Mo-based Western Specialty Contractors is facing criminal charges and $155,204 in penalties for exposing employees to serious injuries. Operated by an untrained employee, an unsecured mini-crane overturned and fell four stories at an NYC worksite.
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a serious violation against Fairport-based Ontario Exteriors Inc. when a worksite policy that directed its employees to traverse a steep second-story roof without fall protection at the beginning and end of each work day resulted in the injury of one worker. The law judge reduced the fine in half to $1,811 noting that the court believes the company will comply with fall protection requirements in the future.

Pennsylvania

  • Spear Excavating LLC based in Pennsburg was cited for exposing employees to trenching hazards at a worksite in Malvern. The company faces $106,057 in proposed penalties. The inspection was initiated by a complaint.
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a serious citation and $11,408 fine against Coastal Drilling East LLC after an employee’s finger had to be amputated following a workplace accident. Cited under the general duty clause, the company argued that abatement of the cited condition was infeasible and the violation was the result of unpreventable employee misconduct, but the law judge cited an absence of training, instruction, and supervision and inconsistent enforcement.

Wisconsin

  • Two utility contractors – Bear Communications LLC of Lawrence, Kansas, and subcontractor V C Tech Inc. of Ypsilanti, Michigan – were issued a serious safety violation, and face penalties of $12,934 each – the maximum penalty allowed when they failed to establish the location of underground utilities prior to beginning excavation work. A volunteer firefighter responding to the incident was fatally injured.

For additional information.

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

A new approach to serious injury and fatality prevention

Since the advent of Heinrich’s Injury Pyramid in 1931, it has been generally accepted that there is a predictive relationship between the frequency and types of non-injury, minor injuries and the serious, life-altering or threatening injuries, at the top of the triangle. The safety triangle theorizes that for every major injury there are 29 minor injuries and 300 non-injury incidents. Though this triangle is considered a gold standard, many safety professionals realize that all non-injury or minor incidents are not equal and some have more potential to result in a serious injury or fatality (SIF).

A recent report by the Campbell Institute, Serious Injury and Fatality Prevention: Perspectives and Practices recommends a redesign or enhancement of the model. The new SIF prevention model would look at all incidents – namely, precursors to accidents, recordable injuries, lost-time injuries and fatalities – and seek out those with serious injury and fatalities potential. It encourages organizations to focus on the process factors that lead to SIF, rather than human error, which will always occur. They should focus on repairing gaps in their safety management system, workplace culture, and changing or modifying work processes that eliminate human error.

For example, a workplace with a production problem may ignore or even condone shortcuts and speed, which can lead to bad decisions by workers. A forklift operator may drive too fast and not wear a seatbelt, which can lead to a serious accident. While there can be a tendency to blame the worker, the production demands were the proximate cause and the precursor to the event. According to the author of the paper, Joy Inouye, a key to lowering the fatalities in the workforce lies in an organization’s ability to look inward. “Instead of blaming the worker for not putting on his seatbelt, start to look at those organizational factors that contributed to that.” The report includes examples of companies that have successfully revamped strategies for identifying risk factors.

Trends in injury patterns validate the need for a shift in thinking. While employers have done a good job in reducing the total recordable incident rate, there has been a disturbing increase in the number of workplace fatalities and catastrophic injuries. Diving deeper into near misses and smaller, less serious incidents could help prevent on-the-job deaths or catastrophic injuries. By identifying potential precursors to such events and educating employees about those precursors, companies can focus on eliminating the potential for such incidents to occur.

The report recognizes that isolating incidents with the potential for SIF requires serious groundwork. It suggests next steps like organizing a think-tank that defines “serious injury”, “precursor” and “potential.” To determine whether an incident is a potential SIF or not, it may make sense to define and use a Severity Scale that can be consistently understood by anyone, one that is tied to potential outcomes. For example, most severe could be an injury that would lead to the death of an individual, and the least severe could be first aid and immediate return to work. Including specific injury examples can be helpful.

Implementation raises the bar of safety management and requires a proactive, rather than reactive approach. It will take careful planning – both around the processes used and the responsibilities assigned.

What employers can do

  • Review and evaluate your near miss reporting system
    • Do workers fear the consequences of reporting something they may be blamed for or is there a culture of trust and all workers participate in reporting?
    • Is near miss training part of new hire orientation?
    • Are supervisors and management onboard and do they foster a reporting culture?
    • Is reporting simple and straightforward?
    • Does the report provide a solid log of what leads up to the incident?
    • Is the definition of near miss clear?
    • Is there a thorough investigation that identifies the root cause?
    • Are corrective actions taken and employees notified?
  • Have supervisors explain to employees why the company is focusing on the smaller incidents and near-misses, and how a minor incident can turn major. Explain the importance of looking at potential rather than actual outcomes for minor incidents.
  • Think-outside-the box. A recent article in Risk and Insurance described how Wente Family Estates vineyards teamed up with the criminology department at Holy Names University in Oakland to take a look at workers’ comp data to analyze injuries and near misses, pinpointing problem areas and gathering insight on how to prevent future losses. The idea was based on a partnership between United Airlines and the University of New Haven that used interns from the criminology department as part of a data visualization project, leading to a 23 percent reduction in employee injuries and a 29 percent reduction in aircraft damage on the ground.

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

OSHA watch

Limited extension of the compliance dates for Beryllium Standard

A proposed rule to extend the compliance date for “certain ancillary requirements of the general industry beryllium standard” from March 12 to Dec. 12, 2018 was published in the federal registrar.

However, the proposed extension does not delay enforcement for the following requirements in general industry:

  • Permissible exposure limits (PELS)
  • Exposure assessment
  • Respiratory protection
  • Medical surveillance
  • Medical removal protection provisions
  • Any provisions where the compliance dates in the standard take effect in 2019 and 2020

For the construction and shipyard industries, only the permissible exposure limits and short-term exposure limit are being enforced until there is additional rulemaking.

 

New fact sheet outlines whistleblower protections for workers in nuclear industry

A new “Whistleblower Protection for Nuclear Industry Workers” fact sheet outlines retaliation protection for certain employees who report potential violations of the Energy Reorganization Act or the Atomic Energy Act.

 

New webpage provides safety information on workplace chemicals

The new Occupational Chemical Database compiles information from several government agencies and organizations into one online resource. The webpage includes chemical identification and physical properties, permissible exposure limits (PELs), and sampling information. Chemicals can be searched by name or identification number, or grouped by PEL, carcinogenic level, or whether they pose an immediate threat when inhaled.

 

MIOSHA targets blight removal projects to protect workers from asbestos and other hazards

The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) relaunched its state emphasis program (SEP) that increases MIOSHA presence on blight removal projects across the state to address hazards such as asbestos and lead. The SEP will be in effect through February 28, 2019.

 

Enforcement notes

California

  • California OSHA issued six citations and $48,095 in penalties to Tobin Steel Company, Inc., after a worker sustained serious injuries while operating an unguarded press brake machine. Citations include failure to: conduct and document required inspections, test and maintain power-operated presses, train workers on amputation hazards, and provide adequate machine guarding.

Florida

  • Crown Roofing LLC, based in Sarasota, faces $149,662 in proposed fines for exposing employees to fall hazards at a Jupiter worksite.
  • Inspected as part of the National Emphasis Program on Trenching and Excavation, Douglas N. Higgins Inc., a South Florida utility contractor, faces $18,659 in proposed penalties for exposing employees to cave-in and other hazards at a Naples worksite. The agency previously cited the contractor for violations in January 2017 when three employees succumbed to toxic gases while working in a manhole and again in May 2018 after a steel plate fell on and fatally injured an employee.

Georgia

  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC reinstated a citation and a $7,000 fine against an electrical services company, Smyrna-based Action Electric Co. Inc., after a federal appellate court reversed another judge’s decision to vacate the citation. The judge noted, “An Action Electric employee died from the failure of Action Electric to properly implement (lockout/tagout) procedures for inspection of the cooling machine and counterweight components.”
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed Gainesville-based Prime Pak Foods Inc. safety fines and approved the Secretary of Labor’s request to dismiss the company’s contest notice because it was filed after the 15-day deadline to do so. Prime Pak “argues its neglect is excusable because it was denied advance notice of the citation and the right to have counsel served with the citation,” noted the ruling, which emphasizes that notices are sent “to employers,” per federal legislation.

Maine

  • After multiple investigations and citations, a Maine roofing contractor operating as Lessard Roofing & Siding Inc. and Lessard Brothers Construction Inc. was ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to implement a comprehensive safety and training program after receiving repeated citations for exposing workers to falls. The owner, Stephen Lessard, was also ordered to produce substantial documentation that will demonstrate the extent to which he is able to pay $389,685 in outstanding fines.

Michigan

  • An OSHRC administrative law judge vacated a defense contractor’s safety citation and proposed fine after determining officials could not prove negligence in a case involving a stack of heavy boxes containing vehicle parts that fell on a worker. A warehouse employee of Sterling Heights-based General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. was seriously injured when seven crates containing 94-pound struts fell on him from a stack as he was inventorying them.

Minnesota

  • Minnesota OSHA issued eight citations and $366,150 in penalties to Gateway Building Systems, Inc., after a worker suffered a fatal fall from a grain elevator. Inspectors determined that the company failed to: ensure workers were using correct anchorage points, install proper decking and guarding over an expanded platform, and provide overhead protection for workers.

Wisconsin

  • Appleton roofing contractor Hector Hernandez was cited again after inspectors observed employees exposed to falls and other safety hazards at two Wisconsin job sites. Proposed penalties are $120,320.

For more information.

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

OSHA watch

Long-awaited proposed rules to clarify crane operator requirements issued

A proposed rule was published in the May 21 Federal Register. The rule drops the requirement (which never went into effect) that operators be certified for lifting capacity. It also reinstates an employer’s duty to ensure a crane operator is qualified to control the machinery safely.

Comments are due by June 20.
Spring regulatory agenda has some surprises

Several potential standards that were moved off the Trump administration’s main regulatory agenda and placed on a long-term actions list in July 2017 are now back on to the regulatory agenda under the prerule stage, meaning the agency is considering taking action. These include standards to prevent workplace violence in the health care sector, improve emergency response and preparedness, an Update to the Hazard Communication Standard, and a tree care standard.

Also on the prerule list are potential regulations related to communication tower safety and potential revisions to the Table 1 compliance methods in the silica standard for the construction industry. The infectious disease potential rule and a standard to update regulations for process safety management and prevention of major chemical accidents remain on the long-term actions list.
Use of General Duty Clause for heat related violations under review

Use of the general duty clause to issue citations against employers for heat-related hazards prompted an uncommon invitation from the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to file briefs by May 14. Then the review commission scheduled rare oral arguments in two cases involving the use of the clause for June 7 – the heat stress case and one against a health care facility for a fatal workplace violence incident.
Enforcement notes

California

  • Four citations and $71,435 in penalties were issued for inadequate lighting and traffic controls to Consolidated Disposal Services LLC, after a security guard at the company’s dumpster yard in Gardena was fatally struck by a truck.
  • UMC Acquisition Corp. in Downey faces $86,615 in penalties for 11 citations after unguarded moving belts and pulleys resulted in the amputation of a worker’s fingers.

Florida

  • Premier Behavioral Health Solutions of Florida Inc. and UHS of Delaware Inc. were cited for failing to protect employees at their Bradenton facility from workplace violence. Proposed penalties are $71,137.
  • Desouza Framing Inc. was cited for exposing employees to dangerous falls at two worksites. The Jacksonville-based residential framing contractor faces penalties of $199,178 for two willful citations of failing to provide fall protection.
  • P&S Paving Inc., a Daytona Beach underground utility construction company, faces $138,927 in proposed penalties for allowing employees to work in a trench without cave-in protection, failing to train employees on trench hazards, and provide a safe means to enter and exit the trench.
  • Orlando-based SIMCOM Training Centers was ordered to reinstate a flight instructor who was terminated after he raised concerns about potential violations of Federal Aviation Administration safety regulations. The company must pay $201,882 in back wages and interest, $100,000 in compensatory damages, and reasonable attorney fees.
  • Douglas N. Higgins Inc., a South Florida utility company, was cited after an employee suffered fatal injuries when a steel plate fell on him as he installed sewer lines at a Naples Park worksite. The company faces $162,596 in proposed penalties, the maximum allowed.

Georgia

  • Oldcastle Lawn & Garden Inc. of Shadydale, a manufacturer of mulch, was cited for exposing workers to amputation, struck-by, caught-in, combustible dust, electrical, fall, fire, and noise hazards. Proposed penalties for the 36 violations are $251,108. The inspection was part of the National Emphasis Program on Amputations.

Kansas

  • Wichita roofing contractor Jose Barrientos was cited for exposing employees to falls and other safety hazards when inspectors observed roofers working without appropriate fall protection at a residential site. Proposed penalties total $191,071 for two willful and six serious violations.

New York

  • A Buffalo U-Haul facility faces $108,095 in fines after a renovation exposed their workers to asbestos and silica hazards.
  • Following a fatal fire, New Windsor-based Verla International LTD, faces proposed fines of $281,220 for failing to protect its employees from dangerous chemicals, and other hazards.

Pennsylvania

  • In response to a complaint of imminent danger, Hua Da Construction in Philadelphia was cited for exposing employees to dangerous workplace safety hazards and faces proposed penalties of $222,152 for multiple violations related to electrical, fall, and struck-by hazards.
  • In a follow-up inspection, Luzerne County employer, Midvale Paper Box Co. faces penalties of $201,212 for exposing workers to safety hazards, including lockout tagout violations, electrical hazards, and forklift training.
  • Strong Contractors Inc., based in Bensalem, faces $110,971 in penalties for exposing employees to falls and failing to provide appropriate eye protection while working at Trinity Baptist Church. The company has been cited 14 times since March 2017.

Tennessee (Tennessee OSHA)

  • Vorteq Coil Finishers LLC in Jackson was issued 12 citations and $57,750 in penalties after an unguarded pinch point resulted in the amputation of a worker’s fingers. Inspectors found that the employer failed to provide machine guarding, train workers on the control of hazardous energy and confined space hazards, and inspect cranes.

Wisconsin

  • For the second time, a Milwaukee battery manufacturer, C & D Technologies Inc., was cited for exposing employees to lead and failing to implement an effective lead management program. The company faces proposed penalties of $147,822 for two repeated and six serious violations.

For more information.

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

Top reasons for serious workplace injuries and large workers’ comp losses

Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index

Produced annually, the Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index identifies the leading causes of the most disabling non-fatal workplace injuries (resulting in six or more days of lost time) and ranks them by total Workers’ Compensation costs. The top five causes that accounted for 68.9% of the total injuries occurring in 2015 (most recent data available) were: 1) overexertion involving outside source, 2) falls to lower level, 3) falls to same level, 4) struck by object or equipment, and 5) other exertions or bodily reactions.

For the fourth consecutive year, overexertion involving outside sources topped the list, accounting for almost a quarter of the losses, at $13.7 billion per year. This event category includes injuries related to lifting, pushing, pulling, holding, carrying, or throwing objects. Rounding out the top ten are: roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicle, slip or trip without a fall, caught in or compressed by equipment or object, struck against equipment or object, and repetitive motions involving micro-tasks.

These top ten accounted for $52 billion a year in medical and lost wage costs for businesses. While the number of injuries decreased 1.5 percent, the costs increased 2.9 percent. The total cost of all disabling injuries and illnesses was nearly $60 billion per year.

Combined with your company’s worker injury data, the information can help prioritize preventive measures and training needs.

 

Safety National review of high cost claims

When one thinks about high cost workers’ comp claims, it’s natural to focus on catastrophic claims. These claims include severe burns, brain injuries, spinal cord injuries and significant amputations, which are devastating for all involved. According to Safety National’s claims data, five accident causes accounted for 86% of our catastrophic injury claims:

  • 24% – Motor Vehicle Accident
  • 24% – Fall
  • 20% – Struck By
  • 10% – Act of Crime
  • 8% – Burn

Yet, the recent review of Safety National’s large loss claims by Mark Walls, Vice President of Communications & Strategic Analysis, and Stephen Peacock, Assistant Vice President – Claims, found there were significantly more “developmental” claims that crossed the $1 million threshold, used to define “large loss.” Developmental claims are routine claims that continue to develop over time, including back, shoulder and knee injuries. In this review, they represented about two-thirds of all large-loss claims. In many cases, there were opportunities to resolve the claims before they morphed into large losses, yet failure to recognize the loss potential and intervene earlier opened a Pandora’s Box.

Multiple failed surgeries was the most-common reason for escalating costs in these claims, followed by prescription opioid medications. Both catastrophic and developmental claims have extremely long tails and can remain open for 30 years or longer. The data clearly shows that every claim warrants attention and a comprehensive claims management program is critical to preventing routine claims from morphing to large losses.

 

NCCI Annual Issues Symposium – Mega Loss in Work Comp: How Medical and Treatment Advances Affect Life Expectancy

At the recent NCCI Annual Issues Symposium, presenters lauded the incredible medical advances that have enabled seriously injured workers to survive and survive longer and addressed how to improve outcomes related to these so-called work comp megaloss claims. Dr. Michael Choo and Scott Goll from Paradigm Outcomes discussed trends in mega losses (defined as claims with total incurred greater than $1 million) that average $3.2 million an incident in medical costs alone but can have costs up toward $20 million.

An analysis of Paradigm data showed that 51 to 60-year-olds represented the highest percentage of these claims and males surpassed females for accident rates. The leading causes included vehicle accidents, being struck by an object, and fall-slip-trip injuries. Burns and infections were among the most common medical afflictions.

While some of the cost drivers reflect medical advances, such as more frequent replacement of prosthetics with more high-tech components, innovative laser treatment for scars, and long-term care programs for brain and spinal cord injuries, up-charging for certain medical treatments, adverse events following treatment such as hospital infections, and co-morbidities also drive costs.

According to Dr. Choo these factors can best be mitigated with:

  • Expertise: It takes a team to have the knowledge and skills to ensure a high-quality outcome.
  • Experience: People with experience can tell you what works and what doesn’t.
  • Embracing Outcomes: Help providers focus on outcomes rather than optimizing revenues.

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

OSHA watch

Silica safety enforcement ramped up at construction sites

Since compliance requirements took effect Sept. 23, 2017, there have been 116 alleged silica violations at companies as of April 17, a Bloomberg Environment analysis of agency records show. The number of violations in the initial six months is likely to increase since it can take up to six months after an inspection to issue citations. A common misunderstanding of Table 1 among small contractors is that using respirators is the first option. Respirators are acceptable protection, but contractors are expected to first change construction methods or tools to reduce the amount of silica that becomes airborne.

Of the 116 silica violations cited, the most frequently mentioned provision was employers failing to measure silica exposure levels (29 C.F.R. 1926.1153(d)(2)(i)). Almost as frequently cited is incorrectly following Table 1’s procedures (29 C.F.R. 1926.1153 (c)(1)), intended to reduce silica exposure. Eighty percent of the cases were classified as serious violations.

Direct final rule revising Beryllium Standard for general industry issued

While enforcement of certain provisions of the beryllium rule began on May 11, the compliance date for the beryllium standard for general industry was extended and certain ancillary provisions in the final rule changed as a result of a settlement agreement with four petitioners.

The direct final rule clarifies certain definitions and provisions for disposal/recycling, along with those that apply in cases of potential skin exposure to materials containing at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight. The direct final rule will go into effect July 4, “unless the agency receives significant adverse comments by June 4,” according to a press release.

New flier offers steps to keep tractor trailer drivers safe at destination

Developed in concert with the trucking industry, a new flier addresses the most common hazards for drivers after they reach their destination: parking, backing up, and coupling (attaching) and uncoupling (detaching) vehicles.

List of authorized outreach trainers now available online

The website now has a searchable list of authorized Outreach trainers to assist the public in finding authorized instructors for the 10- and 30-hour Outreach classes.

Mid-Atlantic regional construction safety campaign shifts focus to falls

The four-month campaign in the Mid-Atlantic states to address the four leading causes of fatal injuries in construction will focus on falls in May. Caught-in/-between hazards is the focus in June.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Mr. Good Vape LLC of Chino, was ordered to reinstate a former manager and pay $110,000 in compensation after he was fired for claiming the company’s production of flavored liquids for e-cigarette vapor inhalers violated federal environmental law.
  • California Premier Roofscapes Inc. was cited for repeat violations of fall protection safety orders and faces proposed $134,454 in penalties.

Florida

  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC downgraded a citation issued against Ocala-based Jody Wilson Construction Inc. from willful to serious and reduced the penalty from $49,000 to $2,800, noting the contractor had attempted to comply with the standard, albeit incorrectly.

Georgia

  • In a settlement in a whistleblower case, Jasper Contractors, headquartered in Kennesaw, but performing roofing work in Florida, agreed to pay an employee $48,000 in back wages and compensatory damages.

Massachusetts

  • In a settlement with Lynnway Auto Auction Inc., the Billerica facility agreed to correct hazards, implement significant safety measures, and pay $200,000 in penalties, following a May 2017 incident in which a sport utility vehicle fatally struck five people during an auto auction.

Michigan

  • Grand Rapids-based excavation contractor Kamphuis Pipeline Co. faces proposed penalties of $454,750 for exposing employees to trench cave-ins and other serious hazards while installing water metering pits and lines at a North Dakota municipal project.
  • RSB Construction Services LLC, in Goodrich, faces $147,000 in penalties for failing to train workers on fall hazards, and provide required guardrail, safety net, or personal fall arrest systems for workers on a pitched metal roof.

Mississippi

  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed two items of a serious citation issued to Southern Hens after an employee’s partial thumb amputation, but vacated a third item, noting the standard is concerned with the ‘how’ of the lockout procedures, not the ‘when.’ The penalty was reduced from $19,134 to $12,000.

Nebraska

  • Contractor Premier Underground LLC was cited for failing to protect its workers from excavation collapse hazards. The company faces proposed penalties of $46,930.
  • Omaha-based plumbing contractor Gavrooden Inc., doing business as Mr. Rooter Plumbing, was cited for the second time in less than six months for failing to protect its workers from excavation collapse hazards. Proposed penalties are $38,061.

Pennsylvania

  • The OSHRC has reversed an administrative law judge’s decision to vacate a one-item serious citation with a proposed penalty of $7,000, issued against Calpine Corp. because access to the exposure was reasonably predictable.

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

The many lives of an OSHA violation

Last month in the article, Court decision: OSHA not legally bound by five-year look back for repeat violations, we discussed the number of ways a repeat violation can be harmful to employers. When there is a good faith defense, it may be well worth contesting citations, even if they are minor. Here are four more reasons to do so:

In early April, Susquehanna Supply Company, Inc., of Williamsport, Pennsylvania pleaded guilty and paid a $250,000 fine for willfully committing an OSHA violation that resulted in an employee’s death. The employee died when he was working in a trench and one of the vertical dirt walls collapsed, burying him up to his chest and crushing him against the bridge’s concrete abutment. This is a reminder that OSHA fines can have multiple lives.

The highest criminal category that can be pursued against employers for OSHA violations is a misdemeanor. However, a 2015 memorandum of understanding between the Department of Justice and OSHA put some bite into the bark of criminal charges by making prosecution available through other agencies, particularly for violations involving an employee fatality and a willful conduct.

In addition to the possibility of criminal prosecution, there is also the possibility that third parties will use an OSHA citation as evidence of negligence in companion liability cases, a worker will use the intentional tort argument in a personal injury case, or an estate may sue for wrongful death. Each state has developed its own standards through legislation and legal precedent about the use of evidence of OSHA violations and cases have met with mixed success.

In some industries, an employer’s safety record is an important factor in the competitive process for new business. It’s easy to do an establishment search on OSHA’s website or obtain the information from a safety network. Bid documents will often include a question about willful, repeat or serious OSHA citations. The goal should be to reach a resolution with OSHA that will not affect the competitive position.

Also, some states, give workers an increase in benefits if the injury is tied to an OSHA violation. Some examples are:

  • California -An employee is injured by serious and willful misconduct of the employer -award increased by 50%
  • Illinois – An employer willfully violates the state Health and Safety Act (ILCS 225) -award increased by 25%
  • Massachusetts – Employer’s serious and willful misconduct causes injury -award is doubled
  • Missouri – Failure of employer to comply with state statute or order by the Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation -award increased by 15%
  • North Carolina – Willful failure of employer to comply with statutory requirements or order by the North Carolina Industrial Commission – award increased by 10%
  • Wisconsin – Injury caused by failure of employer to comply with any statute, rule or order of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development -award increased by 15%

OSHA citations can be deceptive; there’s a lot more involved than paying the fine and abating the citation. They can lead to additional lawsuits, penalties by other regulatory agencies, failed bids, and increased workers’ comp costs.

Employers must send a notice of intention to contest within 15 working days of receipt of the OSHA notice of proposed penalty. Every notice of intention to contest shall specify whether it is directed to the citation or to the proposed penalty, or both. The decision to contest is a business decision that needs to be carefully weighed.

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

The ten most dangerous jobs

While it is generally known that the highest number of workplace fatalities occur among truck drivers and material moving occupations, the chances of a fatality are much higher in specific industries when the fatal work injury rate, calculated per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, is used. According to a recent report in EHS Today, the ten most dangerous jobs are:

No. 1 – Loggers

The most-dangerous profession, loggers experienced 91 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 135.9 out of 100,000 workers, an increase of 33% since 2011, when it was ranked number two. Risks: falls, struck-by, dangerous tools such as chainsaws and axes

No. 2 – Fishers and related fishing workers

Fishermen experienced 24 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 86 out of 100,000 workers, which was a decline of 29% since 2011, when it was ranked number one. Risks: drowning, struck by lightning, crushed by equipment

No. 3 – Aircraft pilots and flight engineers

Pilots and flight engineers experienced 75 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 55.5 out of 100,000 workers, a slight drop from 2011. Risks: crashes

No. 4 – Roofers

Roofers experienced 101 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 48.6 out of 100,000 workers, an increase of 50% since 2011. Risks: falls, struck-by, and heat

No. 5 – Refuse and recyclable material collectors

Refuse and recyclable material collectors experienced 31 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 34.1 out of 100,000 workers, a decrease of 17% since 2011. Risks: dangerous machinery, crushed by equipment, struck-by, traffic accidents, struck by vehicle

No. 6 – Structural iron and steel workers

Steel and ironworkers experienced 16 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 25.1 out of 100,000 workers, a slight decrease from 2011. Risks: falls, struck-by, heat, crushed by materials

No. 7 – Truck drivers and other drivers

Employees who drive for work – including truck drivers – experienced 918 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 24.1 out of 100,000 workers, which is similar to 2011. Risks: traffic accidents, struck by vehicle, other drivers, construction zones, sleep deprivation, texting/talking while driving

No. 8 – Farmers, ranchers, and agricultural managers

Agricultural workers experienced 260 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 23.1 out of 100,000 workers, a slight decline from 2011. Risks: dangerous machinery, chemicals, heat

No. 9 – Supervisors of construction workers

First-line supervisors of construction trades and extraction workers experienced 134 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 18 out of 100,000 workers. Risks: struck-by, falls at height and on level, heat, use of large equipment

No. 10 – Grounds maintenance workers

New to the list, grounds maintenance workers experienced 217 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 17.4 out of 100,000 workers. Risks: heat, cold, noise, chemical exposure, ergonomics-related issues, machinery

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