Source: https://premiumreduction.blog/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:36:01+00:00

Document:
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.
Finding: Prescription drug prices continue to increase, but there is lower utilization.
Finding: There are vast differences in states’ workers’ compensation treatment guidelines and how those guidelines are enforced.
Finding: NSAIDs overtake opioids as the top workers’ comp drug group; dermatologicals are most costly.
Finding: Certain job tasks may expose construction workers to silica dust at levels more than 10 times the permissible exposure limit set by OSHA.
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.
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.
Finding: Topical creams were not effective in reducing pain in a study of 399 pain patients at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
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.
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.
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.
Managing Fatigue, gives employers specific, actionable guidance on implementing an effective fatigue risk management system.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The requirement that employers must evaluate their operators before allowing them to operate cranes independently is being enforced, but employers making good-faith efforts to comply have a 60-day grace period, according to the enforcement guidance effective on Feb. 7. Employers who have evaluated operators in accordance with the final rule, and are making good-faith efforts to comply with the new documentation requirement are offered compliance assistance, in lieu of enforcement. The grace period ends April 15.
A new Safety and Health Information Bulletin warns employers and workers of potential fire and explosion hazards stemming from lithium batteries used to power small or wearable electronic devices.
A new YouTube video deals with inspections under the ammonium nitrate emphasis program.
Employers are reminded to take necessary precautions to protect workers from the potentially fatal effects of carbon monoxide exposure. To reduce the risk of exposure, employers should install an effective ventilation system, use carbon monoxide detectors, and take other precautions as described in the Carbon Monoxide Fact Sheet.
Other resources include videos (in English and Spanish), QuickCards (English) (Spanish)and a fact sheet on portable generator safety.
A review of Nebraska workers’ compensation claims found 42 employees suffered amputation injuries in 2018, and employers failed to report more than 65 percent of those injuries within 24-hours, as required. The National Emphasis Program for Amputations targets inspections at workplaces with machinery and equipment that cause, or are capable of causing, amputations. Information and resources are available to help employers identify and eliminate workplace hazard.
Solus Industrial Innovations, a plastics manufacturing plant in Rancho Santa Margarita was cited for willfully, knowingly and intentionally maintaining an unsafe and hazardous work environment after two workers were killed in an explosion caused by a water heater that was never intended for commercial use. The case was referred to the local district attorney’s office and a $1.6 million judgment was obtained in a civil case.
Platinum Pipeline Inc., based in Livermore, received a $242,600 fine after a worker died when a trench built for a storm drain project collapsed.
A joint venture of Shimmick Construction Co. Inc., of Oakland and San Francisco-based Con-Quest Contractors Inc. faces a $65,300 fine after a worker was fatally struck by a steel beam in 2018 while working on a light rail tunnel project in San Francisco.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ordered Eastern Awning Systems Inc., a manufacturer of retractable fabric patio awnings based in Watertown, and its owner Stephen P. Lukos to pay a total of $160,000 to two discharged employees who filed safety and health complaints. The judgment also requires the employer to provide neutral letters of reference for the two discharged employees, and to post the judgment and notice of employees’ rights prominently at the workplace.
Inspected under the Regional Emphasis Program for Falls in Construction, Crown Roofing LLC was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at two separate residential worksites in Port St. Lucie and Naples. The Sarasota-based contractor faces penalties of $265,196. It has been inspected 17 times in the past five years and 11 inspections have resulted in repeat violations.
OSHRC affirmed two serious violations, and reinstated one stemming from an inspection of gas line work – overturning an administrative law judge’s decision – and increased the fine from $5,500 to $9,000 against Dade City-based Florida Gas Contractors Inc.
Hilti Inc., a hardware merchant wholesaler, was cited for exposing employees to struck-by hazards after an employee was injured while operating a forklift at a distribution center in Atlanta. The Plano, Texas-based company faces penalties of $164,802.
Eye Productions Inc., a motion picture company, was cited for failing to provide adequate head protection during stunts while filming the “MacGyver” show in Chattahoochee Hills. Proposed penalties total $9,472.
In Secretary of Labor v. HRI Hospital Inc. d/b/a Arbour-HRI Hospital, an administrative law judge vacated a citation that HRI Hospital Inc., based in Brookline, failed to adequately protect its employees from being physically assaulted by patients.
In Secretary of Labor v. SJ Louis Construction of Texas Ltd. (a division of SJ Louis Construction Inc., of Rockville, Minnesota), the ALJ determined that SJ Louis, an underground utilities contractor, failed to construct a trench in Cypress, Texas, in compliance with regulations and failed to provide employees proper egress. A penalty of $36,000 was assessed.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District has entered a consent judgment ordering Blown Away Dry Bar and Salon, based in Kennett Square, to pay a $40,000 settlement to a fired hair stylist. Investigators determined the defendants retaliated against the employee when her husband reported workplace safety and health hazards to OSHA, a violation of the (OSH) Act.
An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a general duty clause citation against Brooke Glen Behavioral Hospital’s facility in Fort Washington for exposing its employees to workplace violence, as well as a $12,471 penalty.
KidsPeace Inc. was cited for exposing employees to workplace violence hazards at two behavioral and mental health facilities in Orefield. The company faces proposed penalties totaling $29,010.
Hankook Tire Company received 11 citations and faces $85,200 in penalties for failure to conduct periodic crane inspections, provide adequate personal protective equipment for workers handling hazardous chemicals, ensure that proper lockout/tagout procedures were followed, and guard machinery.
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.
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.
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.
General confusion surrounding OSHA’s electronic record-keeping rule may spell trouble for some employers that voluntarily submitted data even though they are not regulated by the rule. Although the “courtesy” submissions may seem harmless, OSHA is using the data to target enforcement activities.
In a webinar, Daniel Deacon, a Washington, D.C.-based associate in Conn Maciel Carey LLP’s OSHA and labor and employment practice groups, reported that in 2017 there were 60,956 so-called out-of-scope submissions of Form 300A data, up from 52,171 in 2016. He noted confusion about the rule, misunderstanding of the thresholds for employment figures, and states that have not adopted the rule all contribute to this surprisingly high number.
According to OSHA, there is significant underreporting problem. The agency reported that more than one-third of the workplaces did not submit required reports in 2016. Under its Site Specific Targeting 2016 Program, the agency is targeting inspections of employers that should have reported, but did not. Moreover, compliance officers have been directed to review reporting records on all inspections.
March 2, 2019, was the deadline for employers to electronically report OSHA Form 300A data for calendar year 2018. The establishments covered by this requirement are specified on OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application webpage.
Although employers are getting more comfortable with the severe injury reporting rule adopted in 2015, incidents are being reported to OSHA that should not be reported. On the other hand, OSHA has issued at least 400 citations for late reporting or failure to report.The rule requires employers report the inpatient hospitalization of a single employee as well as all amputations and loss of an eye within 24 hours.
If the injury or illness resulted in the employee’s death within 30 days of the incident, it is reportable to OSHA within eight hours of learning the outcome.
If the injured worker went to the hospital, was the employee formally admitted to the inpatient service of the hospital? If yes, did they receive medical treatment (more than observation or diagnostics) after admission? If yes, reportable to OSHA within 24-hours of learning the outcome.
Common mistakes in reporting: reporting when employee spent more than 24 hours in emergency service before being formally admitted; inpatient medical treatment was deferred for more than 24 hours; medical treatment was provided beforeadmission to the inpatient service; not reporting inpatient first aid treatment.
Did the injury result in a body part becoming severed from the employee’s body, either during the incident or after the incident in a medical amputation? If yes, did the amputation occur within 24-hours of the work-related incident? If yes, report to OSHA within 24 hours of learning of the outcome.
Did the injury result in loss of an eye? If yes, report to OSHA within 24-hours of learning of the outcome. Note: this does not include loss of eyesight.
Other common issues are reporting injuries that are not work related, misunderstanding when the 24-hour timeclock begins, and responding inappropriately to a rapid response letter by blaming the employee for the incident or not offering corrective actions.
The challenges of keeping up with OSHA’s rules and regulations are enormous. While it’s critical to strictly adhere to OSHA requirements, providing unnecessary information or not reporting when you should can lead to something you don’t want…an inspection. If you need help, contact us.
You can also learn more about OSHA Recordkeeping, and benchmarking your injury results at http://www.premiumreductioncenter.com/osha-incident.html, as well access to FREE OSHA 300 Log recordkeeping software.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Each year, from Feb. 1 to April 30, OSHA’s Form 300A, which summarizes job-related injuries and illnesses logged in the prior calendar year, must be displayed in a common area where notices to employees are usually posted. Details can be found in our January 2019 issue.
As expected, the final rule eliminates the requirement for establishments with 250 or more employees or those with 20 to 249 employees in certain industries with historically high occupational injury and illness rates to electronically submit information from Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) and Form 301 (Injury and Illness Incident Report) each year. These establishments are still required to electronically submit information from Form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses). The final rule also requires covered employers to electronically submit their Employer Identification Number with their information from Form 300A.
The deadline for electronic submissions is March 2, 2019. More information.
A lawsuit has already been filed by the Public Citizen Health Research Group, the American Public Health Association and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists arguing the final rule violates of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The FAQs, which include answers to 64 questions organized by topic, provide guidance to employers and workers on the standard’s requirements, including exposure assessments, hazard communication and methods of compliance.
Among the 18 changes, which are scheduled to go into effect April 1, is eliminating the 90-day grace period after a trainer card expires, as well as updating the trainer code of conduct and responsibilities.
A new rollover protection brochure provides information in English and Spanish on the safe operation of tractors. It emphasizes the importance of using rollover protective structures and seat belt systems to help reduce worker injuries.
US Postal Service faces fines of $149,664 for not addressing worker safety in high-heat conditions after a mail carrier was found dead in a postal vehicle on a record-setting 117-degree-Fahrenheit day in July.
Compass Group USA Inc., operating as Chartwells Dining, was cited for exposing employees to burn and chemical hazards at its cafeteria in Coral Gables. The company faces $134,880 in penalties for exposing employees to hazards associated with exit routes, failing to provide suitable facilities for quick drenching for employees who work with cleaning chemicals, and for not providing effective training to the employees working with the chemicals.
Inspected under the REP for Falls in Construction, Ad-Ler Roofing Inc. was cited for exposing employees to dangerous falls at a Naples residential worksite, one month after similar violations were found at another worksite. The Fort Myers-based contractor faces penalties of $91,466.
New Haven-based Franklin County Construction LLC faces $56,910 in penalties after an employee suffered fatal fall injuries when a roof truss collapsed.
Hastings-based Noah’s Ark Processors is facing $182,926 in penalties after an employee suffered severe burns caused by exposure to anhydrous ammonia at one of its meat processing facilities. Sixteen serious violations were issued relating to process safety management (PSM) program deficiencies, failing to guard roof openings, and electrical safety and lockout/tagout violations.
An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a serious violation and $11,408 penalty after an employee was hospitalized due to an arc flash. Jacobs Field Services’ policy of permitting employees to remove portions of their personal protective equipment after they had determined the load side – but not the line side – of an electrical disconnect box was de-energized violated the statute.
St. Louis, Mo-based Western Specialty Contractors is facing criminal charges and $155,204 in penalties for exposing employees to serious injuries. Operated by an untrained employee, an unsecured mini-crane overturned and fell four stories at an NYC worksite.
An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a serious violation against Fairport-based Ontario Exteriors Inc. when a worksite policy that directed its employees to traverse a steep second-story roof without fall protection at the beginning and end of each work day resulted in the injury of one worker. The law judge reduced the fine in half to $1,811 noting that the court believes the company will comply with fall protection requirements in the future.
Spear Excavating LLC based in Pennsburg was cited for exposing employees to trenching hazards at a worksite in Malvern. The company faces $106,057 in proposed penalties. The inspection was initiated by a complaint.
An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a serious citation and $11,408 fine against Coastal Drilling East LLC after an employee’s finger had to be amputated following a workplace accident. Cited under the general duty clause, the company argued that abatement of the cited condition was infeasible and the violation was the result of unpreventable employee misconduct, but the law judge cited an absence of training, instruction, and supervision and inconsistent enforcement.
Two utility contractors – Bear Communications LLC of Lawrence, Kansas, and subcontractor V C Tech Inc. of Ypsilanti, Michigan – were issued a serious safety violation, and face penalties of $12,934 each – the maximum penalty allowed when they failed to establish the location of underground utilities prior to beginning excavation work. A volunteer firefighter responding to the incident was fatally injured.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.