Legal Corner

Workers’ Compensation 

WCAB does not have authority to overturn award of medically necessary housekeeping services – California

When housekeeping services are requested by a physician and are reasonably required for an injured worker, they qualify as medical treatment. As such, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd District ruled that if a physician makes a request for a medical treatment, an employer cannot deny it unless a utilization reviewer determines that it is medically unnecessary.

In Allied Signal Aerospace, Constitution State Service Company v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board and Maxine Wiggs, the injured worker was receiving housekeeping services twice a month, but the physician requested a change to every week. The company submitted the request to utilization review. The reviewer found the more frequent schedule was not medically necessary. However, the WCAB supported a judge’s ruling to submit the records to a registered nurse who had made an earlier assessment of need for review.

The 2nd DCA vacated the WCAB’s ruling noting that since there was no stipulation to displace the provision of housekeeping from the UR-IMR process, the WCAB had no jurisdiction to review the medical necessity and reasonableness of service.

Exclusive remedy bars personal injury claim by firefighter kicked in the groin by supervisor – California

In Tibbett v. Los Angeles County Fire Department an appellate court affirmed a jury’s ruling that a firefighter’s unintentional injuries were barred by the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation. The incident occurred when the firefighter complained to a supervisor about how a situation with a hostile victim was handled. The fire captain said he was showing a maneuver to keep volatile patients away by obstructing their vision, but the firefighter moved and he kicked him in the groin with a steel-toed shoe.

The firefighter had emergency surgery to remove his left testicle and underwent more surgeries that rendered him sterile. The court agreed with the jury, finding the fire captain did not intend to harm the firefighter; therefore, workers’ comp was the exclusive remedy.

Challenge to the presumption of correction for the opinions of EMAs rejected – Florida

In De Jesus Abreu v. Riverland Elementary School, the 1st District Court of Appeal rejected a constitutional challenge to the statutory presumption of correctness for the opinions of expert medical advisers (EMA). The employee suffered a compensable injury to her shoulder and an arthroscopic shoulder surgery was performed to address a partial rotator cuff tear.

While the physician deemed she had reached MMI, she continued to report pain and she sought care from an unauthorized orthopedic physician who recommended further surgery. The company authorized another orthopedist, who did not recommend further surgery. However, the employee obtained an IME from a doctor who thought surgery was appropriate.

Because of the conflicting opinions, a JCC appointed an EMA who opined that no further surgery was recommended or medically necessary. The JCC denied surgery because state statutes provide that the opinion of an EMA is presumed to be correct unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

The employee appealed, arguing that the presumption improperly usurps the rulemaking authority of the state Supreme Court and that the presumption interferes with the executive branch’s ability to fairly adjudicate workers’ compensation claims. The court disagreed.

Restaurant manager shot in off-hours robbery can receive benefits – Georgia

In Kil v. Legend Brothers, the Court of Appeals overturned a denial of benefits to a restaurant manager who was shot as he was arriving home from work with the day’s receipts, which he regularly reviewed when he got home. The worker lived with the restaurant owner and his coworker. When he arrived home with his coworker, they were attacked by three men who demanded money. When the attackers realized the worker had a gun, they fled, but shot him in the forearm and he has not been able to work.

Both an administrative law judge and later the state Board of Workers’ Compensation awarded him comp benefits, ruling that his injury arose within the scope and course of employment. However, a state superior court reversed, finding that he was not at work at the time of the armed robbery and shooting-that he was home and that he was shot because he had a gun, which “had nothing to do with performing his duties for his employer.”

The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting one of the worker’s key job responsibilities was to spend around an hour every day going over the restaurant’s daily sales, receipts, accounts and inventory and that he was continuing his duties as manager.

Insurer must pay for injuries despite misinformation in policy – Georgia

In Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bennett, several mistakes were made when an insurance agent took the company’s business information from its policy with a former insurer. She misclassified the company that was a construction company involved in greenhouse repair and maintenance as providing janitorial services and erroneously noted that employees did not travel out of state and that workers did not perform work above 15 feet. While the owner signed the policy, there was a dispute whether it was complete at the time.

When an injury that occurred out of state was denied, the company told the agent the policy had to be changed because most of its business was out of state. When the insurer learned more about the business operations it said it would not have issued the policy if the application had correctly stated that the company operated in 30 states because Grange Mutual was not licensed to issue policies in all of those states. It sent a cancellation notice but gave the company 90 days to find an alternative.

In less than 90 days, another worker was injured out of state, suffering extensive injuries in a truck accident. An administrative judge held that Grange Mutual’s policy covered the employee’s injuries and that by agreeing to pay for workers’ comp claims under the laws of Georgia, the Georgia-based company’s workers were covered even when out-of-state. Further, an appellate court held that Grange Mutual waived its void policy defense when, after discovering the inaccurate information on the application, it informed the company that its coverage would continue for 90 days. The court said that if the insurer “believed that the policy was void based on fraud, it should have immediately rescinded it.”

Borrowing employer’s immunity from tort liability not dependent on insurance – Illinois

In Holten v. Syncreon North America, an appellate court ruled that a temporary staffing service’s employee could not pursue a negligence suit against his borrowing employer for work injuries. The worker received comp benefits from the staffing agency for injuries resulting from a forklift accident, but filed suit against the borrowing employer, asserting its negligence had led to his injuries.

The state Workers’ Compensation Act provides that the lending and borrowing employers are jointly and severally liable for workers’ compensation benefits, but both do not have to provide the insurance. As long as one of the employers pays benefits, both have civil immunity. The immunity springs from the borrowed-employee relationship itself.

Employee can sue Canada – Massachusetts

Federal law immunizing foreign governments from liability does not protect Canada from being sued as an uninsured employer under the state’s workers’ compensation statute for injuries suffered by a consulate employee in Boston, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision. In Merlini v. Canada, the Court found that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides an exception to immunity for a foreign state that engages in a “commercial activity.” The court said Canada entered into a contract for commercial services by hiring Merlini and failed to carry workers’ comp insurance as required of commercial employers in the state.

Worker who resigned after injury can collect unemployment – Minnesota

In Interplastic Corp. v. Rausch, a long-time employee injured his back and was transitioned to a lower job but received the same wage and accompanying pay raises over the next three years. He was then notified his wage was being reduced to align with the position and he was ineligible for future raises. About the same time, the workers’ compensation claim was settled and he received a $25,000 payout and agreed to “voluntarily terminate his employment.”

When he applied for unemployment benefits, he was denied because he had voluntarily quit. However, a three-judge appellate court panel affirmed an unemployment law judge’s decision that a substantial pay reduction, the lack of future earnings potential, and the claim settlement allowed the worker to fall under the state’s statutory exception for unemployment eligibility.

Worker’s manufacture of meth does not forfeit comp benefits – New York

In Robert Stone v. Saulsbury/Federal Signa et al., an appellate court ruled that a worker’s conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine did not forfeit his entitlement to benefits for two industrial injuries. The court upheld the WCB ruling that the man who had been collecting indemnity benefits for a compensable injury prior to his conviction and incarceration did not violate state workers’ compensation laws when he became involved in the production of illegal drugs.

The insurer contended that the manufacture of methamphetamine constituted “work”. The court disagreed, “substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the conviction alone is insufficient to establish any work activity by claimant or that he received any type of remuneration.”

Denial of occupational disease does not prevent new theory of accidental injury – New York

In Matter of Connolly v. Covanta Energy Corp., an appellate court reversed the state Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding that a worker suffered from an occupational disease (allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis) and remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings. However, this would not prevent the worker from arguing an accidental injury claim on essentially the same facts. After remand, the Board was free to consider the new theory for the claim.

Elimination of labor attachment requirement for PPD not retroactive – New York

In Matter of the Claim of Scott v. Visiting Nurses Home Care, a worker who was classified as having a permanent partial disability, was found to have voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market and benefits were suspended twenty-two years after her injury. In 2017, the law was amended to provide that proving attachment to the labor market was no longer necessary for permanent partial disability compensation.

After the amendment took effect, she filed a request for reinstatement of benefits. A law judge, the Board, and the Appellate Division’s 3rd Department all agreed that the amendment did not apply retroactively.

Failure to mention side business not fraud – New York

In Matter of Permenter v. WRS Envtl. Servs. Inc., a truck driver’s failure to disclose his involvement in an online and retail flower business was not the sort of misrepresentation that should disqualify him from receiving workers’ compensation benefits according to an appellate court ruling. The employee had freely admitted that he owned a company engaged in the flower business, but the employee did not consider it work because it was not profitable.

Termination of benefits OK for a minor physical deformity, but no physical impairment – Pennsylvania

In Paolini v. Delaware County Memorial Hospital, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board held that the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) did not err in awarding benefits to a nurse who sustained physical injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of a dog bite while performing a home visit. Her doctor provided unequivocal medical testimony that she had sustained PTSD as a result of her work injury, even though her Facebook page showed her swimming and parasailing.

However, the board reversed the WCJ’s denial of the employer’s termination petition, as the employer’s examining physician found that although the nurse had slight discoloration and subjective, mild numbness, she had fully recovered from the physical dog bite.

Injuries incurred on railroad bridge not covered by longshore comp – Virginia

In Muhammad v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a district court’s holding that the worker’s negligence claim was barred by the exclusive remedy under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). While working on a bridge that crosses a navigable river, a portion of the walkway collapsed beneath the employee and he sustained serious injuries.

He filed suit against the railway, asserting a negligence claim under the Federal Employers Liability Act, but the company argued the claim was subject to the LHWCA. The district court agreed, finding repairing and rebuilding the bridge was an “essential and integral element” of the maritime traffic flowing under the bridge, therefore, his work constituted as engaging in maritime employment.

Upon appeal, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s decision. It noted that the LHWCA requires employee work “upon navigable waters” and that a bridge would not be covered by the statute.

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

Legal Corner

Workers’ Compensation 
Determining catastrophic injury under Labor Law – California

Enacted six years ago, Labor Code 4600 was designed to limit additional impairment (referred to as “add-ons”) for psychiatric injuries to cases involving a “catastrophic injury.” Yet, catastrophic injury was not defined. Clarification is provided in a recent case, Wilson v. State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Ultimately, it is a factual issue for a judge to determine if the nature of the injury is catastrophic. The court gave specific examples such as the loss of a limb, paralysis, a severe burn or a severe head injury, but noted this was not an exhaustive list. It provided a list of factors that should be considered in making the final determination, including the extent of the treatment needed for the injury, ultimate outcome when the employee’s physical injury is permanent and stationary, severity and impact on daily living, and if the physical injury is an incurable and progressive disease. However, other factors may apply and each case will be determined based on the facts.

Tesla settles personal injury lawsuit with janitor for $13M – California

In the case, Teodora Tapia v. Tesla Motors, a janitor at Tesla’s Fremont assembly plan suffered serious and permanent injuries to her lower extremities and body when she was struck and pinned by a vehicle being moved by a temporary worker, who was not certified to drive the Tesla. While the staffing agency, West Valley will pay much of the $13M settlement, Telsa was a joint employee and will pay a portion.

Failure to provide notice of selection of IME nixes benefits – Florida

In Izaguirre v. Beach Walk Resort, a compensation claims judge denied benefits after striking the report of the injured worker’s independent medical examiner (IME). While the worker admitted she had not provided timely notice of the selection of an IME, she argued that the exclusion of the evidence is discretionary. But the 1st District Court of Appeal noted the statute says the failure to timely provide notification shall preclude the requesting party from submitting the IME findings before a JC. The word ‘shall’ connotates mandatory.

Employee cannot sue employer for failure to provide access to medical care – Georgia

In Savannah Hospitality Servs. v. Ma-010 Scriven, an appellate court ruled an employee’s negligence claim against his employer for allegedly denying him access to medical care and insurance coverage following an injury in a vehicular crash is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions. While it was disputed whether the employee was acting in the scope of the employment at the time he was injured, the court said the relevant issue was the aggravation of those injuries by the employer’s alleged negligence in failing to provide access to medical insurance coverage and precluding the employee from seeking a professional medical opinion.

In Georgia, case law supports the argument that if employment aggravates a pre-existing injury, it is a new accident and compensable. Thus, triggering the exclusive remedy defense.

61-page decision details the difference between an employment-related risk and a neutral risk – Illinois

In McAllister v. IWCC (North Pond), a sous chef knelt down in a walk-in cooler while looking for carrots and felt his knee pop when he stood, which required surgery. An arbitrator found the claim compensable, but the Commission found it was not an employment-related risk and denied benefits.

Upon appeal, a majority of the appellate court said that an employment-related risk is one that is distinctly associated with employment. It can fall into one of three categories – employee performing acts as directed by employer; acts the employee has a common law or statutory duty to perform; and acts incidental to duties that an employee might be reasonably expected to perform.

If a worker is injured in an employment-related risk, it is unnecessary to determine if the exposure to risk of injury is greater than the general public. However, if the risk is not employment-related, but is a neutral risk, an analysis should be done to determine if the risk is greater than that of the general public.

Notice of intent to appeal must be filed within 20 days – Illinois

In Conway v. IWCC, an injured school employee received notice of the Commission’s decision on Oct. 27, 2017, but did not file the notice of intent to petition for review until December 2017. The appellate court noted the statute requires a notice of intent to file a petition for review be filed with the Commission within 20 days of receipt of the commission’s decision, which would have been November 16, 2017.

Medical expert need not be a physician – Missouri

In Hogenmiller v. Mississippi Lime Co., an appellate court upheld an award of permanent partial disability benefits for tinnitus to a long-time factory worker based on the expert opinion of an audiologist, instead of the expert opinion offered by a medical doctor who specialized in otolaryngology. While the company argued that the audiologist based his opinion upon the subjective descriptions offered by the worker, the court noted there is no objective standard for diagnosing tinnitus, but awards have been issued on tinnitus claims based on subjective evidence.

Worker cannot back out of settlement even though there was no written agreement – New York

In Lenge v. Eklecco Newco, a construction worker filed suit against the general contractor and others alleging Labor Law § 241(b) violations and common law negligence. On the first day of the trial, his lawyer stated that the parties had agreed to a settlement of $325,000.

Later, after determining a workers’ compensation lien and a Medicare Set-Aside provision significantly reduced the recovery, the worker’s lawyer declared the settlement “null and void” because there was no written agreement. While a trial court agreed, the appellate court indicated that the stipulation by and among the parties formed an independent contract that would be enforced absent a showing of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability.

Going and coming rule nixes benefits for transit worker assaulted by passenger – New York

In Matter of Warner v New York City Tr. Auth, a transit worker was assaulted by a passenger as he disembarked from a subway, traveling to his home after the end of a work shift. He wore his official jacket, safetyvest, and hat that identified him clearly as a subway employee, but had clocked out about five minutes earlier. Since he had clocked out and was using the subway the same as any private citizen, the claim was barred by the going and coming rule.

$33M jury award in asbestos death case – North Carolina

In Finch v. Covil Corp., a district court upheld a nearly $33 million jury award granted to the widow of a long-time employee of a tire factory in Wilson who died from mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. She sued Covil Corp., a pipe insulation company, which had sold virtually all of the insulation, including the pipe insulation, used during the construction of the tire plant. While Covil argued there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict on liability and that the jury’s verdict was excessive, the court disagreed.

Denied workers’ comp, worker can proceed with medical negligence claim – North Carolina

In Jackson v. Timken Co., a worker filed a suit for medical negligence against his employer and the company nurse, asserting he had been incorrectly diagnosed and treated after a stroke at work. Previously, he had filed a workers’ comp claim but was denied because he did not sustain an injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

A judge denied the company’s move to dismiss and the Court of Appeals explained that the Workers’ Compensation Act “does not cover injuries that occur at one’s place of work that are not the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of that person’s employment.” The nurse’s alleged failure to provide a proper diagnose could not be described as an “accident.” Thus, the case can proceed.

Imprisoned worker must continue to receive comp benefits – Pennsylvania

In Carl Sadler v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Philadelphia Coca-Cola), a divided Commonwealth Court ordered Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Inc. to recalculate and reinstate workers’ compensation benefits for a worker who was in prison following his injury. The worker was incarcerated a year after his injury for 525 days until his release at trial where he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time served.

The worker argued his benefits were miscalculated because the figure did not include frequent overtime and state law provides that pretrial incarceration – incarceration because he could not afford bail – does not meet the “incarceration after conviction” stipulation allowing comp benefits to be withheld. While a judge and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board ruled in favor of Coca-Cola, the Commonwealth Court found merit in the worker’s argument. The case turned on the word “after” – the worker had not been incarcerated after the conviction.

Case to watch: Supreme Court to rule on retroactive application of Protz decision – Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to determine the extent to which workers who were still litigating their impairment rating evaluations when the justices issued their landmark workers’ compensation decision in ‘Protz’ are entitled to the benefit of that ruling. Last October in Dana Holding v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Smuck), the Commonwealth Court en banc ruled that the Protz II decision applied to cases in which IREs were still being litigated at the time of the decision and was retroactive to the date of the IRE, rather than the date of the Protz II ruling.

The court will rule on whether the Commonwealth Court erred in applying the rule from Protz retroactive to the date of the IRE instead of the date of the Protz decision and determine whether an employer is entitled to a credit for the period between the date of a worker’s impairment rating evaluation and the date of its decision in Protz.

Amazon worker’s injuries not job-related – Tennessee

In Ameenah House v. Amazon.com Inc., a worker at an Amazon.com Inc. warehouse in Charleston alleged she was injured in three incidents – a back injury, a forklift accident, and an assault by a coworker. The trial court and the state Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied her claim, stating that she did not provide adequate medical evidence that her injuries were related to her job.

Fear of hypodermic needles does not warrant change in physicians – Virginia

In Yahner v. Fire-X Corp., a worker had a normal MRI and a functional capacity evaluation expert opined that she had not sufficiently exerted herself during the exam and likely was exaggerating her symptoms. Her treating physician indicated the best type of continuing care would be injection treatments and she refused on the grounds that she didn’t “like needles.” The Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Commission that denied her petition to change her treating physician; the doctor’s actions did not amount to a discharge.

“Sudden mechanical or structural change” requirement for compensation clarified – Virginia

In Alexandria City Pub. Schs. v. Handel, a teacher slipped and fell in her classroom and asserted she had suffered injuries to her right ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, neck, head, and back. Imaging results did not show damage to the shoulder and the employer contested that part of the claim. When the Commission approved benefits for the shoulder, the employer appealed, arguing that there was no structural or mechanical change to the shoulder.

The requirement ‘to show sudden mechanical or structural change’ has been used in courts to prove the injury was a result of an accident, not the result of gradual change over time, but not to establish that the injuries are “injuries” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation statute. When a single mechanical or structural change establishes that the worker was involved in an accident, all injuries causally connected to the accident are compensable.

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

5 ways to make visual communication more effective

Much has changed in the area of safety communications. Gone are the days when wordy messages printed on paper with a burst of color sufficed. The channels for communication are many, including email, signage, bulletin boards, intranet, tool talks, meetings, apps, videos and so on. Furthermore, workers from different generations have different communication preferences. So it’s understandable that employers struggle to simplify their workplace communication and keep it relevant.

Here are 5 suggestions:

  1. MessagingSafety communications must resonate with workers or they will be forgotten or ignored. Know your takeaway and keep it simple. Focusing on real-life incidents with the use of visuals and a few powerful words that engage emotions is most impactful. Not only are they remembered longer, they are more visible from a further distance and reach a multi-language workforce. This contrast in messaging was shown in a recent webinar by The Marlin Company.
  2. Keep it fresh and repeatEven the best messaging gets stale. A cardinal rule in advertising known as the Rule of Seven says that a prospect needs to see or hear your marketing message at least seven times before they take action and buy from you. Using different channels can help convey a consistent message in different ways, but not all workers have access to email and their smartphones during working hours. Signage is often a solution.

    Yet over time, static signage can have a wallpaper effect – present but unseen. Digital signage offers great opportunities here. It is easily changed, software updates can be done for multiple locations, and employers aren’t dependent on personnel physically rotating signs. Multiple screens enable employers to target groups of workers and display unique content for the area in which they work. Messaging for call center personnel can differ from those in production.

  3. PlacementWhile proper placement seems like a no brainer, employers commonly get it wrong. Signs that are too far from a hazard aren’t effective because employees may not be able to see the hazard, making it easy to ignore. If a sign is too close to a hazard, employees may not have enough time to take precautions. And they need to be at eye level and not obscured.
  4. Be strategic 
    • Too much communication can send mixed messages and be confusing. Workers can ignore all of it because it’s just too much to take in at one time, or simply not really see it because something else caught their attention.
    • Keep it short. Unless there is a captive audience, videos should be less than a minute. Think of them as a commercial. Emails and texts should be concise and clear.
    • If there is a captive audience and a PowerPoint is used, put one topic or idea on each slide with appropriate graphics, then talk about it in plain language. Don’t read from the slides.
    • Be selective about the messaging you use in places where employees gather -breakrooms, cafeterias or time clock areas. Promoting health and wellness programs, recognizing employees, information on company events, and appropriate humor can be appropriate here.
  5. Have workers contribute contentTap experts on staff and use them in your messaging. It’s often been said that Millennials are the selfie generation and that the sweet spot to reach Millennials is a 30 – 60-second video, particularly if they are in it. But workers of all ages value recognition even though most are reluctant to step forward and volunteering to participate is not human nature. Invite workers to share stories from their own work histories about how following a safety practice protected them or a co-worker – or near misses or mistakes that could have been prevented. Stories are memorable.

Case study:

An article in the March issue of Risk and Insurance told the story of the Vermont School Board Insurance Trust (VSBIT) challenges of frequency and costs of claims related to snowy weather and icy paths. Shoveling and salting sidewalks were only as effective as the staff involved and the commitment of leadership to safety.

After exploring solutions, they embarked on a pilot program at 10 schools, placing signage at every entrance and exit, alerting passersby of icy conditions. A small mechanism would change colors – from silver to blue – when temperatures dropped below 37 degrees (car warning start at 37 degrees because icy conditions are not always obvious).

These schools had 39 losses that cost almost $240,000 the prior 5 years. After implementation, the same schools had only one slip and fall in total. The feedback from member schools was all positive and the program is expanding.

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

OSHA watch

Anti-retaliation provisions of electronic record-keeping rule survives employer challenge

An Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) administrative law judge’s decision to reject two defenses offered by the U.S. Postal Service to a citation preserves the controversial anti-retaliation provisions under its electronic record-keeping rule. The USPS allegedly issued a seven-day working suspension to a carrier because he reported a work-related injury. The USPS argued that the alleged standard and/or penalties were invalid because they were beyond the legal power or authority of OSHA and/or were arbitrary and capricious.

Process Safety Management standard extended beyond hazardous chemicals in ruling

Legal experts warn that a recent OSHRC ruling regarding safety violations in a deadly oil refinery explosion in 2012 could have wider implications for companies dealing with highly hazardous chemicals. OSHRC affirmed 12 violations of Process Safety Management standard by Wynnewood Refining Co, which argued the PSM was never intended to include processes that do not manage such chemicals – such as the steam boiler involved.

Prior to this ruling, it was widely understood that utilities unrelated to the manufacturing process were not included in the requirements for PSM. Experts say it is unclear how far the standard extends now.

Social media campaign to educate young workers

#MySafeSummerJob, a social media campaign to educate young workers about their rights in the workplace, how to speak up about dangerous work conditions, and how to protect themselves on the job, was launched in concert with several worker safety organizations. From April 15 through May 17 outreach will promote safety among young workers. Check out materials and ideas at the #MySafeSummerJob website.

Regional construction safety campaign shifts focus to falls

In concert with the Mid-Atlantic Construction Safety Council, a four-month campaign was launched to address the four leading causes of fatal injuries in construction. In March, the campaign focused on electrical hazards, and during April the emphasis was on struck-by hazards. This month is falls, and caught-in / between hazards will be the focus in June. The campaign serves employers and employees in Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Email OSHA-Focus4-Region3@dol.gov for more information.

OSHRC finalizes revisions to its procedural rules

The OSHRC has finalized what it calls “comprehensive” revisions to its procedural rules, in part to reflect technological advances. Slated to take effect June 10, the changes include mandatory electronic filing for “represented” parties and a new method intended to streamline calculating time periods.

Proposal to watch: joint employer revisions

The Department of Labor announced a proposal to “revise and clarify” the issue of joint employers. The department is proposing a four-factor test “based on well-established precedent” that would consider whether the potential joint employer actually exercises the power to hire or fire the employee; supervise and control the employee’s work schedules or conditions of employment; determine the employee’s rate and method of payment; and maintain the employee’s employment records.

The proposal could differ from the interpretations put forth by other federal agencies and would not nullify regulations promulgated by individual states that have different standards.

The public has 60 days from April 1 to comment on the proposal.

Webpage on radiation emergency preparedness and response launched

A webpage intended to educate workers about how to protect themselves in radiation-related situations ranging from a small, isolated spill in a laboratory to a potentially catastrophic release at a nuclear facility is now live. The Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Response webpage provides resources on health and safety planning, medical monitoring and dosimetry, and other relevant topics for workers “who may be impacted by radiation emergencies” or “who may be involved in emergency response operations or related activities.”

Cal/OSHA proposing to re-adopt emergency rules for e-filing injury reports

Emergency rules were adopted Nov. 1, 2018 and the re-adoption would give additional time to proceed with regular rulemaking on a permanent basis. In addition to requiring electronic reporting for companies with at least 250 workers, the rules require businesses with 20 to 249 employees in industries such as construction, manufacturing and agriculture to electronically file injury logs.

A notice for proposed permanent rules is expected to be published by May 10.

MIOSHA launches emphasis program on roadway accident

The state emphasis program on roadway accidents will run through December 31, 2019 and is intended to increase the priority of inspections related to construction roadway safety and initiate inspections upon observing a roadway project with workers present.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Cal North Farm Labor Inc., a farm labor contractor and Crain Walnut Shelling Inc. face more than $100,000 combined in proposed penalties after a worker was fatally crushed by a bin dumper at a walnut processing and packing facility in Los Molinos.
  • Staffing agency Priority Workforce Inc. and JSL Foods Inc., a maker and distributor of pasta and baked goods face more than $300,000 in fines for serious citations after a temporary worker lost two fingers cleaning machinery at a Los Angeles food manufacturing facility.
  • Accurate Comfort Systems Inc. received four citations and faces $75,750 in penalties after a worker suffered serious injuries in a fall from a ladder on a 12-foot-high work area.

Florida

  • Inspected as part of the Regional Emphasis Program on Falls in Construction, Florida Roofing Experts, Inc. faces $132,598 in fines after inspectors observed workers performing residential roofing activities without fall protection.

Georgia

  • Investigated under the National Emphasis Program on Trenching and Excavation, Riverside Military Academy Inc., a military college preparatory academy in Gainesville, was cited for exposing employees to trenching hazards, faces $381,882 in penalties, and was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program. Citations included allowing employees to work inside a trench without cave-in protection and a safe means to enter and exit the excavation, and failing to locate underground utilities prior to work.
  • Specialty chemical manufacturer, Plaze Aeroscience, operating as Plaze GA, was cited for exposing employees to fire and burn hazards at the company’s facility in Dalton and faces $107,164 in penalties.

Michigan

  • Mt. Clemens-based Powder Cote II received seven citations and faces $65,000 in penalties for failing to provide fall protection or guardrail systems, guard rotating shafts and machinery, and failing to control the startup of machinery during maintenance.

New York

  • Remington Arms, LLC, based in Madison, North Carolina was cited for 27 violations of workplace safety and health standards and faces $210,132 in penalties after a worker’s fingertip was amputated while using an unguarded metalworking machine at its Ilion manufacturing plant.

Pennsylvania

  • Framing contractor, Navy Contractors, Inc. was cited for willfully exposing employees to fall hazards at residential construction sites in Royersford, Collegeville, and Center Valley after inspections saw employees working without fall protection. The company faces $603,850 in penalties.
  • A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District has found that Lloyd Industries Inc., a manufacturing company based in Montgomeryville, and its owner William P. Lloyd unlawfully terminated two employees because of their involvement in a safety investigation. Damages will be determined in phase 2 of the trial.
  • A jury has concurred with the findings of a whistleblower investigation and awarded $40,000 for lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages to a former employee of Fairmount Foundry Inc. The employee claimed that the Hamburg iron-casting company terminated him for reporting alleged safety and health hazards.
  • New Jersey contractor, Brutus Construction, Inc. was cited for exposing workers to fall hazards at a Souderton residential construction site. Inspectors saw employees working on roofs without fall protection and the company faces nearly $182,000 in penalties.

Wisconsin

  • A follow-up inspection revealed that Beloit-based Avid Pallet Services, LLC, failed to correct violations related to wood dust and respiratory hazards. The company faces penalties of $188,302.

For additional information.

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

Ten most dangerous jobs

Going by the sheer number of on-the-job deaths, the truck drivers and sales drivers classification was by far the most dangerous, accounting for nearly 1,000 (987) deaths in 2017. However, 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 of 2019 are:

No. 1 – Fishers and related fishing workers

Moving up from number 2 to become the most dangerous profession, fishers and related fishing workers experienced 41 fatalities in 2017, an increase of almost 58% from 2016. The fatality rate was 99.7 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers. Risks: drowning, struck by lightning, crushed by equipment.

No. 2 – Loggers

Falling from the most-dangerous profession to number 2, loggers experienced 55 fatalities, a drop of almost 65% from 91 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 84.3. Risks: falls, struck-by, dangerous tools such as chainsaws and axes.

No. 3 – Aircraft pilots and flight engineers

Pilots and flight engineers experienced 59 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 58.6, a drop from 2016. Risks: crashes.

No. 4 – Roofers

Roofers experienced 91 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 45.2, slightly lower than in 2016. Risks: falls, struck-by, and heat.

No. 5 – Refuse and recyclable material collectors

Refuse and recyclable material collectors experienced 30 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 35.0, very similar to 2016. Risks: dangerous machinery, crushed by equipment, struck-by, traffic accidents, struck by vehicle.

No. 6 – Structural iron and steel workers

Steel and ironworkers experienced 14 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 33.4, a slight decrease from 2016. Risks: falls, struck-by, heat, crushed by materials.

No. 7 – Truck drivers and other drivers

Employees who drive for work – including truck drivers – experienced 987 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 26.8 out of 100,000 workers, which was higher than in 2016. 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 258 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 24.0 out of 100,000 workers, very similar to 2016. Risks: dangerous machinery, chemicals, heat.

No. 9 – Grounds maintenance workers

Grounds maintenance workers experienced 244 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 21.0, a decline from 2016. Risks: heat, cold, noise, chemical exposure, ergonomics-related issues, machinery.

No. 10 – Electrical power-line installers and repairers

New to the list, electrical power-line installers and repairers experienced 26 fatalities for a fatality rate of 18.7. Risks: electrocution, falls to a lower level, transportation incidents.

Supervisors of construction workers (which ranked at #9 last year), fell off the list of the top 10.

Other key findings:

  • There were a total of 5,147 fatal work injuries recorded in the United States in 2017, down slightly from the 5,190 that were registered in 2016.
  • Fatal falls were at their highest level in the 26-year history of the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), accounting for 887 (17 percent) worker deaths.
  • Transportation incidents remained the most frequent fatal event in 2017 with 2,077 (40 percent) occupational fatalities.
  • Violence and other injuries by persons or animals decreased 7 percent in 2017 with homicides and suicides decreasing by 8 percent and 5 percent, respectively.
  • Unintentional overdoses due to non-medical use of drugs or alcohol while at work increased 25 percent from 217 in 2016 to 272 in 2017. This was the fifth consecutive year in which unintentional workplace overdose deaths have increased by at least 25 percent.
  • Fatal occupational injuries involving confined spaces rose 15 percent to 166 in 2017 from 144 in 2016.
  • Crane-related workplace fatalities fell to their lowest level ever recorded in CFOI, 33 deaths in 2017.
  • Fifteen percent of the fatally-injured workers in 2017 were age 65 or over – a series high. In 1992, the first year CFOI published national data, that figure was 8 percent. These workers also had a higher fatality rate than other age groups in 2017.

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

Understanding the drivers of serious injuries by industry Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index

Produced annually, the Liberty Mutual 2019 Workplace Safety Index identifies the leading causes of the most disabling non-fatal workplace injuries (resulting in more than five days of lost time) and ranks them by total Workers’ Compensation costs. While the findings have always provided insight into critical risk areas so businesses can better allocate safety resources, this year’s report delves deeper by reporting the causes and costs of the most serious workplace injuries by eight industries.

U.S. companies lose more than $1 billion per week due to workplace injuries, according to the report that is based on data from Liberty Mutual, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Academy of Social Insurance. The top causes of the most serious workplace injuries have been stable over the past several years, with overexertion (lifting, pushing, pulling, holding, carrying) and falls from the same level topping the list. Here are the top ten causes and their costs:

  1. Overexertion involving outside sources. Cost: $13.1 billion
  2. Falls on the same floor level. Cost: $10.4 billion
  3. Struck by object or equipment including falling objects from above. Cost: $5.2 billion
  4. Falls to lower level from a ladder or platform. Cost: $4.9 billion
  5. Other exertions or bodily reactions from activities (crawling, reaching, bending, twisting, climbing, kneeling, or walking). Cost: $3.7 billion
  6. Roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicle. Cost: $2.7 billion
  7. Slip or trip without fall. Cost: $2.2 billion
  8. Caught in or compressed by equipment or object. Cost: $1.9 billion
  9. Repetitive motions involving microtasks, such as working on an assembly line. Cost: $1.63 billion
  10. Struck against object or equipment. Cost: $1.2 billion

Even when broken down by eight industry sectors, there was consistency with overexertion and falls on the same level in the top five causes for each of the sectors. Here are the industry results:

Construction – $9.87 billion in losses ($189.81 million a week)

  1. Falls to a lower level
  2. Struck by object or equipment
  3. Overexertion involving outside sources
  4. Falls on the same level
  5. Slip or trip without a fall

Professional and business services – $7.86 billion in losses ($151.15 million a week)

  1. Falls on the same level
  2. Overexertion involving outside sources
  3. Falls to a lower level
  4. Roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicle
  5. Struck by object or equipment

Manufacturing- $7.62 billion in losses ($146.54 million a week)

  1. Overexertion involving outside sources
  2. Falls on the same level
  3. Struck by object or equipment
  4. Caught in or compressed by equipment or object
  5. Repetitive motions involving microtasks

Health care and social services – $5.17 billion in losses ($99.42 million a week)

  1. Overexertion involving outside sources
  2. Falls on the same level
  3. Intentional injury by person
  4. Roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicle
  5. Other exertions or bodily reactions

Retail – $5.09 billion in losses ($97.88 million a week)

  1. Overexertion involving outside sources
  2. Falls on the same level
  3. Struck by object or equipment
  4. Other exertions or bodily reactions
  5. Falls to a lower level

Transportation and warehousing – $4.37 billion in losses ($84.04 million a week)

  1. Overexertion involving outside sources
  2. Falls on the same level
  3. Roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicle
  4. Other exertions or bodily reactions
  5. Falls to a lower level

Wholesale – $4.04 billion in losses ($77.69 million a week)

  1. Overexertion involving outside sources
  2. Struck by object or equipment
  3. Falls to a lower level
  4. Falls on the same level
  5. Other exertions or bodily reactions

Leisure and hospitality – $3.46 billion in losses ($66.54 million a week)

  1. Falls on the same level
  2. Overexertion involving outside sources
  3. Struck by object or equipment
  4. Struck against object or equipment
  5. Other exertions or bodily reactions

While James Merendino, Vice President and General Manager at Liberty Mutual Insurance, acknowledges that efforts to improve safety need to be based on a specific employer’s operations and employees, he says there are three techniques that have proven successful in improving safety in a variety of industries.

  • Establish a strategic safety plan. This involves identifying the top safety risks facing the company and how they will be mitigated and managed. This includes existing risks, as well as integration of new technologies or procedures.
  • Set expectations. The commitment of senior management must be unwavering, consistent, and visible. It must be an integral part of the business plan for the company’s success.
  • Directly involve front line employees in the strategic safety program. This is an on-going process that benefits both the employer and employees. These are the people who do the work, are closest to the hazards, and know the shortcuts that can be taken.

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

Legal Corner

ADA 
More appellate court decisions support regular attendance as an essential function of most jobs

In Trautman v. Time Warner Cable Tex., LLC, (5th Cir. Dec. 12, 2018), Vitti v. Macy’s Inc., (2d Cir. Dec. 21, 2018), and Lipp v. Cargill Meat Sols. Corp., (8th Cir. Dec. 19, 2018), the Fifth Circuit, Second Circuit, and Eighth Circuit each found that employees claiming disability discrimination were lawfully terminated for attendance policy violations and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer. While the decisions show that unreliable attendance can render an employee unqualified for his or her job, it’s not a given and rests on the facts of the case- employers need to be vigilant in their documentation and process and consistent in the treatment of all employees.

FMLA 
Employee must turn over social media posts

In Robinson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan found that an employer does have the right to Facebook and other social media accounts when an employee sues for discrimination and violations of the FMLA. The case alleged that an employee of MGM Grand was terminated because of his race and disability and in retaliation for taking FMLA leave. In discovery, the employee refused to provide his social media posts. A federal magistrate ruled that the employee’s Facebook, Google Photo, and Google location accounts were relevant for the case and ordered the employee to turn them over for the time he was out of work.

Workers’ Compensation 
NLRB: independent contractor test overturned

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has returned to a previous standard for evaluating the status of independent contractors versus employees. In the SuperShuttle DFW Inc. case, which involved shuttle-van-driver franchisees of SuperShuttle at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, the board concluded that the franchisees are not statutory employees under the National Labor Relations Act, but rather independent contractors excluded from the law’s coverage.

This decision overrules FedEx Home Delivery, a 2014 NLRB decision that modified the applicable test for determining independent-contractor status by severely limiting the significance of a worker’s entrepreneurial opportunity for economic gain.

Federal appeals court sends Browning-Ferris joint employer standard back to NLRB

The federal appeals court in the District of Columbia has partially upheld the Obama-era Standard in Browning-Ferris Industries of Cal., Inc. v. NLRB. The court said that it was permissible for the Board to create a standard that considered both an employer’s reserved right to control and its indirect control over employees’ terms and conditions of employment. However, the Board failed to articulate the scope of what it considers “indirect” control, so the issue was remanded. The impact on the Board’s rulemaking remains to be seen.

Employer not vicariously liable for a fatal car accident caused by an intoxicated employee – California

In an unpublished decision, Pryor v. Fitness International, an appellate court ruled that an employer was not vicariously liable for a fatal car accident caused by an intoxicated employee. When a supervisor determined that a membership counselor was impaired and sent him home early, the counselor’s car struck a bicyclist, who died from his injuries. The widow asserted the company was vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence because he was acting within the scope of his employment when he became intoxicated, and/or when he struck her husband. Further, they were negligent in hiring, retaining and supervising.

The court found that the employee was acting in a purely personal capacity when he became intoxicated and killed the bicyclist. The fact that he was sent home by the supervisor did not implicate the “special errand” rule under workers’ comp. Further, the company had no duty to try to prevent the collision, so it could not be held directly liable for negligence.

Job placement agency can’t be sued by worker who passed drug tests but was not offered job – Florida

In McCullough v. Nesco Res. LLC, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a job applicant who was required to take two drug tests (and passed) but was not offered a position cannot sue the placement agency. The Drug-Free Workplace Program Statute does not provide an aggrieved applicant with a private right of action. The Court said the “penalty” for the employer’s failure to abide by the statute was its loss of the discount in workers’ compensation premiums that it could enjoy with full compliance.

Lawsuit against employer for off-duty worker’s death can proceed – Minnesota

In Henson v. Uptown Drink, the Supreme Court ruled that a lawsuit filed against a bar after the death of an off-duty employee may proceed. The bartender and other employees, including an off-duty employee, forcibly removed two men who had become drunk and belligerent. The off-duty employee fell and hit his head on concrete, causing a traumatic brain injury that led to his death. His family sued, but the district court ruled the suit was barred by the exclusive remedy of workers’ comp.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the death arose out of and in the course of his employment. The case then proceeded under innkeeper negligence and violation of the Dram Shop Act and went through several appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court decision, ruling in part that “a reasonable fact-finder could determine that (the patron’s) intoxication, violent outburst, and subsequent physical resistance, taken together, were the proximate cause of the fall that killed…”

Comp carriers must split death claim in spite of mistaken duplicative coverage – Missouri

In Employers Preferred Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident and Indem. Co., a husband and wife each procured a workers’ compensation policy for a bakery they owned. An employee died in an automobile accident in the course of his employment and Employers paid the claim, but sought an equitable contribution from Hartford. When a Hartford agent told the husband after the accident that the Hartford policy was active, the husband filed a cancellation request, Hartford retroactively cancelled the policy, and issued the bakery a full refund of the premium and maintained it did not owe any contribution to Employers.

However, the Eighth Circuit found state law barred Hartford from cancelling a policy and eliminating its duty to defend and indemnify, after an insured had become liable for a workers’ compensation claim.

Nebraska resident hired in state but injured in Alaska cannot collect in state – Nebraska

A Washington seafood company recruited, drug tested, and hired prospective employees in Nebraska, but did no actual work in the state, therefore it was not an “employer” for purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Act. In Hassan v. Trident Seafoods & Liberty Mut., an appellate court held that a resident who was hired in Nebraska and later sustained work-related injuries in Alaska, receiving some workers’ compensation benefits from that state, could not maintain a workers’ compensation claim in Nebraska

Worker must sue third party in state that paid benefits – Nebraska

Drivers Management LLC, a Nebraska trucking company, contracted with Eagle KMC LLC, an Arizona company, to train employers. A truck-driver-in-training was injured and collected workers’ comp from Drivers Management. Almost two years later, she filed a personal injury suit against Eagle and other parties. Because Drivers Management had a subrogation claim against any third-party recovery, it was named as a defendant. The suit was filed in Arizona and upon appeal, the court held that Arizona laws do not apply because workers’ compensation benefits were adjudicated and paid in Nebraska, which “governs subrogation, lien, and assignment rights in this action.”

Causal link must be more than a “possibility” – New York

In Bufearon v City of Rochester Bur. of Empl. Relations, a worker was injured in a work-related auto accident and received medical treatment for his left shoulder, left hip, low back,and cervical spine. The self-insured employer accepted liability for all treatment except for the cervical spine.

While a workers’ compensation law judge found that the cervical spine injury was compensable, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed and the appellate court agreed, noting the Board had the power to determine the causal relationship based on substantial evidence. The court found the medical testimony conflicting, and neither treating physician reviewed the employee’s medical records from his prior cervical spine surgery. Therefore, the Board’s finding the physicians’ opinions regarding causation were mere expressions of possibility and speculation was proper and the injured worker failed to prove that his cervical spine issues were causally related to his accident.

No “grave injury” nixes 3rd party claim for indemnification – New York

In Alulema v. ZEV Electrical Corp., a worker allegedly suffered a brain injury while at work, resulting in disabling cognitive and emotional symptoms and filed a tort claim against a subcontractor. The subcontractor filed a third-party complaint against the employer, seeking indemnity or contribution.

Under state law, if an employee suffers a “grave” injury, the employer may be liable to third parties for indemnification or contribution. To be classified as a grave injury, it must leave the worker unemployable “in any capacity.”

An appellate court overturned the trial court and found no grave injury. Testing did not substantiate his claims of cognitive and emotional symptoms and he was actively looking for employment and had obtained his GED.

Court dismisses worker’s claim against Trump campaign for distress – North Carolina

In Vincent Bordini v. Donald J. Trump for President Inc. and Earl Phillip, an appellate court ruled it had jurisdiction rather than a workers’ compensation court over a suit alleging a Trump 2016 presidential campaign data director pointed his gun at a co-worker causing emotional distress and other damage. The director, who possessed a concealed carry permit, allegedly took out his gun and held it against the worker’s knee with his finger on the trigger while in the car.

While the campaign contended the case should be heard as a workers’ comp claim, the court noted, “The risk of being intentionally assaulted at gunpoint by a coworker is not one which a reasonable person may have contemplated when accepting an information technology job on a presidential campaign.” Therefore, it was not preempted by workers comp law.

Nevertheless, the court found that the campaign could not be held vicariously liable because the director was an independent contractor, not an employee. He was hired through a political consulting firm, had no set work hours, and was not under a regular employment contract.

Disability commences on the work day following the injury – Pennsylvania

While neither the statute nor case law addresses when a disability commences if an injured employee is paid full wages the day of their injury, the Commonwealth Court ruled the disability commences on the work day following the injury. It noted the bureau’s interpretation states that payment is to be made “on the date the claimant is unable to continue work by reason of injury unless he is paid full wages for the day.”

In Stairs v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board, a worker was injured and taken to the hospital by ambulance and did not return to work, but received full pay for the day of the injury. The employer sent a notice of temporary compensation payable, acknowledging the worker had suffered a back injury on Friday, March 27, 2015, and stated that the 90-day period to contest his claim would run from March 30 through June 27, 2015.

Under state statute, if the employer does not file to contest within 90 days its notice of temporary compensation payable will be converted into a notice of accepting liability for the claim. On the 90th day of the disability the company filed to contest the claim, although the Bureau issued a notice of conversion the following day. The worker appealed but the commonwealth court ruled that the employer’s notice was timely filed and the notice of conversion issued by the bureau was void.

Although symptoms abated, bricklayer entitled to ongoing benefits but not penalties from employer – Pennsylvania

In Kurpiewski v. WCAB (Caretti) and Caretti v. WCAB (Kurpiewski), the Commonwealth Court found a bricklayer was entitled to ongoing benefits, although he no longer had symptoms nor did he need treatment for a skin condition arising from his long-term exposure to chromium. His chromium sensitivity prevented him from working as a bricklayer. The worker also sought penalties, based on the employer’s failure to timely accept or deny liability for his claim.

The court found the employer had violated the law by failing to acknowledge or deny the claim within 21 days. Although it filed an answer contesting his claim, it did not issue a separate notice of denial. However, the court noted not every violation requires a penalty and remanded the imposition of a penalty to the judge.

Worker awarded benefits in spite of “close question” on causation – Tennessee

In Butler v. Tennessee Municipal League Risk Management Pool, a laborer worked on installing a water line at the county landfill. Two days later he was diagnosed with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis and has not returned to work.

While he argued it was a result of working in the trench, the pool said he had developed it on his farm. Since aspergillus spores are everywhere, causation is difficult to prove. However, through the testimony of his coworkers, it was established that several workers developed respiratory ailments after installing the water line at the landfill. In addition, four doctors opined that the invasive aspergillosis was caused by a massive exposure to the aspergillus fungus while digging the trench.

In overturning the denial of benefits, the Supreme Court’s Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel noted it was “strangely coincidental” all of the men fell ill with similar symptoms while working at the landfill and given the beneficent purpose of the workers’ compensation system, it found in favor of the worker.

Falling asleep at the wheel nixes benefits – Virginia

In Norris v. ETEC Mechanical Corp., a master electrician fell asleep while driving home from a job site and suffered serious injuries.The court found that the accident occurred in the course of employment, but did not arise out of his employment. The state uses the “actual risk” test to determine whether an injury arose out of employment. While he said he fell asleep because he was tired, he did not relate the drowsiness to his work.

To keep benefits, employee must be bound by release – Virginia

In Giles v. Prince George Cty. Pub. Sch, a worker suffered multiple injuries and filed several claims. Later, with the help of an attorney, she entered into a settlement agreement that included some exceptions to her treatment and prohibited further claims arising from the accident. Shortly after the settlement, she demanded benefits for her right shoulder, which was an exception in the agreement. The commission treated this as a request to review the settlement, but the worker argued she did not want a review, but wanted additional benefits. The Court of Appeals upheld the commission’s denial of benefits, noting she could not keep the benefits of her agreement and at the same time not be bound by her release.

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

OSHA watch

Compliance date for parts of general industry beryllium standard delayed

The compliance date for certain ancillary provisions in the beryllium standard for general industry is extended to December 12, 2018. The final rule published in the Aug. 9 Federal Register, states that the compliance date applies to requirements for methods of compliance, beryllium work areas, regulated areas, personal protective clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities and practices, housekeeping, communication of hazards, and recordkeeping.

New compliance assistance resources available for Silica Standard

  • A customizable slide presentation can be used to help train construction workers.
  • A five-minute video shows how to protect workers from exposure to silica dust.
  • A series of short videos demonstrates the proper use of specified dust control methods for six common construction tasks.
  • An FAQ page provides answers to frequently asked questions about the Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard for Construction.

Tips on forklift safety and maintenance

New QuickCards are available in English and Spanish to aid employees and employers in the safe operation and proper maintenance of forklifts.

Guidance explains how to use the 300 log to look for trends

That was no accident encourages employers to use the 300 Log not just as a paperwork exercise or a way to look at past performance, but as part of a company’s road map to finding and fixing hazards.

Redesigned regulations webpage provides easier navigation

The Law and Regulations webpage that features information on standards and rulemaking now can be searched by keyword or number and includes the latest updates on active rulemaking. The page also features information buttons to explain regulatory language that may be unfamiliar to some users.

Free workplace violence prevention webinar available online

A free 60-minute webinar on preventing workplace violence in healthcare settings is available from The Joint Commission, a long-standing national alliance partner. The webinar includes an overview of Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence for Healthcare and Social Service Workers, as well as a discussion of a multi-hospital intervention study that reduced violent events.

Name-and-shame strategy still prevalent in news releases

While the rate of releasing public statements about enforcement actions taken against employers is significantly lower under the Trump administration than the Obama administration (463 a year to about 150), the tone in these press releases has not changed. Most include harsh and embarrassing quotations from senior officials. Stakeholders argue that the press releases are based merely on allegations of violations and are published prior to companies being afforded a hearing.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Roofing contractor, Petersen-Dean, Inc., faces $146,004 in fines for repeat violations of exposing workers to fall hazards.
  • New York-based Outfront Media Inc, an outdoor advertising company, faces proposed penalties of $32,435 for serious safety violations after a worker suffered third-degree burns as well as an inadequate heat illness prevention plan for its outdoor workers.

Florida

  • G&H Underground Construction faces $57,738 in proposed penalties for allowing the use of unguarded machines after an employee suffered a throat laceration at a worksite in St. Augustine.
  • Archer Western Construction Inc., an Atlanta-based company, faces $33,259 in proposed fines for safety violations after two employees suffered fatal injuries while performing trenching activities at a Miami worksite.
  • The Holly Hill-based paving company, Pavemax Corp. faces $16,814 in proposed fines for safety violations after an employee suffered fatal injuries at an Orange City worksite, including failure to train and provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards.

Illinois

  • HB Fuller Company, operating as Adhesive Systems Inc., faces $587,564 in proposed penalties for 18 health and safety violations at its facility in Frankfort. The company was cited for failing to: provide employees with respirator fit tests and respirators appropriate for hazardous atmospheres; require bonding and grounding when transferring flammable liquids; ensure that electrical equipment was approved for use in hazardous atmospheres; and conduct a personal protective equipment assessment.

Mississippi

  • After Nissan North America Inc. contested two violations, an administrative law judge of the OSHRC vacated one serious citation but affirmed the other and assessed a $12,675 penalty. The law judge affirmed the violation of training requirements in an employer’s energy control program after determining that the evidence established that the exposure was reasonably predictable and training the technicians was required.

New York

  • The OSHRC affirmed two serious citations previously vacated by an administrative law judge against a commercial laundry facility, Angelica Textile Services Inc., in Ballston Spa. A single grouped penalty of $7,000 was assessed for inadequate isolation and verification procedures for a permit required confined space and of lockout/tagout procedures. However, the review commission reclassified the penalties as serious rather than repeat violations.

Pennsylvania

  • Grove U.S. LLC. was cited for exposing workers to struck-by hazards after three employees suffered fatal injuries when a 300-ton crane collapsed at the company’s Shady Grove facility. The company faces proposed penalties totaling $14,976, the maximum amount allowed.

Tennessee

  • Day & Zimmerman NPS Inc. faces $71,599 in proposed penalties for exposing employees to electric shock hazards at the Tennessee Valley Authority Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant in Soddy Daisy.
  • Specialty Tires of Unicoi faces $6,000 in fines after a mechanic was killed when he was caught in the moving arms of an assembly machine. The company was cited for failure to have an energy control procedure and failure to conduct regular inspections of an energy control program and ensuring that employees understand and comply with such a program.
  • M&K Home Improvement faces $51,200 in penalties for exposing workers to fall hazards.

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