The owner of a Welsh-based window and conservatory installation company has been fined for failing to protect its workers from exposure to asbestos.
Four employees were exposed while removing soffits on a property at Chirbury Gate, Montgomery, Powys, during June 16-17, 2009. (WCxKit)
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Philip Leslie Davies, trading as Meadow View Windows and Conservatories, had failed to take effective measures to prevent or reduce his employees being exposed to the potentially deadly substance.
Davies, of Shrewsbury, admitted exposing employees to asbestos, failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment, and failing to ensure adequate information, instruction and training was provided to employees.
He was charged with breaching of Regulations 5, 10(1) and 11(1) (a) of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2006.
He was fined a total of $4,796.40 ($1,598.80 for each charge) and ordered to pay costs of $2,582.06 at Welshpool Magistrates Court.
HSE inspector Chris Wilcox noted, "Four of Mr. Davies employees were exposed to asbestos in circumstances that were wholly avoidable. They now have to live with the fear of becoming ill with a life-threatening lung disease.
"Those working in the roofline products industry must check for the presence of asbestos and be fully aware of the legal requirements for working with asbestos-containing materials." (WCxKit)
The court also ordered the defendant to pay a separate $23.98 victim surcharge, the proceeds of which will be spent on services for victims and witnesses.
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@WorkersCompKit.com.
In-house counsel are often frustrated when claims they are working on are settled without their consent. Here's why …. most companies do not spend time negotating their account instructions. Most don't know what the account instructions are. They are a well-kept secret.
Prior to settlement of claims, the carrier should contact the company for settlement authority on all claims over a certain threshold of, for example, $5,000 or $10,000.(WCxKit)
The company should be “consulted” before any lump sum settlement is offered. The more input the company wants, the lower the settlement threshold should be. For example, if a company wants to be actively involved in decision-making they can state “the company retains settlement authority for all workers compensation claims over $5,000 and all products liability claims over $1.”
There is a world of difference between an insurer having to “consult” its insured and having to obtain its “consent” prior to settling a claim. You want the former. If the insurer agrees to “consult” its client prior to settlement, the client may not have the power to alter the course of the claim.
A very rude awakening is in store for the company with a $500,000 deductible when a claim is settled against the wishes of the litigation manager, particularly when the settlement amount is within the client’s retention level.
In one large auto case, a plaintiff who had been a meat cutter for 20 years alleged his carpel tunnel syndrome was from the impact of the auto accident. It's possible, but perhaps there is another cause – meatcutting. In-house counsel will surely look into this, but if the insurer has full authority they can settle the claim without your consent.
The defendant company's in-house attorney hired a medical expert to review medical causality. Yet, even though it knew of the company’s involvement and interest in the case, the insurer settled the case without the consent of its insured client. That was a rude awakening for counsel.
This occurred because the company had previously given the insurance carrier $100,000 of “field authority” even though the company had a $250,000 deductible on auto claims and the settlement was, essentially, all the companys money.
From a company's perspective, a settlement decision can impact well beyond bottom-line considerations. Injudicious settlements can affect a company’s labor policy, its workers compensation practices, the reputation of its products and its susceptibility to future claims. For instance, an insurers denial of a legitimate workers compensation claim can adversely affect the labor climate.
Managing claims and litigation is nearly impossible without complete and explicit account servicing instructions (ASI). Also known as account instructions, claim service instructions or account handling instructions, ASI represent the agreement or understanding between the insured and the field adjusters at the insurer’s branch offices that guides the handling of all suits and claims, both litigated and non-litigated. These instructions should be disseminated to all your branch offices across the country.
The ASI includes information about how claims are to be handled in every line of insurance including workers compensation, products liability and automobile insurance. (Third-party administrators who provide claims servicing without insurance also use ASI to guide their adjusters.)
After ASI are negotiated, the insured must familiarize all internal claims handling personnel with the provisions of the ASI and provide them with a written copy to ensure they understand the responsibilities for key areas of claims handling. In addition to containing policyholder information and details about coverage and dissemination of data (loss runs), ASI can also contain other lesser-known guidelines.
For example, the referral of medical reports to a physician consultant for preparation of a letter to set up an independent medical examination (IME), or a requirement saying subrogation can be waived only upon receipt of a written evaluation and agreement by the company. In implementing an aggressive claims and litigation management program, a company is, in effect, “taking control” of its claims, exerting more authority in the handling of claims and becoming much more involved in their claims management.
When a company chooses to become more involved in “managing” as distinguished from “monitoring,” the roles and responsibilities of all parties, including the company and the insurance carriers, must be clearly delineated to avoid overlaps as well as gaps. In as much as in-house counsel frequently manages litigation and claims, while the risk manager establishes the ASI, the two departments discuss in advance, what to include in the ASI.
In-house counsel makes a list of all claims handling problems, then reviews and discusses it with the risk managers for solutions to be incorporated into the ASI.
While a company can actively negotiate for items it believes to be of sufficient importance, the carrier’s approach will normally run counter to the company’s approach. The carrier may seek to define as few issues as possible in writing; sometimes reassuring the company certain key items will be done as a matter of course (i.e., as “standard operating practice”).
The company needs to be aware of this, realizing it is prudent to put as much as possible in writing to avoid future problems and misunderstandings. It is not uncommon for a litigation manager to encounter problems that would not have occurred if “it had been in writing.” For example, a company may be “assured” it can select the local counsel of its choice. This verbal assurance from the carrier may work adequately until those who made these agreements move to other employers or are no longer involved with the account.
In general, the more risk a company has retained, the more control the insurer will relinquish. In a guaranteed cost program, for example, the insurer will relinquish almost no control because the exposure and expense are borne by the insurer. In a loss sensitive program, the insurer will negotiate to give a company more control.(WCxKit) In a loss-sensitive program with a very large deductible (e.g., $500,000) most companies can negotiate for a very high level of control close to what they would have if they were self-insured.
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. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact: RShafer@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@WorkersCompKit.com.
Several American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) members, occupational safety, health and environmental professionals, recently met in Beijing and Shanghai with Chinese officials to exchange ideas, best practices, and concepts related to occupational safety and health management.
The group aims to contribute to the improvement of workplace processes and help prevent injuries, illnesses and fatalities in China. The group met with Chinese officials from the State Administration of Work Safety (SAWS) and the China Occupational Safety and Health Association (COSHA). (WCxKit)
The trip, organized by a citizen ambassador program, was led by C. Christopher Patton, of Knoxville, TN, and Pamela Ferrante of Pittsburgh. Both are ASSE members, Patton is a past president. Also participating were members of the ASSE International Practice Specialty group.
Meeting topics while in China were to include: expanding educational, training, and networking opportunities to improve the professional proficiency of those engaged in protecting people, property and the environment; providing information resources to support the knowledge and professional efforts of those engaged in incident prevention; demonstrating new and improved products and services meeting the needs of professionals managing occupational safety and health programs; discussing current occupational safety and health trends impacting both countries; identifying emerging business and industry trends that impact workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities, such as safety management practices for nanotechnology; discussing existing workplace safety and health management practices; and, recommending areas for ongoing mutual collaboration. (WCxKit)
This trip follows a recent meeting of Chinese executives with the ASSE New York City chapter which provided the guests a tour of the new WorldTradeCenter construction in New York and a roundtable discussion on best practices in the construction industry.
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@WorkersCompKit.com.
A new book, Making Equality Count, exploring the linkages between discrimination and inequality in Ireland and a number of other countries was recently published.
The book draws on Irish and international research on inequality that adopts a range of different methods to address key questions about the incidence, distribution and effects of discrimination and inequality, as well as considering some of its antecedents. The book originated from papers presented at a conference in Dublin in June 2010 organized by the Equality Authority, the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), the Central Statistics Office (CSO) and the Geary Institute, University College Dublin. Its publication was co-funded under PROGRESS – the European Union’s Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity. (WCxKit)
A range of discriminatory grounds are covered with individual chapters focusing on gender, disability and ethnicity/nationality; one chapter examines the intersection between two grounds, while others consider a range of grounds. Some chapters report single studies or projects and some present an overview of research in the area. Four studies focus on Ireland; others report research from the United States (U.S.), the United Kingdom (UK) and a range of other western countries.
What the chapters share is an overall concern with measuring equality and discrimination. Following an introductory chapter by the book’s editors, the next four chapters focus on how to explicitly measure and describe the extent of discrimination; the last four look primarily at equality, but reflect on discrimination. Selected findings from some of the chapters are detailed below.
In the first presented paper from the conference, Helen Russell and colleagues discuss self-reported discrimination in Ireland for a range of aspects (domains) using national survey data representing the whole population. While self-reports are subjective and in essence reflect an individual’s experience of discrimination, this survey followed best practice to minimize bias. Questions were limited to specific domains and referred to a particular time period; for example, respondents were asked about their experience of discrimination in the workplace, while looking for work, and in places like shops, pubs and restaurants.
The authors note that people with disabilities and non-Irish nationals experience discrimination in a wide variety of domains. For other groups, discrimination is more context-specific. Another salient finding is that only 40% of those experiencing discrimination reported this to anyone and the social groups with the highest rates of discrimination are the least likely to take action.
In general, the authors suggest the findings on self-reported discrimination are consistent with those from other studies of objective outcomes in Ireland – for women, non-Irish nationals and people with disabilities. However, the comparison suggests that older people and those with low education are more likely to underreport discrimination – an issue discussed in the chapter’s conclusion.
Discrimination in Recruiting Non-Irish
In another chapter, Frances McGinnity and colleagues test for discrimination in recruitment against minority immigrant groups – the first experiment of its kind in Ireland. Ireland is an interesting case as the recent economic boom was accompanied by a flood of immigrants with different national backgrounds into a country previously overwhelmingly white and Irish.
The researchers sent out almost 500 equivalent CVs in response to advertised vacancies for jobs in administration, finance and retail sales in the greater Dublin area. They found that candidates with Irish names are over twice as likely to be asked to attend an interview as candidates with an African, Asian or German name. The discrimination rate was relatively high by international standards and did not vary across occupation.
Differential Outcomes Across Groups
The final three chapters present empirical evidence on differential outcomes across groups, examining gender inequality (Mary Gregory), disability (Brenda Gannon and Brian Nolan) and the intersection between gender and disability (Dorothy Watson and Peter Lunn).
In policy debates on discrimination and disadvantage, the notion of multiple disadvantages has gained considerable appeal, though it is rarely tested empirically across a range of outcomes. In a study using 2006 Irish Census data, Dorothy Watson and Peter Lunn operationalise some of these ideas. Does membership of two disadvantaged groups increase the risk of a negative outcome and, if so, is this increase in risk additive or exponential?
They test this by examining differences by gender and disability status for four outcomes:
1. risk of low education
2. labor market participation
3. unemployment
4. being in low-skilled employment
The authors conclude that it is difficult to generalize about multiple disadvantages as patterns of disadvantage vary substantially across outcomes. And while disadvantage may not be additive, any one group may experience high levels of disadvantage on one ground alone. Indeed, an interesting lesson from their chapter is that the notion of multiple disadvantages may be simple but its application to real-life data is complex. (WCxKit)
Exploring multiple disadvantages can draw attention to the fact that the interaction of education, labour market and lifecycle processes may result in unexpected outcomes.
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.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
A Manitoba (Canada) business owner has pleaded guilty to a number of workplace and safety violations — including employing under-aged workers — following the death of a 15-year-old boy who was buried in burning asphalt.
According to the Canadian Press, Gerald Shepell, 48, owner of Interlake Paving, recently admitted he breached both the Workplace Health and Safety Act and Employment Standards Code in the July 2008 tragedy just north of Winnipeg. (WCxKit)
Andrew James died almost instantly when he became trapped below asphalt which spilled from a truck while working at a former Manitoba Hydro substation in Stony Mountain.
Several co-workers, including Shepell, desperately tried to save the teen after he apparently lost his footing while shoveling asphalt from a trailer box into a back-hoe scoop.
The company was dumping asphalt into a massive pile to use for various projects around town when the accident occurred.
Provincial law requires all construction site employees to be at least 16 unless a special permit has been granted.
Shepell admitted James started employment for him when he was just 14, along with another boy who was 13.
Officials are seeking major fines against Shepell, who has owned the business since 2005 after taking it over from a family member. The maximum penalty is $180,000.
Defence lawyer Randy Minuk is seeking penalties not topping $30,000, claiming anything more would likely place him and his employees out of business.
The boy's parents were in court to support Shepell, claiming they hold no ill will towards him for what took place. (WCxKit)
They have previously indicated they would help him pay fines if he were to be convicted and that they were thankful for the opportunity he provided their son.
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@WorkersCompKit.com.
Due to the unique and complex nature of the workers compensation system, only a holistic approach - one considering all elements within context – can succeed in reducing an employer’s workers comp costs.
1. Work Together
Employers, insurers and brokers working together have strong incentives to attack the costs of workers compensation.(WCxKit)
Human resources, industrial relations, workers compensation, employee benefits and other internal departments should be on the same page. Having a workers compensation director can help coordinate these departments and keep your costs low.
2. Educate your Employees
An effective program begins with education. Those working on WC management need to understand the program. Further, your employees need to understand how to file workers compensation should the need arise.
Wallet cards explaining how to respond after an injury can help workers follow a direct timeline leaving nothing out. This makes a sooth injury report and allows your employee to get the best benefits for themselves, without loosing time or money to the employer.
3. Conduct a Needs Assessment
First, a needs assessment must be conducted to determine what knowledge gaps exist. The risk manager must gain the support of senior management, employees and physicians to implement a holistic program.
If there is resistance from senior management it’s important to find out why the costs are high.
4. Score Yourself
Getting your National Workers Compensation Score™ is an excellent starting point. Much like a credit score, the employer knows how many best practices they have implemented.
Employers Benefit From the Holistic Approach By:
Seeing major improvements in workers compensation costs.
Taking control of the entire workers compensation process, potentially cutting costs by 20% to 50%.
Providing aggressive and comprehensive pre-loss and post-loss management initiatives affecting all areas of workers compensation.
Pre-loss: Includes safety programs and extensive communication with senior management, supervisors and rank-and-file employees.
Post-loss: Centers on internal procedures to better manage claims, provide appropriate medical treatment and run an effective return-to-work program.
Ten Blueprint Elements: Include these ten elements in your program!
1. Examine the organizational structure. Look for areas encouraging employee disincentives to return to work. Form a corporate workers compensation team under one director.
2. Produce simple usable data to effectively monitor the post-injury response and judge its success.
3. Communication is vital between the employer, employees, the insurance company and the physician. Show how cost cutting benefits the workers. Use simple, well-designed written, audio and visual tools to convey the companys message.
4. Employment interviewing focuses on selecting employees with behaviors consistent with injury prevention and return-to-work success. Consider pre-employment placement screening.
5. Return-to-Work program’s goal is zero lost workdays returning all employees to work regardless of their status, tailored to meet the needs of each employee.
6. Coordinate the companys workers compensation program, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Despite the challenges do not allow these laws to become a return-to-work barrier.
7. Transitional Duty Jobs require a team effort on the part of the employer, insurance carrier, claims administrator and broker. Be aware of the three types of transitional duty programs.
8. Modified Duty:The employee returns to the original job with job modifications designed to allow easier performance of the required tasks. The employee returns to the original job with reduced hours and follows prescribed exercises and strengthening routines.
9. Alternate Duty: The employee returns to a different job, one physically less demanding than the previous job. The employer must be creative in job placement. (WCxKit)
10. The Goal: Ideally 95% of employees return to work within four days. Best practice is 95% of employees never leave the workplace, receiving treatment on- or off-site and returning to a transitional duty job as soon as they are medically able to do so.
Ten elements of your workers compensation blueprint and why you need them #WorkersComp.
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. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact: RShafer@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@WorkersCompKit.com.
Private industry employers in Texas reported a total of 60,240 nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses involving Days Away from Work (DAFW) for year 2009, representing a 6.9% decrease from 64,700 cases in year 2008. This rate is4% lower than the 84.6 rate in 2008 and also lower than the national rate of 117.
Median days away from work — a key measure of severity of injuries and illnesses – for Texas in 2009 was 8, the same as median days away from work reported nationally. (WCxKit)
In 2009 the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers Compensation (TDI-DWC) reported 213,507 total cases of nonfatal injuries and illnesses. Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, TDI-DWC now is able to report the circumstances of these injuries and illnesses involving DAFW, including the characteristics of the employees involved.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
In cooperation with the BLS, TDI-DWC collects survey data to assist employers, safety professionals, and policy makers in identifying occupational safety and health issues in the state. Visit the TDI website at
www.tdi.state.tx.us/wc/safety/sis/index.html to view specific data and learn about TDI’s safety and health services designed to promote safe and healthy workplaces. (WCxKit)
More in-depth injury and illness analysis is planned for release in January 2011. Contact TDI at 512-804-4651 for additional Texas fatal and nonfatal occupational injury and illness data.
Source: Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers Compensation News Release, December 27, 2010, 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@WorkersCompKit.com.
The proposed changes to the Illinois Workers Comp Act were initially filed Jan 5 as Amendments to a pending Senate Bill, SB 1066, on Charitable Trusts (House Amendment 001) with another Amendment filed subsequently. (House Amendment 002). These two Amendments have the recommendations of the Executive Committee which met again Jan 10 in Springfield.
Collectively they introduce some significant major changes in the law:
1- They restrict choice of physician by injured employee to only one (1) doctor and give the employer the first choice of treating physician. (WCxKit)
2- Utilization review: creates a presumption in favor of utilization review (UR) if treating doctor fails to respond or appeal UR decision.
3- Wage Differential: significantly limits partial wage reduction benefits to age 67 or 5 years from date of final award, whichever is later, and allows review of awards for any economic changes up to four (4) times per year.
4- Provides an overall 15% Reduction of Medical Fee Schedule reimbursements rates to pay 85% of the present Medical Fee Schedule rates as well as provisions limiting hardware charges to 25% over invoice costs minus any rebates.
5- Provides Rule 137 Sanctions (attorneys fees and costs) against clients or their attorneys for any frivolous or untrue pleadings.
6- Provides for an Intoxication defense for alcohol consumption and a presumption of impairment for blood levels of marijuana or other drugs.
7- Provides for statewide recalculation of WC premiums for premium reductions or employer premium reimbursements to reflect the new lowered medical fee reimbursement rates.
8- Creates a special Workers Compensation Advisory Board chosen by specific members of the legislature and the Governors office.
9- Brings WC insurance regulation, non-insurance regulation and WC fraud prosecution under the jurisdiction of the Department of Insurance rather than Department of Professional Regulations.
10 – Provides for special class of Employer for "personnel providers" and temporary agencies with certificates of insurance to be filed naming borrowing employers as additional insureds on any WC policies held by the temporary agency.
Four (4) additional amendments to SB 1066 were introduced Jan 10:
House Amendment 003 adds WC insurance oversight tracking of WC industry insurance premiums, payouts, profits and losses with issuance of annual reports by Department of Insurance;
House Amendment 004 changes the causation standard, restricts compensable claims to only where the accident is the “primary factor” in causing need for treatment.
House Amendment 005 allows unions to opt out of workers comp and allows them to choose alternative dispute resolution by mediation or arbitration under their collective bargaining agreements
House Amendment 006 adds the disclosure by all attorneys of all gifts given or remuneration paid for any client referrals to be filed with the Commission, including any gifts, any entertainment or any meal expenses.
These last four (4) additional Amendments (as best as we can tell) were all referred to the Rules Committee Jan 10 and only House Amendment 3 has the recommendation of the Rules Committee so far. We are still waiting on any further details from Springfield — it appears House Amendments 4, 5 & 6 all remain presently referred to the Rules Committee without further comment.
A final vote on a modified WC bill is anticipated by the end of Jan11 as the old legislative session soon ends and the new legislators are to be sworn in and start on the Jan 12t — it’s the last hurrah for some of our outgoing legislative members.
It is our understanding the workers comp reform package is part and parcel of a trade off in exchange for new tax hikes for some of our representatives, but, we lack any formal quotable statement to that effect, although the "temporary" tax hikes and plans to borrow money to cure our current budget crisis were already announced on TV as a done deal. As we read on Senator Dillards website, final details of tax hikes remain yet to be agreed upon; so much of the workers comp reforms remain up in the air as well. (WCxKit)
It looks like a lot of back room bartering and haggling is still going on. Track current bill status at: Current Bill Status:
Author Brad Bleakney, a
Chicago workers compensation attorney, has practiced primarily in Illinois work related injury claims and related litigation. His background includes helping a major Fortune 500 company significantly reduce their workers compensation losses. Brad can be reached at Bleakney & Troiani, 1 North Franklin (2625) Chicago, IL 60606. Or
info@WorkComp-Chicago.com; 312-541-0045; FAX: 312-541-0041.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
Imasar Engineering Inc., a Concord-based company offering consulting engineering services in workplace safety, has been fined $80,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured.
On Dec. 12, 2008, an Imasar consultant was conducting a pre-start health and safety review of a tile backing line at the InterfaceFlor Canada Inc. carpet manufacturing plant in Belleville. The tile backing line was in full operation as the consultant began to point out an in- running nip hazard between two rollers. The consultant's arm was caught between the rollers and severely injured. (WCxKit)
A Ministry of Labor investigation found that Imasar failed to take the reasonable precaution of providing clear instructions and procedures for a worker to follow when inspecting unguarded moving parts of equipment.
Imasar Engineering Inc. pleaded guilty to failing, as an employer, to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker. (WCxKit)
In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-percent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.
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@WorkersCompKit.com.
A recent decision, “Maw v. Wal-Mart (3d Dept. 1/13/11)”, is extremely useful for employers, resulting in lower comp costs and fewer hearings and appeals – but ONLY if employers take a few minutes to write a short note and attach a few documents.
Waiting for the carrier to make the request will result in the usual outcomes – delay, additional hearings, unnecessary trials and appeals, and a “compromise” resolution vastly more expensive than what the law allows.(WCxKit)
The decision affects workers under the age of 25 when they are injured. In such cases, a portion of the award is not based on what the employee was earning at the time of injury but what they could expect to earn in the future (WCL, Sect 14(5), known as “wage expectancy”.
For decades, the Board simply rubber stamped a max rate award, taking little relevant testimony, in view of the fact that max rates were quite low until the 1990s and made little difference to workers young or old. Currently, max comp rates are seven times higher than in the 70s and 80s and most of the 90s, making accurate documentation of wages and earning capacity vital.
The rule is, for younger workers, that comp rates for periods of temporary disability are based on the actual earnings of the worker. For “permanent partial disability” awards, on claim with extended disability, the rate, according to the “Maw” decision is based on expected wages, at age 25, in the same, or similar, employment engaged in at the time of injury.
In the past, a younger worker in an entry level, often part time, job was permitted to testify as to what job they “hoped” to have sometime in the future. A comp rate, always max, would be fixed based on that hope. The recent decision reverts to old case law and requires that a job in similar employment be the basis.
Younger workers account for a large number of injuries. An employer should plan for documentation of a claim by securing payroll records of similar workers who are in the same work but are over age 24, “sanitizing” the records (delete names, addresses and SS#s) and sending copies of the records to the carrier and WCB as soon as possible (BEFORE the first hearing).(WCxKit)
In that way, a trial and appeal may be unnecessary and reasonable benefits will not be held up.
Author: Attorney Theodore Ronca is a practicing lawyer from Aquebogue, New York. He is a frequent writer and speaker, and has represented employers in the areas of workers' compensation, Social Security disability, employee disability plans, and subrogation for over 30 years. Attorney Ronca can be reached at 631-722-2100.
FREE TOOLS
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
Posted in
