The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is researching the health effects that nanoparticles may have on workers who handle them and who are exposed to them.
NIOSH recently published research that measured for the first time the health effects of inhaling a common nanoparticle, the single-walled carbon nanotube. In this study, researchers examined what happens when mice breathe in carbon nanotubes. (WCxKit)
A nanoparticle of a certain material can behave much differently than a larger, more familiar-sized particle of the same material. Early research shows that materials that enter the body as nano-sized particles may have harmful health effects, even for some materials previously considered safe at larger sizes.
NIOSH scientists invented a way to suspend nanotubes in air so the concentration of particles could be carefully controlled, different from previous tests where particles were aspirated. It was the first time a well-characterized controlled aerosol of a carbon nanotube had been generated.
The new results demonstrated that carbon nanotubes were more potent when inhaled than when aspirated. (WCxKit)
In addition, this research has shown early indications of serious health outcomes that may have longer term effects such as cancer, and therefore, ongoing research is important to more clearly understand the implications of exposure to carbon nanotubes.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
South Carolina Adopts "Bunkhouse Rule." In a case of first impression on the issue of the bunkhouse rule [Pierre v. Seaside Farms, 2010 S.C. LEXIS 288 (Feb. 16, 2010), the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the workers injuries occurred within the course and scope of the employment where a migrant worker sustained a right ankle fracture when he fell on a wet sidewalk outside housing provided by his employer at a remote farm on St. Helena Island, South Carolina.
The worker had not actually started work for the employer, having been hired earlier on the day of his fall. The housing was supplied to the worker at no charge, in part, because of the remote location of the work site. After the injury, the worker was terminated from employment since he could not perform the work duties and he filed a claim for workers compensation benefits. The hearing commissioner determined that the worker had not sustained a compensable injury because he was not injured during the course and scope of his employment. (WCxKit)
The supreme court reversed. According to the court, whether a worker was contractually required to live on the employers premises was not necessarily as important as whether the practical circumstances required that he or she live there. Examining decisions from several other jurisdictions, the South Carolina high court determined that the worker in the instant case was essentially required to live on the employers premises by the nature of his employment and was making a reasonable use of the employer-provided premises at the time of his accident. The court also indicated that the workers injury was causally related to his employment in that it was due to the conditions under which he lived, i.e., a wet sidewalk outside his building. See Larson's Workers Compensation Law Ch. 24,[1] n9.1]
Copyright 2010 LexisNexis. All rights reserved. This material is excerpted from Larson’s Workers Compensation Law and reprinted with permission.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
One of the most important parts of medical management of a workers compensation claim is the precertification process within utilization review. Precertification is the process of have certain medical procedures or medical treatments preapproved by the workers comp insurer before the procedure or treatment is started.
The purpose of precertification is to determine the medical necessity of the medical procedure or medical treatment. Precertification protects the employee from unnecessary medical procedures and it gives the insurer the opportunity to verify the medical procedures requested by the treating physician to meet the accepted medical guidelines for the injury. (The accepted medical guidelines normally used are the criteria for medical procedures or medical treatment established by the American Medical Association). (WCxKit)
A precertification review is not done for each routine visit the injured employee has with the treating physician. When the treating physician determines a medical procedure or medical treatment is needed, one not routinely included in an office visit, a request for precertification is needed.
13 Examples of When to Request Precertification:
1. Non-emergency hospital admittance
2. Non-emergency surgical procedures
3. Non-emergency outpatient hospital care
4. Physical therapy and occupational therapy
5. Speech, cognitive, rehabilitation and other restorative therapy
6. Diagnostic testing – MRI, CT scan, myelography, EMG, EEG, etc.
7. Durable medical equipment
8. Home health care
9. Psychological testing
10.Chronic pain management
11.Work hardening programs
12.Acupuncture
13.Experimental procedures
Utilization review precertification is normally done by a medical reviewer employed by the insured, a registered nurse (RN) a contracted vendor. The RN makes a medical necessity approval determination after reviewing the medical history of the injured employee. The RN reviews the medical documentation including diagnostic testing, clinical evaluation reports, physical therapy records, the results of any specialized testing in regards to the requested medical procedures.
If the RN determines the medical procedure is appropriate, the treating physician is notified of the approval. If the RN determines the medical procedure is not supported by the medical records, the denial of the procedure is referred to a doctor employed by the insurer or contracted vendor. The insurer's doctor reviews all the medical information to determine if the requested procedure or treatment is medically necessary and if it is the best option for the employee. If the insurer's doctor concurs with the RN that the medical procedure should be denied, the treating physician is notified of the reasons the proposed treatment is denied. If the insurer's doctor disagrees with the RN and concurs with the treating physician, the treating physician is notified the medical procedure is approved.
When a medical procedure is denied, precertification gives the insurer's doctor and the treating physician an opportunity to discuss the best options for the treatment of the injured employee. The injured employee benefits by receiving an improved treatment plan. Precertification will provide early identification of treatment issues. It allows the medical reviewer to communicate with the workers comp adjuster what the medical issues are and to explain what is/are the employee's best medical option(s). (WCxKit)
An example of the benefits of precertification is the treatment options for low back pain. The admission of employees to the hospital for non-surgical treatment of low back pain was common thirty years ago. Treating physicians would run out of treating options and admit people to the hospital primarily for bed rest. With precertification showing a lack of medical necessity for the hospital admission, this practice is unheard of today.
In addition to providing the injured employee with the best medical option(s) for recovery, precertification has other benefits including lower cost for the employer and promotion of an atmosphere of the best interest of the injured employee.
Precertification determines the medical necessity of medical procedures and medical treatment before the cost is incurred. Precertification is a win-win scenario. It insures the employee is receiving the best medical care for their injury and prevents unnecessary medical care that delays the employee's recovery. Precertification lowers the overall cost of medical care by eliminating unnecessary medical expense.
Jane Steele, RN, MS, CCM, Nurse Case Manager from Genex Services, points out that one downside to precertification review is that things take forever to get things done…. unless you have a nurse cse mgr who can jump thru the necessary hoops in the system and speed things along.
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing.
Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
Copyright © 2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
A North Dakota jury has found that a former Workforce Safety and Insurance executive was not dismissed for acting as a whistleblower.
According to the Bismark Tribune, a nine-person jury recently ruled that James Long was not entitled to back pay or other damages for his firing from the North Dakota agency where he was employed as chief of support services. (WCxKit)
Long filed a lawsuit in September 2008 against the state of North Dakota, WSI and several officials who were part of the agency, alleging he was terminated in violation of the state’s whistleblower protection law. The list of defendants eventually was dropped down to just the state and WSI.
Allegations claim Long was fired on March 12, 2008 — after being suspended with pay since Nov. 15, 2007 — for cooperating with investigators in a felony criminal case against Sandy Blunt, WSI’s former director, and Romi Leingang, the former director of the agency’s investigations unit.
In turn, Long filed for whistleblower protection with the attorney general’s office on Oct. 19, 2007. He reported four perceived violations in the protection request: Misuse of sick leave, salary increase, nepotism and deliberate circumvention of open records law. He also reported an alleged conspiracy to oust Burleigh County State’s Attorney Richard Riha.
The Whistleblower Act, or the Public Employees Relations Act, basically protects employees of a state agency from retaliation for reporting what they perceive is illegal or a misuse of public resources.
Reports are required to be made in writing to the employee’s respective agency head, a state’s attorney, the attorney general or an employee organization, according to the North Dakota Century Code.
The charge against Leingang was dismissed, as was one charge against Blunt, who was convicted of one felony, for misspending more than $10,000 of the agency’s money.
He was sentenced to two years’ probation and 1,000 hours of community service, and ordered to pay a $2,000 fine and $775 in fees and court costs.
Long, Kay Grinsteinner, the agency’s former internal auditor, Todd Flanagan, a former fraud investigator, Billi Peltz, former human resources director, and Jodi Bjornson, legal counsel for the agency, filed for whistleblower protection as part of the investigations at the agency.
Long, Grinsteinner, Flanagan and Peltz were dismissed from the agency, and Long, Grinsteinner and Flanagan sued for damages.
Grinsteinner and Flanagan settled their lawsuits for $10,000 each. Peltz did not file a lawsuit, and Bjornson is still employed at WSI. (WCxKit)
According to the verdict form, the jury claimed Long had not proven he acted as a whistleblower, and the jury did not have to go any further into decisions as to if he was fired for acting as a whistleblower.
WC IQ TEST: http://www.workerscompkit.com/intro/
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
European hairdressing and beauty industry employers and unions (UNI Europa Hair and Beauty and Coiffure EU) recently sealed an agreement on the health of workers in the sector, announced Belgiums FGTB central labor confederation in mid-November. The agreement is known as the "Dresden Declaration" after the city where it was signed, and aims to prevent the skin diseases that hairdressing workers are particularly prone to.
Hairdressers daily handle hundreds of different chemicals found in shampoos, hair dyes, lotions and other hair bleach products. With repeated use, these products gradually break down the skin barrier and can cause irritation and allergies. (WCxKit)
The agreement provides for better training and information about the hazards of cosmetics and hair dyes, and also aims to improve the use of personal protective equipment.
The "Dresden Declaration" falls within the SAFEHAIR project run by the European social partners for the hairdressing sector in association with the University of Osnabrück (Germany). The SAFEHAIR project aims to develop risk prevention methods in hair and beauty salons to improve health and safety for workers.
The FGTB argues that the EU cosmetics regulation adopted by the European Parliament and Council in late November 2009 affords too little protection to professional users. (WCxKit)
"Even after lobbying by the trade unions, the new law takes no account whatever of long-term occupational exposure to cosmetic products," argues the Belgian union.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
The French government has submitted a proposal to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) requesting the classification of formaldehyde be upgraded to a category one carcinogen.
According to ECHA, the dossier concerning formaldehyde is currently being processed. If it clears the accordance check and is accepted by the Member State Committee (MSC) for consideration, a public consultation could start by the end of the year or early 2011 – although the process can take longer, the agency notes (WCxKit)
At present at EU level the substance is classed as a category 3 carcinogen under the old dangerous substances Directive (DSD), which is being progressively replaced by CLP. A category 1 or 2 classification under the DSD or a 1A or 1B classification under CLP would have significant implications for use of formaldehyde, which has a wide range of applications.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified formaldehyde as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Formaldehyde is used mainly in the production of resins that are used as adhesives and binders for wood products, paper pulp, paper, glasswool and rockwool. It is also used extensively in the production of plastics and coatings, textile finishing and the manufacture of industrial chemicals. It is used as a disinfectant and preservative in many applications.
In July 2009, the European Federation of Building and Wood Workers (EFBWW) and the European Furniture Manufacturers Federation (EFMF) adopted a statement in which they requested the EU to legislate on formaldehyde. (WCxKit)
France’s National Research and Safety Institute (INRS) estimates that more than a million European workers are exposed to formaldehyde to some degree or other.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Posted in
