Things you should know

Studies and reports:

The Relationship of the Amount of Physical Therapy to Time Lost From Work and Costs in the Workers’ Compensation System – Journal of Occupational Medicine

Finding: Injured workers who take time off work to recover, and whose treatment includes more than 15 sessions of physical therapy, are out of the workforce longer and are six times more likely to cost more.

Suicide and drug-related mortality following occupational injury – American Journal of Industrial Medicine

Finding: Workplace injury significantly raises a person’s risk of suicide or overdose death.

Fatal occupational injuries to independent workers – BLS

Finding: Fatalities among independent workers accounted for about 12% of all workplace deaths in 2016-2017, and independent workers have a disproportionately higher share of fatalities due to falls, slips and trips.

Interstate Variations in Dispensing of Opioids, 5th Edition – Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI)

Finding: In 27 states, fewer injured workers received opioids recently as compared with previous years. But, injured workers continue to be treated for pain, as non-opioid pain medications (e.g., NSAIDs) increased to a lesser degree and non-pharmacologic treatments (e.g., physical therapy) without pain medication were more frequently provided.

The effects of sleep on workplace cognitive failure and safety (Construction) – Oregon Healthy Workforce Center

Finding: Among construction workers, there is a connection between poor quality sleep and the risk of workplace incidents and injuries.

Calories Purchased by Hospital Employees After Implementation of a Cafeteria Traffic Light-Labeling and Choice Architecture Program – Massachusetts General Hospital

Finding: Implementation of a traffic light-labeling and choice architecture program was associated with a 6.2% decrease in calories per transaction over 2 years, including a 23.0% decrease in calories from the least healthy food.

Drug trends: Evaluating Opioids – Coventry

Finding: The prescribing of drugs meant to treat opioid use disorder increased 5.4% in 2018 among workers compensation claims and 1.8% of claims with high doses of opioids received naloxone – an anti-overdose medication – at almost double the amount from 2017.

2019 RIMS Benchmark Survey – Business Insurance

Finding: The average total cost of risk for businesses rose by 2.1% in 2018, reversing four years of declines.

Workplace Secondhand Tobacco Smoke Exposure Among U.S. Nonsmoking Workers, 2015 – CDC

Finding: Nearly 1 out of 5 workers are exposed to secondhand smoke on the job. Results identify industries most at risk.

Commercial motor vehicle brake inspection event set for Sept. 15 – 21

Commercial motor vehicle inspectors throughout North America will perform brake system examinations Sept. 15-21 during the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s annual Brake Safety Week. While special emphasis will be placed on brake hoses and tubing, inspectors also will be looking for other critical non-brake-related violations.

State News

California

  • The Workers Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (WCIRB) proposed that the Jan. 1, 2020 rates be about 5.4% lower than the current advisory pure premium rates, or $1.58 per $100 of payroll.
  • WCRIB’s X-Mod estimator is now available for 2020 at https://www.wcirb.com/estimator.

Florida

  • National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) filed a proposed 5.4% rate decrease with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, effective January 1, 2020.

Minnesota

  • The Department of Labor and Industry has adopted an expedited rulemaking process, and has published new rules governing treatment and compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder in first responders.

Missouri

  • Department of Labor and Industrial Relations has adopted several new rule changes regarding administrative law judges, review applications and more.

Nebraska

  • Hospitals, insurers, self-insured employers, risk-management pools and third-party administrators can now make reports electronically. FAQ’s are on the website.

Virginia

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

Legal Corner

ADA 

Employee unable to wear safety shoes can be terminated

In Holmes v. General Dynamics Mission Systems Inc., a U.S. District Judge in Virginia dismissed an employee’s claims alleging violations of the ADA after she was terminated for being unable to perform the essential functions of her job, specifically, wear required safety shoes. She worked at the manufacturing facility for 18 years and was given an exemption in 2003, based on a note from her doctor.

However, the company stopped exempting her in 2013 because an outside auditor found violations of the protective footwear policy and stated that future violations could jeopardize the company’s certifications. The company did research and present alternative footwear to her and when none were acceptable, she was placed on an excused absence and encouraged her to seek custom-made safety shoes, which the company would reimburse.

After more than two years of absence and no evidence that she pursued the custom-made shoes, she was terminated.

Employer’s failure to raise “regarded as” defense results in jury award to employee

In Robinson v. First State Community Action Agency, a manager told an employee she either had dyslexia or didn’t know what she was doing and placed her on a performance plan. She sought a medical opinion about dyslexia, which was not conclusive, and gave it to her manager who gave it to HR. The HR Director told her the evaluation did not have any impact on her ability to perform essential job functions, and she was to follow the performance improvement plan and she then sought a reasonable accommodation. A few weeks later she was fired.

She sued, alleging the employer regarded her as disabled and failed to provide a reasonable accommodation and a jury agreed. The employer appealed, arguing that the jury instructions didn’t reflect changes that the ADA Amendments Act in 2008. While the 3rd Circuit agreed that the jury instruction was made in error, and “after the 2008 amendments went into effect, an individual who demonstrates that she is ‘regarded as’ disabled, but who fails to demonstrate that she is actually disabled, is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation,” the employer had waived the right to contest it because it had not opposed the use of the argument earlier.

The case is a harsh reminder of the importance of raising all possible defenses early in the litigation to preserve the rights on appeal.

Workers’ Compensation 

No liability for Six Flags in workers’ electrocution – California

In Ingram v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., an appellate court declined to overturn a jury trial verdict that declared Six Flags was not negligent for the injuries suffered by two workers who were electrocuted while repairing a ride. Although one of the electricians thought he had deenergized the equipment at Magic Mountain, there was an arc flash explosion, which caused serious burns.

They sued the parent company, Six Flags, arguing it failed to provide appropriate personal protective equipment and made changes to its safety program after the incident. However, Six Flags has a policy that forbids working on energized electrical equipment, provides training on how to shut off power, and successfully argued to exclude its post-incident safety program changes from the trial.

Failure to return to light duty work nixes award of TPD – Florida

In MJM Electric Inc. v. Spencer, an appellate court reversed a judge of compensation claims’ decision in favor of an injured worker because the employer had offered suitable light duty work. The electrician was injured at work and saw an authorized physician, but never returned to work in spite of multiple messages from his employer that light-duty work that fell within his work restrictions was available.

After two weeks of no response, the company fired him for job abandonment. He argued he did not recognize the number and had no voice mails. The judge of compensation claims found he was not entitled to temporary partial disability benefits for the first two weeks after his accident, but he could receive disability benefits after his termination because the company failed to meet its burden of showing suitable employment opportunities. The appeals court reversed and remanded the case.

Tort suit against subcontractor can proceed – Florida

In Heredia v. John Beach & Associates, an appellate court ruled that a man working for a subcontractor can sue another subcontractor and an employee. The injured employee was working for QGS, a subcontractor doing roadwork for Lennar Homes LLC and was accidentally struck by a truck owned by another subcontractor, John Beach & Associates, that was doing surveying work.

Under the law, when a contractor sublets work to subcontractors, all employees of the contractor and subcontractors are considered employed in one and the same business and are protected by the exclusive remedy provision. However, the court found in this case, Lennar was not performing any work, was not subletting work, and therefore, was not a contractor. The case can proceed.

Average weekly wage should be based on actual earnings not pro-ration wage – Georgia

A school custodian worked a school year schedule, but had his wage spread out over a 12-month period. In Ware County Board of Education v. Taft, an appellate court ruled that his wages should be based on his contractual rate, not the lesser actual pro-rated amount he earned during the 13-weeks preceding his injury.

Supreme Court provides guidance on PTSD provisions – Minnesota

In Smith v. Carver County, the state Supreme Court reversed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (“WCCA”), finding the 2013 PTSD statute does not require a compensation judge to conduct an independent assessment to verify that the diagnosis was in conformity with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) before accepting the expert’s diagnosis.

The case involved a deputy sheriff who resigned after 10 years and was diagnosed with PTSD by a licensed psychologist. However, an independent psychological evaluator opined that he did not have PTSD, although he had adjustment disorder with anxiety. A WCJ found this opinion more persuasive and denied the claim. The WCCA overturned, finding this opinion did not address the PTSD criteria in the latest version of the DSM.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court reversed noting the compensation judge’s legalistic analysis of the DSM-5 was not to become a substitute for the professional judgment of psychiatrists and psychologists and the judge did not err in finding the independent evaluation more persuasive.

High court rules no fault auto insurer must pay for injured driver’s excess chiropractic charges – Minnesota

In Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., an injured bus driver received 12 weeks of chiropractic treatments, the maximum allowed under the state’s workers’ comp law. She then sought treatment from another chiropractor and payment from her personal automobile insurance policy, which denied payment based on the workers comp payments.

The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled the additional care fell outside of the comp statute because it was with a separate provider whose services had never been characterized as excessive.

Jury verdict of $74.1 million upheld in worker’s death – Missouri

The Ford Motor Co. must pay the widow of a truck driver who was struck by machinery while making a delivery at the Kansas City Assembly Plant ruled an appellate court in Ford v. Ford Motor Co. The driver, who had worked for the trucking company for less than two weeks, was delivering vehicle seats, which were removed by an L-shaped pair of conveyor lines. He entered the area between the conveyor belts to manually clear a jam during seat removal and stepped into a “pinch point” between the tables and was crushed.

The company appealed a jury verdict that assigned the company 95% comparative fault for his death and awarded his widow and son $38 million in compensatory damages, and $38 million for aggravating circumstances. The appeals court disagreed and upheld the award. The company plans to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Right to cross-examine employer’s expert wrongfully denied – New York

In Matter of Ferguson v. Eallonardo Construction, an appellate court ruled that a worker was wrongfully denied the opportunity to cross-examine the insurance carrier’s medical consultant on how the permanent impairment rating of 40% was reached. While the counsel for the injured worker did not file a competing report, the court ruled that the right to cross-examine the carrier’s consultant was not predicated upon the filing of a competing report. The only requirement is that a request be made at a hearing, prior to the judge’s ruling on the merits.

Failure to complete application sufficient for denial – New York

In Matter of Jones v. Human Resources Administration, an appellate court ruled that an attorney’s failure to fill out every section of an application for administrative review was a proper basis for the Workers’ Compensation Board to deny it. While the worker received benefits for an work-related injury, she was later denied the request to add additional consequential injuries to her claim. There was a no information in the box for question 13 of the RB-89 form, which requested hearing dates, transcripts, etc.

Heart injury hours after accident compensable – North Carolina

In Holland v. Parrish Tire Co., a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the Industrial Commission’s decision that a worker’s heart injury that occurred hours after he was hit in the chest with a tire was not compensable. While unloading tires for a delivery, he was hit in the chest by a tire that weighed between 100 and 200 pounds. The owner transported him to an urgent care center because he had turned gray and was uncharacteristically slow, where he was sent to an emergency room. There he was diagnosed with an aortic dissection and a collapsed lung and admitted to the intensive care unit.

He underwent surgery and was told he would have a work restriction of being unable to lift more than 40 pounds indefinitely, and was diagnosed with major neurocognitive disorder due to the open-heart surgery, adjustment disorder, and depression. Later, he was rated permanently disabled and unable to work by a treating physician and filed for workers’ comp, which was denied.

The appellate court found that the commission had not adequately considered physicians’ testimony that aortic dissections could be caused by trauma.

No comp for traveling salesman for car accident after celebration with coworkers – Pennsylvania

In Peters v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), a traveling salesperson drove past his house on his way to a happy hour with colleagues and was injured in a car accident when returning home. Although he argued that he was traveling home from a work-sponsored event in a work van, and that as a traveling employee, his accident should be compensable, a judge, the WCAB, and the Commonwealth Court disagreed. It found that the gathering was not furthering the interest of the employer, but rather was a social gathering. Further, while a traveling employee is presumed to be within the course and scope of employment when he is driving to or from work, he had abandoned his employment by driving past his house on his way to the happy hour with colleagues.

Failure to use an automated external defibrillator not breach of duty – Pennsylvania

In Desher v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, an appellate court judge affirmed a trial court ruling denying the guardian of a worker, who suffered a cardiac arrest and a subsequent brain injury at work, damages under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). The guardian claimed the former employer was liable for the incident for not administering an automated external defibrillator (AED).

While the company had an AED within 100 yards of the incident, it did not use it and paramedics arrived within two minutes and used one. There was no evidence suggesting a heightened risk of cardiac events for employees or that it provide assistance in the form of an AED.

Continuing denial of opioids affirmed – Pennsylvania

In Jason Golembesky v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Worth & Co. Inc.), a manufacturing worker had been on high doses of opioid oxycodone since his injury in 2010. In 2016, the employer filed a utilization review petition, and the reviewing doctor opined that the opioid prescription was excessive. The worker filed a petition for review of the findings, arguing he had tried alternative methods of controlling the pain, which had not worked. The employer also presented evidence from an independent review doctor who noted the worker was taking massive dosages, essentially three times what is considered a high dose of morphine equivalent.

A WCJ and the WCAB found the opinions of the independent reviewers more credible than those of the worker’s providers.

More than ten years after injury, worker awarded benefits for right knee condition – Virginia

In Nanochemonics Holdings, LLC v. McKinney, a worker sustained a work-related left knee injury. More than ten years later, he filed a claim for a right knee condition. Stressing that the employer is responsible for all sequelae that flow from the primary work-related injury, an appellate court affirmed the award benefits, noting that the problem was caused, at least in part, by an altered gait brought about by his earlier left knee injury. While it acknowledged that the worker was morbidly obese, this did not amount to a sufficient break in causation.

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

Insights from OSHA’s recently released enforcement summary

While many anticipated a relaxing of OSHA’s enforcement actions under the Trump administration, the recently released enforcement summary tells a different story. There were 32,023 federal inspections in FY 2018, a number that has remained relatively stable over the past three fiscal years. The continued aggressive inspection strategies under the Trump administration has confounded many. There’s been a record number of $100,000+ citations, higher penalties, continuing increase in willful and repeat citations, as well as worker safety criminal prosecutions; yet, the number of inspectors has declined raising concerns of safety advocates. Also, the figures are for federal inspections. OSHA only covers about 50% of employers-state plans handle enforcement in the private sector in 22 states. State plans must be as effective as federal OSHA, but some states, such as California, have adopted stricter standards.

The enforcement summary provides valuable insight into what triggers an inspection. Over 56% of the inspections were unprogrammed inspections. These include employee complaints, injuries/fatalities, follow up inspections, and referrals. In FY 2018 (Oct. 1, 2017 – Sept. 30, 2018), OSHA conducted 941 fatality/catastrophe investigations, the highest number of such investigations in more than a decade and a 12.4% increase from 2017.

Employee complaints triggered 41% (7,489) of the unprogrammed inspections and over 23% of all inspections. Under the OSHA Act, every employee has the right to complain to OSHA and request an inspection, if they feel there is a violation of a health and safety standard. OSHA does not have the resources to conduct an inspection for every complaint, but evaluates each complaint to determine how it can be handled best – an off-site investigation or an on-site inspection. For an on-site inspection, at least one of eight criteria must be met.

Referrals prompted 6,463, about 36% of unprogrammed inspections and 20% of all inspections. Theses encompass all subtypes of referrals such as those received from compliance safety and health officers, safety and health agencies, other city/county/state/federal governments, media, and employer-reported.

A programmed inspection occurs when the inspection is scheduled because of OSHA selection criteria, such as emphasis programs or compliance directives. They tend to focus on the industries and operations where known hazards exist (e.g., combustible dusts, chemical processing, ship-breaking, falls in construction are some examples), including those that fall under an OSHA emphasis program, and accounted for 44% of the inspections.

In October, the agency launched a Site-Specific Targeting program using data from 2016 Form 300A to target non-construction workplaces with 20 or more employees. While workplaces with high DART rates and those that did not submit the required data are OSHA’s primary enforcement focus, there is also a random sample of low injury rate establishments on the inspection list for quality control purposes. What’s important to know is that these inspections are comprehensive – they are wall-to-wall.

Employer takeaway: While the data provides clues as to the situations that will trigger an inspection, all employers should recognize an inspection can be random and be prepared. If there’s been a fatality or catastrophic injury at a worksite, a legitimate employee complaint, a referral, or a previous inspection with citation, an inspection is likely.

In addition, those industries subject to local (LEP) or national emphasis programs (NEP) and worksites with high DART rates are more vulnerable. It’s important to know the criteria for LEP’s and NEP’s. If OSHA shows up for an inspection at a workplace under one of these programs when the company doesn’t fit the criteria, the employer has a right to refuse the inspection.

Employers should be cognizant of the high number of inspections prompted by employee complaints. Managers who are dismissive of safety concerns or hostile toward those who raise them expose the company to costly consequences. Those who foster a strong safety culture and encourage feedback are less likely to receive complaints or be cited by OSHA.

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

Things you should know

Deadline to submit pay data to EEOC extended

A federal court judge has granted the EEOC’s request to extend the deadline for employers to report equal pay data (known as Component 2) of the EEO-1 to September 30, 2019. Notice has been posted on the EEOC website.

Preventing falls in construction: NIOSH issues fact sheet

NIOSH has published a new fact sheet intended to help construction employers and workers prevent falls from roofs, ladders, and scaffolds.

FMCSA webpage answers FAQs on upcoming database of CMV drivers who fail drug, alcohol tests

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has created a webpage that outlines specifics of the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse, a national online database intended to provide – in real time – the names of commercial motor vehicle drivers who have failed drug and alcohol tests.

‘Dirty Dozen’ list of workplace safety violators released

The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health (NCOSH) released its 2019 “dirty dozen” companies that the organization says failed to protect workers from preventable illness, injury and death.

This year’s list includes:

  • Amazon.com Inc., Seattle
  • Atlantic Capes Fisheries Co., Cape May, New Jersey, and the staffing firm it uses, B.J.’s Service Co Inc., New Bedford, Massachusetts
  • Bedrock Detroit LLC, Detroit
  • Beiza Brothers Harvesting LLC, Moultrie, Georgia
  • Facebook Inc., Menlo Park, California, along with contractors Accenture PLC, Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., PRO Unlimited Inc. and Tech Solutions Co.
  • Genan Inc., Houston
  • Integra Health Management Inc., Timonium, Maryland
  • The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore
  • McDonald’s USA LLC, Oak Brook, Illinois
  • Purdue Pharmaceuticals LP, Stamford, Connecticut, and the opioid industry
  • Tooma Enterprises Inc., Sterling Heights, Michigan
  • XPO Logistics, Greenwich, Connecticut

 

Report on women and safety in the workplace

The American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) released a report on women and safety in the modern workplace. The report focuses on three main challenges faced by women and offers potential solutions.

WCRI releases comp state trends reports

The 18 states in the CompScope report are Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.

According to an article in Business Insurance, key findings include:

  • The median indemnity costs per claim across the states for three years starting in 2015 was $17,778, with North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Georgia ranked in the top three and Wisconsin, Indiana and Texas in the bottom three.
  • The median cost per claim with more than seven days lost time between 2015 and 2018 was $41,888, with Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Virginia ranked in the top three and Minnesota, Tennessee and Texas in the bottom three.
  • The median medical payments per claim in 2017 was $13,524, with Wisconsin, Virginia, and Indiana ranked in the top three and Massachusetts, California and Texas ranked in the bottom three.
  • Twenty-nine percent was the median percentage of 2015 claims with more than seven days of lost time and 36 months of experience that had a defense attorney involved. Among the states with the highest attorney involvement were Illinois, New Jersey and California. Those with the lowest were Texas, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

New resource to help employers understand mental health issues

The DOL, in coordination with the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) and its Employer Assistance and Resource Network on Disability Inclusion (EARN), has launched a new resource, Mental Health Toolkit to help employers better understand mental health issues and to provide guidance on how to cultivate a supportive workplace.

Workers’ marijuana use major contributor to rise in positive drug tests, analysis shows

The rate of positive drug tests for illicit substances among U.S. workers in 2018 reached a 14-year peak, with marijuana playing a significant role, according to the annual Drug Testing Index from lab services provider Quest Diagnostics.

Researchers found that 4.4% of the combined U.S. workforce tested positive – up from 4.2% in 2017 and 2016 and the highest since 2004 when the rate was 4.5%. “Post-accident” positive tests showed rate increases: to 8.4% from 7.7% in 2017 among employees in the general workforce, and to 4.7% from 3.1% among workers in safety-sensitive jobs.

Boom lift scenario now part of NIOSH simulation tool

NIOSH has added a boom lift scenario to its Aerial Lift Hazard Recognition Simulator.

The training tool includes a scissor lift operation simulation, provides realistic workplace scenarios “to help potential aerial lift operators acclimate to aerial lift operation and to identify the common occupational hazards during use,” but is not intended to be a replacement for required training.

Protecting first responders from fentanyl exposure: NIOSH releases video

NIOSH has released a 13-minute video intended to protect first responders who face potential exposure to fentanyl – a synthetic opioid considered up to 50 times more potent than heroin – and other illicit drugs.

State News

California

  • The number of independent medical review determination letters calling for review of treatment denials and modifications peaked to 184,733 in 2018, 7.3% more than in 2017 according to the California Workers’ Compensation Research Institute. Full report.
  • 55% of medical bill reviews were overturned according to a report by the California Department of Industrial Relations.
  • The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau determined that the modest improvement in pure premium workers’ compensation rates so far in 2019 does not warrant a midyear filing.

New York

  • The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board announced that the maximum weekly wage benefit rate will climb, from $905 to $934, effective July 1.

Pennsylvania

  • Insurance Commissioner approved a nearly 13% reduction in loss costs for workers compensation insurance.

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

Employee behavior and heat-related illness: 5 problem-solutions

Educational campaigns and accessible resources coupled with technology and meteorology precision have made it possible for employers to provide site-specific weather information and the proper resources and training for employees to combat the risk of heat exposures. Tools such as OSHA’s heat index app calculate the heat index for the worksite, display a risk level for workers, and provide reminders about the protective measures that should be taken at that risk level.

Yet, every year thousands of workers suffer from heat illness and some die. Why?

In some cases, it’s organizational factors such as indifferent or callous supervision, poor workplace conditions, and unrealistic production expectations, which reflect the company’s overarching culture. Yet, many employers are proactive and do an excellent job in training employees and implementing procedures to prevent heat stress that aren’t followed by some employees.

Here are five problem-solutions related to employee behavior and heat stress:

  1. Problem: Risk perceptionSome employees simply underestimate how serious heat illness can be. They’ve worked in the heat before without incident – been there, done that – can’t happen to them. Moreover, the symptoms of heat illness can be subtle and misinterpreted as mere annoyances rather than signs of a serious health issue.

    That’s why the American Society of Safety Engineers calls heat the “unseen danger” at construction sites. If a heat rash appears or a cramp develops, workers can dismiss them as an inconvenience and continue working without applying a powder or getting water or a sports drink. Even signs of heat exhaustion such as thirst, heavy sweating, headache, nausea, dizziness, and irritability can be interpreted as being tired from working in the sun.

    Potential solutions: Make rest and shade breaks mandatory, pre-shift reminders about the symptoms of heat stress, foster a ‘stop and think’ culture, buddy system, make sure employees are aware of the worst-case scenario, and use testimonials and share previous incidents to heighten awareness.

  2. Problem: Don’t understand hydrationDehydration not only leads to heat stress but also impairs visual motor tracking, short-term memory, and concentration leading to work-related accidents. Most workers know that staying hydrated is critical when working in hot and humid environments.

    But “staying hydrated” means different things to different people. To some, it means waiting until they are thirsty to drink. To others, it means grabbing an ice-cold soda loaded with sugar.

    As a general guideline, the recommended amount of water intake is one quart per hour (ideally one cup every 15 minutes) of active work for the average adult. However, every worker is different. Workers with underlying medical conditions or those who are new to the work environment have unique hydration requirements.

    Potential solutions: Have water easily and readily available, provide reusable water bottles, enforce breaks, educate with detailed information about how to hydrate (frequency, water vs.sports drinks, predisposing medical factors, effects of diet, drinking alcohol) and the symptoms of dehydration, and issue frequent reminders and weather alerts throughout the day.

  3. Problem: Inexperienced workersSummer work means many young and inexperienced workers and OSHA statistics prove that these workers are particularly vulnerable to heat-related illnesses. Whether it’s lack of knowledge, an immature attitude, fear, a desire to fit in and prove their worth, or an invincible mindset, some young workers try to side-step an acclimatization program and keep up with more seasoned workers with deadly results.

    Potential solutions: Have a mentoring program, tailor training, establish consequences for failure to follow rules, and consistently interact with workers to gauge how they’re feeling.

  4. Problem: Heat illness mythsEven well-trained employees can fall back on myths, misconceptions, and inaccuracies in the “heat” of the moment. Some common myths are:
    • When you’re having heat stroke, you don’t sweat
    • Acclimatization will protect you during a heat wave
    • Salt tablets are a good way to restore electrolytes lost during sweating
    • Off-duty drinking and diet do not adversely affect the ability to manage job-related heat
    • Medications/health conditions will not affect the ability to work safely in heat

    Potential solutions: To debunk myths, employees need to understand them. Make them a part of ongoing training.

  5. Problem: Bantering and sense of controlBanter is commonplace in many physically demanding jobs. Good-natured joshing and jibing can reduce stress and help to build strong teams. Yet, when bantering moves to rough-and-tumble horseplay or bullying it can lead to dire consequences. When workers are made to feel that needing a break is a sign of weakness – “don’t be a wimp,” “man-up” – a critical line is crossed.

    Potential solutions: How workers perceive the ease or consequences of horseplay or bullying is a key factor. All organizations should make clear what is acceptable and set clear boundaries. Importantly, drill home the message that workers are responsible for each other’s safety and make sure supervisors walk the talk.

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

Things you should know

Studies:

Do higher deductibles in group health plans increase injured workers’ propensity to file for workers’ compensation? – Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI)

Finding: Injured workers are more inclined to seek workers comp coverage to avoid out-of-pocket health expenses when “facing a substantial financial burden” of group health deductibles.

Workers’ Compensation and Prescription Drugs – NCCI

Finding: Prescription drug prices continue to increase, but there is lower utilization.

State Policies on Treatment Guidelines and Utilization Management: A National Inventory – WCRI

Finding: There are vast differences in states’ workers’ compensation treatment guidelines and how those guidelines are enforced.

California Workers’ Comp Prescription Drug Utilization and Payment Distributions, 2009-2018: Part 1 – California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI)

Finding: NSAIDs overtake opioids as the top workers’ comp drug group; dermatologicals are most costly.

Characterization of occupational exposures to respirable silica and dust in demolition, crushing, and chipping activities

Finding: Certain job tasks may expose construction workers to silica dust at levels more than 10 times the permissible exposure limit set by OSHA.

Antineoplastic drug administration by pregnant and nonpregnant nurses: an exploration of the use of protective gloves and gowns

Finding: Nearly 40 percent of pregnant nurses don’t wear protective gowns when administering powerful cancer drugs, putting their own health and that of their unborn babies at risk.

Workplace bullying and workplace violence as risk factors for cardiovascular disease: a multi-cohort study

Finding: The effect of bullying and violence on the incidence of cardiovascular disease in the general population is comparable to other risk factors such as diabetes and alcohol drinking.

Compounded topical pain creams to treat localized chronic pain: a randomized controlled trial

Finding: Topical creams were not effective in reducing pain in a study of 399 pain patients at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

NIOSH updates Sound Level Meter app

NIOSH has released an updated version of its free Sound Level meter app, designed to measure noise exposure in the workplace. It is available from the Apple App Store.

NIOSH releases software tool for hazard recognition training in mines

This new training tool is a beta release developed by NIOSH’s Mining Program. It is a PC-based software application that allows both novice and experienced miners to test their examination skills in a simulated, interactive environment with more than 30 panoramic photos from a real surface limestone mine, or with uploaded images taken by smartphones or digital cameras in their own mine in any sector.

Download a beta version of the EXAMiner software.

American Society of Safety Professionals issues guidance on workplace violence

The document, “How to Develop and Implement an Active Shooter/Armed Assailant Plan,” contains recommendations from more than 30 safety experts on how businesses can better protect themselves ahead of such incidents. There is a related free video and infographic.

NSC publishes Managing Fatigue

Managing Fatigue, gives employers specific, actionable guidance on implementing an effective fatigue risk management system.

NSC releases The State of Safety

The State of Safety assesses states’ safety efforts by examining laws, policies and regulations around issues that lead to the most preventable deaths and injuries. In addition to receiving an overall grade, states earned grades in three different sections:

  • Road Safety
  • Workplace Safety
  • Home & Community Safety

NIOSH publishes new skin-hazard profiles for five chemicals

The new profiles are:

  • Atrazine
  • Catechol
  • Chlorinated camphere
  • Pentachlorophenol
  • Sodium fluoroacetate

State News

California

  • The Division of Workers’ Compensation has given medical providers who treat injured California workers free online access to the state’s drug formulary and treatment guidelines.

Michigan

  • The Workers’ Compensation Agency has published its Health Care Services Rules and Fee Schedule, which took effect on Jan. 8. It includes a new definition and rule language regarding telemedicine services. The health care services rules and fee schedule may be found here, on page 238. More information

North Carolina

  • Rules approved by the North Carolina Industrial Commission regarding workers’ comp settlement agreements, which were effective January 1, were published in the North Carolina Register on page 1583.

Pennsylvania

  • Some 15 insurance carriers, including Pennsylvania’s largest workers’ compensation writer, have now agreed to retroactively cut rates, part of a do-over requested after a data-reporting error led to higher premiums last year.

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

Legal Corner

ADA 
Court clarifies ADA website accessibility obligations

When the ADA was enacted, Congress did not anticipate the role of the Internet and focused on physical access barriers. Title III does not provide guidance for the Internet or web-based and mobile applications, but it does not limit coverage to brick-and mortar locations or exclude online locations. As a result, there have been a number of lawsuits and the decisions are split regarding whether Title III’s definition of “public accommodations” is limited to physical spaces.

For the first time, a U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled on this issue in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza. The Ninth Circuit held that Domino’s violated Title III of the ADA because its website’s incompatibility with screen reader software impedes access to the goods and services of its physical pizza franchises, which are places of public accommodation.

Critical to the decision was the nexus between Domino’s website and app and physical restaurants. While technically this ruling only applies to states covered by the Ninth Circuit, it reflects a nationwide trend and the DOJ’s position that businesses should make websites accessible to disabled individuals by relying on a set of private industry standards, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”), developed by the World Wide Web Consortium.

Workers’ Compensation 
Timeliness of denial of benefits clarified – Florida

Florida statutes allow an employer to pay benefits to a worker while investigating his claim, for up to 120 days. An employer waives the right to deny compensability unless it can establish material facts that it could not have discovered through reasonable investigation within the 120-day period.

In Rente v. Orange County BOCC, the employer issued a notice of denial eight months after the injury. A judge allowed the denial, finding the injured worker had made misstatements to the spine surgeon about his prior symptoms and treatment to his low back, which was the proximate cause of delay in the employer’s decision to contest his claim. However, the 1st District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, noting the judge needed to make a determination of when the employer had material facts regarding the issue of causation and compensability, which would trigger the employer’s 120-day period to commence an investigation and either accept or deny his claim.

Workers’ comp settlement does not bar recovery in tort suit – Illinois

In Armstead v. Nat’l Freight, Inc., a semi-truck driver for a Pennsylvania corporation sustained injuries in a vehicular accident with a National Freight truck in Grundy County. The Pennsylvania work comp settlement described his injury as a knee strain and noted its terms did not bar subsequent third-party action against various defendants for injuries he alleged he sustained to his back and shoulder.

He also sued National Freight and the driver, but they argued he could not present evidence of injuries other than to his knee, since the settlement said that it was his only injury. An appellate court reversed the circuit court’s grant of partial summary judgment and remanded for further proceeding, noting a statement could not be considered a judicial admission when it was made in the course of another proceeding and could not be used to bar his tort claim.

No extra benefits for worker who did not seek job rehab services – Illinois

In Euclid Beverage v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission et al., a long-term worker in the beverage distribution industry injured his back and was terminated because he could not be accommodated on light duty. He received temporary total disability, maintenance, and permanent partial disability benefits.

Shortly after his termination, he was offered a job that did not rely on physical ability, but he declined to interview. A few years later, the employer filed for review and the Circuit Court overturned the award for maintenance benefits, “finding that the record did not demonstrate that the claimant participated in a vocational rehabilitation program or (a) self-directed job search.” State law only mandates that an employer pay maintenance benefits if an injured worker was or is enrolled in a vocational rehabilitation program.

Worker must show disability made it impossible to secure work – New York

In Matter of Figueroa v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc, an office assistant who worked for approximately 41 years began to experience pain in her hands and wrists and filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Shortly thereafter, she retired from her position at the age of 59.

Three years later she began efforts to reenter the job market, attending an orientation session, taking classes on preparing a résumé and cover letter to assist her in finding a job and subsequently submitting job applications to various retail companies. The employer challenged the Board’s award of benefits during the time period she had reattached to the labor market. The court agreed that she had to demonstrate her inability to obtain work was due to her causally-related disability, as opposed to her age, economic conditions or other factors. It found the Board’s decision to award claimant wage replacement benefits during the period of her labor market reattachment was not supported by substantial evidence.

Worker’s estate entitled only to portion of posthumous schedule loss of use award – New York

In Matter of Estate of Youngjohn v Berry Plastics Corp., an appellate court noted that when an injured employee dies without leaving a surviving spouse, child under 18 years old or dependent, only that portion of the employee’s schedule loss of use (“SLU”) award that had accrued at the time of the death is payable to the estate. That rule applies even when the SLU award is posthumous.

Temporary worker cannot maintain tort suit against borrowing employer – New York

In Ferguson v. National Gypsum, a temporary worker was injured while working for National Gypsum and filed suit seeking damages. The Appellate Division’s 4th Department found the claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law based on the special employer concept. Since National had complete and exclusive control over the manner, details and results of the injured worker’s work, the court said the company was his special employer and enjoyed immunity from civil liability.

Family of worker killed cannot sue in civil court – North Carolina

An appeals court ruled that workers’ comp is the only recourse for a family of a mechanic crushed to death while repairing a machine at a plywood manufacturing plant. The deceased was hired by a staffing agency, but the manufacturer controlled the worker’s day-to-day work activities, controlled the work the worker performed and paid him an hourly wage. Therefore, the plywood manufacturer was the worker’s special employer and it could not be liable in a wrongful death action. – Estate of Belk v. Boise Cascade Wood Prods., L.L.C.

Superior court judges have broad discretion in review of attorney fees – North Carolina

Overturning a decision by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court noted that superior court judges have broad discretion to review the reasonableness of an attorney fee award provided by the state Industrial Commission. In Saunders v. ADP Totalsource Fi Xi, the court noted that under state law, the commission must approve a fee for an attorney in a workers’ compensation case. However, if the attorney disagrees with the commission’s decision, he/she can seek a review by a superior court judge.

Parent company not liable for death of subsidiary’s employee – Pennsylvania

In Grimsley v. Manitowoc Co. Inc., a worker was killed when he was pinned between two cranes. The employer, Grove U.S., LLC, was fined by OSHA and the widow received workers’ comp benefits. Later, she filed a wrongful death and survival action asserting negligence and strict liability against the parent company, Manitowoc Co., arguing the crane was owned by Manitowoc and branded with its logo.

The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the employer, parent company, and several other subsidiaries finding Grove was entitled to the exclusive remedy provision under the Workers’ Compensation Act and Manitowoc did not exercise significant control over Grove to establish liability.

Benefits continue for worker released to full duty – Pennsylvania

In an unreported case, Heartland Employment Services, LLC v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Ebner), a worker suffered a significant injury to the lumbar spine, including a herniated disc and lumbar radiculopathy and had spinal fusion surgery. The medical treatment was successful, and the injured worker was released back to work, without restriction.

The employer argued that an ability to work without restrictions mandates a finding of full recovery and termination of benefits. However, the court noted, “Employer appears to conflate the diagnosis of full recovery from a work injury with a physician’s release to return to work without restrictions. While Claimant was capable of returning to work, the WCJ found she had not recovered from the effects of her work injury.” As such, the WCJ did not err in granting benefits for medical expenses with wage loss benefits suspended upon Claimant’s return to work.

No comp benefits despite failure to use on-site defibrillator – Tennessee

In Chaney v. Team Techs, the Supreme Court, reversing a decision of a state trial court, found an employer isn’t liable for workers’ compensation benefits because they failed to use an automated external defibrillator (AED) that was available to help an employee who was suffering from a non-employment related medical emergency. Although the court noted that under the state’s emergency doctrine, an employer can be liable for benefits if it failed to render reasonable medical aid to an employee who had become helpless at work, the employer had called emergency responders and the doctrine could not be extended to require an employer to utilize an AED.

The first responders were able to revive the worker who collapsed because of a heart condition, but she suffered a permanent brain injury because of a lack of oxygen to her brain and sought workers’ comp benefits. While the employee’s injury had occurred in the course of the employment injury, it did not arise out of the employment.

Subrogation lien cannot include nurse case management expenses – Tennessee

In Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division v. Watson, a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals ruled that nurse case management fees are not recoverable as part of an employer’s workers’ compensation subrogation lien. A meter reader suffered injuries when she was attacked by a dog and received workers’ compensation benefits. She also settled a tort claim for $80,000.

Since the court had never decided whether an employer’s statutory subrogation lien extends to nurse case management fees, it considered an Illinois decision in which the cost of services for a “medical rehabilitation coordinator” had been excluded from the subrogation amount.

The court concluded that such fees are not included in a lien, since the provision of case management services is not mandatory and is for the benefit of an employer, not the worker.

Requirements for workers to receive additional PPD benefits clarified by Supreme Court – Tennessee

In Batey v. Deliver This Inc., a delivery driver injured his back and underwent surgery. Under Tennessee law, when a worker reaches maximum medical improvement for a compensable injury and receives a permanent medical impairment rating, they receive an “original award” of permanent disability benefits. There are various provisions for increasing this amount if the worker does not return to work when the award ends.

A trial court determined that he was entitled to 275 more weeks of permanent partial disability benefits. Although the WCAB found errors in “defining an employee’s burden of proof” and in defining the phrase “employee’s pre-injury occupation,” it noted the errors were harmless and the Supreme Court agreed. Both the appeals court and the state Supreme Court, however, denied a motion for prejudgment interest on his claim, citing the exclusive remedy provision in the comp law.

Violation of safety rule nixes benefits – Virginia

In Jones v. Crothall Laundry, a team leader at a commercial laundry entered a fenced area through an unapproved opening, instead of through the approved interlock gate that would have deactivated machinery inside the fence. An appellate court affirmed a finding by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that the employee’s action constituted a violation of a known safety rule, that the violation was the proximate cause of his serious injury to a leg, and that the worker, therefore, could not recover workers’ compensation benefits. The employer had proved the rule was reasonable, for the benefit of the employee, that it was known, the employee intentionally breached the rule, and the breach was the cause of his injury.

Injured worker who was left quadriplegic ineligible for benefits – Virginia

The Supreme Court affirmed an earlier ruling that denied workers’ compensation benefits to a worker injured while rehabbing a historic school building, finding the man was hired by an unlicensed contractor and was not an employee of the church and historical society that were restoring the building.

The court noted that the statute holds a party liable for the payment of workers’ compensation benefits if it has hired another to perform work that is “a part of his trade, business or occupation.” While the historical society was formed to restore the school, the court reasoned that “its trade, business or occupation did not include the complete reconstruction of the building.”

Court reverses denial of benefits to employee assaulted by coworker – Virginia

In King v. DTH Contract Services Inc., the Workers Compensation Commission denied an employee’s workers’ compensation claims for injuries he sustained when he was stabbed at work by a former co-worker, finding that the motive of the attack was relevant in determining if the injury arose out of employment. The employee worked as an overnight rest area attendant and a former employee stabbed him in the eyes with a screwdriver when he was on his way back to the office after a safety check. The assailant committed suicide and the motive was never determined.

Upon appeal, the worker argued his employment placed him at a greater risk of assault than the risk faced by the general public. The court remanded the case back to the Commission, noting other cases in the state have found that when an assailant’s motive is unknown, an injured worker does not have to affirmatively establish that the assailant’s motive was not personal. Further, it was an error to treat the motive as the only relevant issue.

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

HR Tip: Bolstering recruitment efforts in 2019

Finding qualified applicants is one of the top challenges faced by employers. According to a new SilkRoad and CareerBuilder study, the problem begins with the job search process. A majority of employees believe their experience as a job candidate reflects how the company treats its people.

Among the key findings are:

  • Candidates expect proactive, transparent and frequent communications from employers.
  • The candidate experience speaks volumes about the employee experience.
  • Candidates are not willing to wait.
  • Candidates expect a fast and easy application experience.
  • Candidates keep looking for other jobs even when they accept an offer.
  • Successful onboarding for a new hire is critical for their long-term vision of culture and career potential at the new company.

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

Bike-share and motorized scooter workers’ comp risks

Electric scooters and dockless bikes are popping up everywhere. Some employers are encouraging their use by paying rental fees. Yet, the laws for operating scooters are just emerging, operation and safety information varies from company to company, and some are not properly maintained. Helmets may not be available. User agreements limit users to binding arbitration and/or disclaim liability, which can make an employer vulnerable if an employee injures others. While state legislatures are beginning to consider scooter bills, this craze is new and few regulations currently exist, so employers need to evaluate their use as part of a risk management plan and update their policies.

Although an employee’s travel time to and from work is generally not covered by workers’ comp, employers that subsidize transportation costs should be clear that such arrangements are voluntary and that the employer is released from liability for injuries or harm caused by or to employees during their commute. Also, the employee should accept financial responsibility for any injuries caused to third parties while using the commuter benefit.

If an employee uses a motorized scooter or bike for a work-related purpose, such as to and from a meeting or for a business-related errand, and is injured, a workers’ compensation claim could result. Employers may decide to prohibit all use of bike-share and scooter services during work hours. Those that wish to allow their use need to make sure that their workers’ compensation and general liability coverage cover such incidents and develop policies that employees agree to abide by.

New transportation technology is developing rapidly. Employers must be aware of what technologies their employees are using for business, ensure appropriate coverage, and set reasonable terms of use.

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

The daunting challenge of maintaining a drug-free workplace

With a national opioid crisis that defies holistic solutions, the legalization of medicinal marijuana in more than 30 states and recreational marijuana in 10 states, increases in deadly overdoses in the workplace, changing state laws, confusion over OSHA’s anti-retaliatory drug testing rule, and concerns about medical privacy, no employer should think they are immune to the problem. In fact, according to the National Safety Council (NSC), 15.6% of American workers live with a substance disorder and The Hartford reports that 64% of HR professionals are ill-prepared to help a worker with an opioid addiction.

These factors, coupled with a tight labor market and low unemployment, have led some employers to soften zero-tolerance policies for jobs where safety is not critical and there is a low risk of injury or error. The decision to relax zero-tolerance policies requires buy-in from company leadership and supervisors as well as serious evaluation of the consequences. Although the legalization of marijuana exponentially increases the complexity of the issue, the reasons for maintaining a drug-free workplace remain constant: safety of employees and customers, lower absenteeism, reduced turnover, fewer workers’ comp claims, fewer workplace conflicts, and reduced liability for workplace accidents.

It’s also troublesome for supervisors because substance abuse often falls below the radar of the workplace. Yet, for five consecutive years, unintentional workplace overdose deaths have increased by at least 25%. Drug testing, which is often a critical component of a zero-tolerance policy, can identify those at risk.

Here are five things to consider when evaluating a drug policy:

Legal concerns

While federal law regulating drug testing affects some heavily-regulated industries, there is no comprehensive federal law regulating drug testing in the private sector. The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 requires all recipients of federal grants and some federal contractors to maintain a drug-free workplace.The ADA does not consider drug abuse a disability and allows drug testing; however, disability discrimination is a significant legal risk. If an applicant is not hired or an employee is terminated because of a positive drug test and the medication was legally prescribed for a disability, the employer could be liable. Reasonable accommodations must be provided at application, hiring, and during employment.

State laws that do regulate workplace drug testing vary widely and are constantly changing. Generally, state laws allow employers to drug test job applicants. However, many have rules about providing notice, preventing discrimination, and following procedures to prevent inaccurate samples. The laws governing testing of current employees varies widely by state, with some prohibiting random testing and others requiring ‘reasonable suspicion.’ There are also laws governing post-accident testing. It’s critical to understand and stay abreast of the laws in all the states in which you operate.

Marijuana

Marijuana is one of employers’ biggest worries and one of the driving reasons for employers to relax pre-employment drug testing. There is legitimate fear that it will reduce the pool of qualified candidates. Some address this issue by removing marijuana from the test panel for many positions that are not safety-critical.

The laws vary significantly with states that have legalized marijuana and case law is limited and evolving. Some states have card holder anti-discrimination statutes and some states prohibit firing of an employee who tests positive for marijuana while others allow it. Although all marijuana use is still illegal under federal law, state courts across the country are deciding cases on medical marijuana use and accommodation. Employers are wise to consider whether positive drug tests are connected to medicinal use before making employment decisions.

Employers should be careful about penalizing employees for off-duty marijuana use, since some states have statutes protecting employees. However, most states permit employers to prohibit marijuana use on their premises and to discipline employees who come to work under the influence.

While the uncertainty is unnerving for employers, a growing number of states are writing statutes to remove the ambiguities. Statutes in Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington DC, and West Virginia address employment protection for medical marijuana patients. It’s still possible to restrict marijuana use in these states, but care needs to be taken in crafting and enforcing a policy.

If you choose to differentiate marijuana policies from other drug policies, consider these questions:

  • Will treating marijuana differently create problems in the workforce?
  • Under what circumstances will employees be tested for marijuana?
  • What are the consequences of not testing (i.e. more injuries, absenteeism)?
  • What is the process to determine a medical exception to the policy?
  • What happens when an employee fails the test?

Workers’ Comp

Substance abuse can contribute to workplace accidents and a drug-free workplace helps prevent accidents, thus lowering workers’ comp costs. In some states, employers implementing a drug-free workplace receive a premium discount. As of October 2018, 13 states had such laws. While the requirements and discounts vary, the states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming.

In addition, some states have enacted laws to make it easy for employers who properly drug test to deny workers’ compensation benefits. For example, Florida law provides that if the employee tests positive for drugs, then “it is presumed that the injury was occasioned primarily by…the influence of the drug upon, the employee.”

Medical marijuana raises thorny issues for employers. Can a claim be denied if an employee tests positive for using state-approved medical cannabis? Can an injured employee receive medical marijuana to treat a workplace injury? Both are new and evolving issues that will be the subject of future court cases and state regulations. The Minnesota Department of Labor & Industries issued rules allowing cannabis as a reimbursable form of medical treatment.

OSHA

The anti-retaliatory provisions of OSHA’s e-Recordkeeping rule resulted in considerable confusion about post-injury drug testing policies, which was somewhat clarified in a guidance memo in October 2018. Before doing post-accident drug testing, employers should:

  • Have a reasonable basis to conclude drug use could have contributed to the injury
  • Test all employees whose conduct could have caused an accident, even if they were not injured
  • Identify high hazard work as a reason for testing
  • Determine if the drug test can provide insight to the root cause of incident
  • Consider whether drug test is capable of measuring impairment at the time the injury occurred
  • Ensure employees are not discouraged or dissuaded from reporting injuries

Remember, the rule does not affect new hires, random testing, or testing to comply with state or federal laws or required by Workers’ Comp insurers.

Privacy

Although challenges to workplace drug testing policies on the grounds that they violate employees’ privacy have generally not been successful, the manner in which the test is conducted and how the results are used have been successfully challenged. Drug test results are considered protected health information and must be kept confidential. Further, as laws on employee privacy continue to evolve, testing that is not clearly authorized by law could be open to legal challenges.

Conclusion

Zero-tolerance policies are strong stands that send an important cultural message, but like any policy it should be evaluated periodically. How effective has it been? Has it hampered recruitment and retention efforts for positions that are not safety-critical? Has it prevented workers from seeking the help they need to deal with substance abuse? Does it impede flexibility?

Anecdotally, more employers are tailoring drug testing to the job and adding a fitness-for-duty component. Any policy changes require serious consideration as protecting employees remains the top priority. However, no change in policy should excuse an employee who is impaired while working. There’s just too much at risk.

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