Source: https://premiumreduction.blog/2017/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:46:17+00:00

Document:
In Walker v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that a bank teller who received intermittent leave for hypertension and requested removal of the notary duties of her job did not show Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) retaliation or interference in her firing. On her intermittent leave, she was permitted to come in late, leave early, or miss a day when she was not feeling well and acknowledged that she was never denied FMLA leave approval. She did not request an ADA accommodation.
While she was working she received low or unsatisfactory job performance reviews, warnings for overall unsatisfactory performance, including poor customer relationships and failure to follow procedures to protect confidentiality. She was fired approximately two years after she requested intermittent leave and filed suit.
The court found that she was terminated because of her performance failings, not because she took intermittent leave. The company had properly continued to enforce its progressive disciplinary policy during the period of intermittent leave.
In Katelin Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Company L.L.C., doing business as Bride Brook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, a recreational therapist who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder was prescribed a capsule form of medicinal cannabis in 2015, which she ingests every evening to help her sleep. Prior to her pre-employment drug test, she informed her future employer that she took medical marijuana. One day before she was to start her new job, after she had quit her former employment, the rehabilitation center rescinded her job offer over a positive drug test.
The company argued that federal law, which bans the use of marijuana, preempts Connecticut law that prohibits employers from firing or refusing to hire someone who uses marijuana for medicinal purposes. The court disagreed and found the employee can sue the employer.
The family of a Fresno paramedic who was killed in an air ambulance helicopter crash filed a wrongful death suit against Rogers Helicopters and American Airborne, claiming they were negligent in the maintenance and operation of the helicopter. A general partnership, ROAM dba SkyLife, existed between the companies, and the helicopters used in this partnership were jointly owned.
If there are dual employers, the second or “special” employer may enjoy the same protection of “exclusive remedy” under workers’ comp as the first or “general” employer. The court found the death occurred during the course and scope of employment, therefore, the family is precluded from suing the companies.
In conflict with an earlier decision from Division Three, the Court of Appeal, 4th District, has affirmed that the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule does not preempt employees’ emotional distress claims arising from discrimination or retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The case, Melony Light vs. California Department of Parks and Recreation, et al., revolved around a co-worker who alleged harassment by supervisors for support of a co-worker who took medical leave for stress arising from harassment by supervisors. The court noted that exclusive remedy provisions are not applicable under various circumstances, including from a risk not reasonably encompassed within the compensation bargain.
In Mathis v. Broward County School Board, a custodian, who is diabetic and had an abscess on her foot, reported a puncture injury to her foot. When the abscess worsened, she went to the hospital and was operated on for a staph infection.
When the school board denied the claim, the employee appealed, not questioning the denial of compensability but arguing the board was obligated to pay the $116,000 bill from the hospital, which was incurred before the claim was denied. The 1st District Court of Appeal overturned a judge’s finding that the employer wasn’t liable, noting if an employer elects to pay and investigate, then the law requires that it pay all benefits due “as if the claim had been accepted as compensable” until the date of denial. The case was remanded to consider the board’s defenses and if this constituted emergency care.
In Nischan v. Stratosphere Quality, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that workers’ compensation was the sole remedy for a worker’s claim of battery by a corporate representative of a client, but that she had asserted a viable claim against her employer for failing to protect her from the corporate representative’s allegedly harassing conduct.
In Evansville Courier Company v. Mary Beth Uziekalla, an injured worker settled a workers’ compensation claim for a neck injury. The settlement agreement allowed a claim for change of condition, at which point she could seek a medical opinion from the independent medical examiner.
When she exercised the provision, the designated doctor declined to give a medical opinion, so the parties agreed on a neurosurgeon, who determined that the change in condition did not result from her work injury. However, the original neurosurgeon, who also examined her, came to the opposite conclusion. The appellate court rejected the argument that the board erred in admitting the second opinion since the use of the phrase “‘a’ procedure for resolving future change of condition claims,” does not mean the agreement established the only such procedure. Indeed, the use of the indefinite article contemplates the contrary.
Unless states have laws on the books indicating otherwise, injured longshoremen may seek benefits under both workers’ comp and the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. In Ansello v. Wisconsin Central Ltd., the state Supreme Court ruled that a workers’ compensation judge abused his discretion when he dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
In a dual-jurisdiction case, benefits in both jurisdictions can be pursued, but can’t be collected at the same time. The Longshore Act is more generous than the state’s workers’ compensation and typically would be accessed for wage loss and any residual benefits not paid under the state’s system. The court noted there is no danger of double recovery under concurrent jurisdiction, since employer’s awards under one are credited against any recovery under the second.
In McCall v. Sanderson Farms, an appellate court held that an injured worker should not have been denied workers’ compensation benefits because he failed to submit to a post-accident breathalyzer test. The injured worker waited for the breathalyzer technician to arrive at the employer’s premises for more than an hour and one-half following the incident, but pain forced him to leave and seek care at the hospital, where he passed a drug test but was not administered a blood alcohol test. According to the court, the employee had not denied the test.
Under Work Comp. Law § 114-a, if a person makes a false statement or representation as to a material fact he or she shall be disqualified from receiving any compensation directly attributable to such false statement or representation. In Pompeo v. Auction Direct USA LP, an injured worker who went to prison on drug-dealing charges would have lost his chance to resume collecting wage-replacement benefits after his release if his employer could prove he hid the drug-sale proceeds. However, the Board was within its powers to find that the criminal convictions alone were insufficient to establish that income had been received from the drug sales.
In Silvestri v. New York City Transit Authority, an appellate court ruled that a worker’s widow was entitled to benefits for his death from injuries caused by an unwitnessed fall at work that was never reported to his employer. He left prior to the start of the second overtime shift and witnesses said he was holding his stomach when he left, and that he had said he wasn’t feeling well.
His maintenance duties sometimes required him to repair subway cars while they were suspended over a pit that was 4 to 5 feet deep with a concrete floor, through the use of a ladder and he told his wife he had fallen off a ladder into “the pit” at work earlier that day. When he was having difficulty breathing and walking, he went to the hospital and was diagnosed with fractured ribs, was given painkillers and sent home. Three days later he was diagnosed with a ruptured spleen, as well as a punctured lung, and died in the hospital a day later.
While the presumption of compensability could not be used to establish that an accident actually occurred, the widow had established her claim without it.
In Ball v. Bayada Home Health Care, the Court of Appeals overturned the calculation of a worker’s average weekly wage that did not account for the fact that she switched from part-time to full-time employment, and that she worked more than three months after her injury at a higher rate of pay. After six months of part-time work, a nurse’s assistant took a full time position and was pushed down the stairs by a patient on her first day.
The recent decision of the state’s Supreme Court in Protz v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal is having widespread implications for the workers’ compensation process. In Thompson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd, the Commonwealth Court held that one legal effect was to undermine the legal authority for the entire impairment rating evaluation (IRE) process. Accordingly, the Board could not approve a modification of benefits based upon an IRE.
In Schafer v. WCAB (Reese Masonry), the Commonwealth Court overturned lower rulings by reviving a worker’s petition for reinstatement of benefits. It explained the wrong standard was used; the worker did not need to prove a worsening of his condition or inability to perform his regular job to be entitled to wage-loss compensation; he just had to show that his earning power was adversely affected by his disability and that it arose from his original claim.
In Jenny Craig Operations v. Reel, a worker tripped and fell, aggravating the pre-existing arthritis in her knee and necessitating knee replacement surgery. The company accepted liability for a temporary injury to the knee, but it denied liability for the total knee replacement and for any permanent impairment. A trial judge found the fall had caused an acceleration, advancement, or progression of her osteoarthritis, such that she required a total knee replacement and a permanent partial disability of 46.5% to her right lower extremity.
The application launched on Aug. 1, as part of the compliance effort for its controversial electronic record-keeping rule, but a note on the website two weeks later said technical difficulties were making some of the ITA pages unavailable. A technology scan confirmed that there was no security breach and the application was restored.
The agency plans to issue a request for information in April 2018 regarding potential updates to its lockout/tagout standard, a frequently cited violation that is increasingly deemed out of date. There has been an increase in the variance requests because advances in technology that incorporate computer-based control of hazardous energy are increasingly used in machines and can conflict with the existing lockout/tagout standard.
Shortly after the requirements under new Subpart D, “Walking-Working Surfaces (WWS),” became effective, Aluminum Shapes LLC of New Jersey Camden County was inspected and cited for 51 safety and health violations with proposed penalties of $1,922,895. Among the citations were fixed ladders, portable ladders, skylights, stairs, loading docks, and other walking-working surfaces that were not compliant. One violation for failure to ensure that the side rails of a ladder extended 42 inches above the top of the access level or landing platform served by the ladder resulted in a proposed penalty of $9,959.
Conducted in conjunction with the National Utility Contractors Association, and the University of Texas at Arlington, the symposium focused on ways to prevent trenching and excavation hazards in the construction industry.
The North Carolina Department of Labor’s Agriculture Safety and Health Bureau, the Farm Labor Practices Group, NC State University and industry stakeholders collaborated to produce safety training videos addressing agricultural safety and health hazards faced by tobacco farm workers.
Crenshaw Manufacturing Inc. in Huntington Beach received six citations and $142,715 in penalties after a worker had three fingers amputated while manually loading products into an operating punch press. Fines relate to machine guarding, failure to conduct regular inspections, and lack of training.
Santa Ana-based Triumph Processing- Embee Division, Inc. plant, manufacturer of aircraft parts, received a total of 23 citations, totaling proposed fines of $87,500 for exposing workers to the dangerous chemical hexavalent chromium (chromium-6), and not notifying workers that they knew or try to protect workers from exposure.
Jacksonville-based Great White Construction Inc., a roofing contractor, faces penalties of more than $1.5 million for 14 workplace safety violations and has been placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program due to high-gravity, willful, egregious violations related to fall hazards.
An administrative law judge has vacated two citations issued against Riverview-based Central Site Development L.L.C. involving a fatality of a worker of a subcontractor. The company had received two citations under the general duty clause, but the judge found the multiemployer worksite doctrine does not apply to citations issued under the general duty clause.
UHS of Westwood Pembroke, Inc. – doing business as Lowell Treatment Center, a behavioral health facility, faces $207,690 in proposed penalties for failure to abate violations involving workplace violence.
An administrative law judge upheld citations and $4,000 in penalties assessed against a contractor, Chris Welch, for failing to provide fall protection and appropriate ladders for his workers who were working on a roof of a house in Springfield.
An administrative law judge has affirmed citations and proposed fines issued against a roofing contractor, William Trahant Jr. Construction Inc. in Lynn, who failed to show at his scheduled commission hearing. Penalties are $43,560 for failure to provide fall protection or hard hats.
Carthage Specialty Paperboard is facing $357,445 in proposed penalties for more than 60 safety and health hazards, including more than 20 instances of machinery lacking safety guards to prevent possible amputation.
An administrative law judge upheld citations against Montgomeryville-based Lloyd Industries Inc.’s facility after a worker’s three fingers were amputated when a machine without safety guards crushed his hand. Proposed total penalties are $822,000.
Marshfield-based Felker Brothers Corp., a manufacturer of steel pipes and tubes is facing $110,458 in proposed fines after a worker was struck by a machinery part and suffered a shattered jaw and concussion, a worker was exposed to hexavalent chromium at levels 1.8% higher than the permissible exposure limit and other violations.
HR Tip: Can employers terminate employees for off duty activities?
Following the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, there was an active social media campaign to identify protesters and encourage employers to terminate their employment. While the legal consensus seems to be that private employers have the right to take action against employees for expressing views that could create a hostile work environment or damage the employer’s reputation, even if the activities happened off the clock, many caution to decide on a case by case basis.
There are no federal laws that would be violated if a worker were fired by a private employer. The First Amendment’s protections of freedom of speech apply only to the government, not to private employers. However, some states, such as California, Colorado, New York and North Dakota, have laws that prohibit from discriminating against employees for engaging in lawful conduct when they are off duty. In such states, there is a greater burden on the employer to justify the termination. And employers must be careful not to run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act by punishing employees who may be commenting about the terms and conditions of their employment.
In the era of social media, pictures and videos from rallies and protests go viral instantly. If a manager is using hateful speech and acts on it at work, employees can feel threatened and belittled and harassment and discrimination suits could be harder to defend.
Today, many feel more emboldened about what they can say and do and employees may not understand what they do off the job can impact their employment. For this reason, it is critical for employers to review their social media, employment or personnel policies, and other relevant policies to articulate their expectations in these situations.
Deciding whether to take action against an employee for off-duty conduct can be a slippery slope and it’s best to consult with their legal counsel before making decisions.
Employees are often expected to use their personal vehicles for business related trips. It could be on a regular basis, such as sales, or an occasional drop off to a customer or trip to the bank. While the employee is serving the employer in such a capacity, the principle of vicarious liability applies. Should employees get into an accident and seriously injure someone, damage another car, or injure themselves, the employer can be liable. While the employer does not actually commit the wrong, the company can be held responsible for the actions of the employee.
The employee’s auto insurance will be primary, but the problem arises when the coverage is insufficient. The employer can then be sued by the third party or be required to pay workers’ comp for the injured employee.
The experts emphasize that knowing who is driving on behalf of the company, hiring safe drivers, and focusing on proper employee behavior behind the wheel is critical. The company must walk the talk. If employees read and sign “no cellphone” policies, but continually receive calls from the manager while on the road, the policy is meaningless. According to the National Safety Council, employers have been liable up to $25 million for motor vehicle crashes involving employees using a cell phone while driving.
One of the top safety issues for most employers is the purchase of personal protection equipment (PPE). The market for PPE has grown significantly and the options can be daunting. While a common goal is to keep workers safe by finding the most appropriate PPE for the demands of the tasks and the hazards faced, costs, sustainability, comfort, and employee acceptance also influence the decision.
Relying on what’s worked well in the pastWork processes change, the compliance environment is more demanding, and PPE improves. While employers generally rely on their PPE suppliers to stay ahead of the curve, it’s not enough for suppliers to offer a full range of effective, cost effective equipment and innovative technologies. Suppliers should be strategic partners – understanding your unique processes and hazards and how your employees work in your facility. They should also be helpful resources in navigating new standards and regulations such as the fall protection standards from OSHA and new equipment guidelines from ANSI.In addition to working with you to identify the most appropriate PPE, their services should include testing the equipment in your workplace, training for managers and employees, and evaluating the effectiveness of the choices. PPE should perform well over time, be used properly by employees, and improve business performance and safety.
Seeking the “one product” solutionWhether it’s trying to simplify the purchasing process or provide the highest level of protection, well-intended PPE choices can produce unintended results. Cut-resistance gloves are a good example. When there is an increase in cuts and lacerations on the job, the tendency is to go to a glove that addresses the greatest cut hazard in your operation, with the thought that a higher cut rated glove will also protect less significant hazards. However, the PPE must match the task and risk and a higher ANSI cut level may not provide the necessary dexterity and create too much hand fatigue to do the task at hand. Rather than focusing on the glove, the entire process for hand safety needs to be examined.
Failing to consider PPE part of an overall strategyA processing plant was experiencing a high number of slip and fall injuries. The company took an exhaustive look at flooring conditions, floor mats, and housekeeping behaviors as well as testing various footwear types. Protective footwear is designed to reduce hazards and improve safety, but it can’t provide total worker protection. PPE should be viewed as a supplement to engineering or job controls that can eliminate or minimize hazards and to workplace practices and procedures aimed at enhancing safety.
Lacking a plan for everyoneWhile most employers have moved beyond the “one size fits all” approach to PPE, there are still areas that warrant improvement. Most PPE has been designed based on average male body measurements and offer limited options for women. But the workforce has changed and savvy suppliers are addressing the issue. This was recognized in the new ANSI standard 107-2015 that addresses some of the long overlooked issues with Hi-Vis apparel and accessories, including size and fit. The updated standard became less design-restrictive allowing for smaller sizes to accommodate smaller body frames without compromising protection, a welcome change for women.
Failing to consider comorbidities, including obesityThe obesity epidemic has affected most industries, yet many are still using PPE and ergonomic tools that were designed for workplace populations that were more fit. Falls from height are common in construction. Much of the fall equipment is typically rated to only 310 pound, although there is equipment available that exceed this limit. The sobering fact is the percentage of workers on the job whose total weight (body weight, tools, and PPE) exceeds the design specifications of some fall protection equipment.
Not involving employees in the selection processWhen selecting PPE, there are many factors to consider – regulatory compliance, contractual agreements, type of exposure, cost, durability, and appropriateness. But if your employees won’t wear it when it is needed, day in and day out, all your effort is for naught. Top reasons employees do not wear PPE are discomfort, poor fit, unattractive, feel it is unnecessary for the task, or don’t have time. This is why it’s important to involve employees in the testing and selection of equipment.
Getting caught off guard by fashion trends or cultural eventsFrom full-on beards to trimmed moustaches, facial fringe continues to be a top trend in 2017. This trend plus popular cultural events such as “Movember” or “No-Shave November” – the male health counterpart to the popular Susan G. Komen pink ribbon campaign – pose safety concerns for employees who use respiratory protection. Even if an employee can pass a quantitative fit test using a PortaCount, the NIOSH requirement states that you may not have facial hair that interfers with the seal of a facepiece. Employers need to be aware of trends and make sure their written program includes relevant policies and that employees are trained, monitored, and understand the requirements for worker safety.
Failing to maintain and replace PPEA supervisor may try to look good and save money by telling workers to use chemical protective gloves for a week, rather than the specified one day limit, a worker is protected from falling debris by his hard hat and deems it his “lucky” hat and wears it every day, workers keep reusing earplugs inside their hard hats, harnesses are not cleaned nor stored properly, and so on. These workers have failed to maintain and replace PPE as needed and have put themselves at risk. Employers need to know when to replace PPE and when to purchase PPE versus having it tested for repeated use. And test tools need to be up to date. Establishing a regular schedule of testing and replacement helps ensure PPE is not used past its prime.
Don’t enforce useLack of enforcement is one of the main reasons why employees don’t use PPE. PPE compliance does not happen in a vacuum; it’s dependent on work practice control and manager buy-in. When a hazard cannot be engineered out, companies rely on safe working practices and PPE. Failure to enforce use is widespread across many industries. One example is healthcare. Despite an increase in sharps injuries and exposure to blood and bodily fluids, many health care workers are not wearing appropriate personal protective equipment, according to the International Safety Center. It found that fewer than seven percent of workers exposed to blood and bodily fluid splashes reported using eye protection, although about two-thirds of the workers’ eyes were splashed. Collecting data on use can be a wake up call for many companies.
Using technologies for surveillance under the veil of enhancing safetyWearable technology, which involves gathering data via smart sensors, is growing in prevalence in PPE and can help managers understand where workers are and when they are in an unsafe condition or place. The possibilities seem endless – from helping ergonomists to engineer risk out of tasks to a smart construction helmet that increases user efficiency through connectivity with the control room. But, it can raise privacy challenges, particularly when used for surveillance or other sensitive issues. Employers need to be upfront about what data is being collected and how it will be used, and have a written policy.
A trained supervisor or manager should verify that PPE is being utilized according to protocol.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 114
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.