A study underway at the University of Alberta (Canada) may offer more detail on health effects that exposure to welding fumes and metal dust have on women in metalworking and electrical trades, according to a report from Canadian OH&S News.
The research project, called "Women's Health in Alberta Trades – Metalworking and Electricians" (WHAT-ME), is a collaboration among researchers from the UoA, Northern Alberta Institute of Technology and the Alberta Apprenticeship and Industry Training. It targets women in the province who have taken part in apprenticeship training in one of the relevant trades at any time during the last five years. (WCxKit)
Some 180 women, of which approximately10 are pregnant, have been recruited for the study. Apart from reproductive health, the study will also analyze health issues surrounding respiratory health, skin problems, nickel sensitization and musculoskeletal problems.
The initial motivation came from the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), which has raised concerns about possible health risks to pregnant welders who are exposed to welding fumes.
David Hisey, chair of the safety committee on welding, cutting and allied processes for the CSA, says that there is a need for an "increased level of safety" considering more female welders are entering the workforce in Western Canada. "We want to make sure we know the hazards that we are putting our kids into and if there's more protection that needs to be provided for all workers, then we need to be looking at that," he commented.
A 2008 study from Finland discovered that maternal exposure to welding fumes or metal dusts during pregnancy may increase the risk of preterm delivery and reduce intrauterine growth.
There was also some suggestive, but inconsistent, evidence that the risk of preterm delivery and reduced fetal growth is related to paternal exposure to welding fumes, the paper notes. Results were gleaned from observations of 1,670 women who worked during pregnancy, of which 68 (four per cent) were exposed to either welding fumes or metal dusts or fumes. (WCxKit)
The paper discovered that nitrogen oxide, a compound present in welding fumes and/or metal dusts, was identified as a compound responsible for low birth weight and spontaneous abortion among dental assistants. "Prenatal exposure to [a] complex mixture of combustion products, emissions from unvented or poorly vented stoves and ambient air pollution may also increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes," the paper notes.
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. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact:Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
WorkSafeBC has ordered a provincial
school district to beef up violence prevention in workplace training protocols after three workers recently refused work over aggressive and violent behavior from an autistic student.
According to a report from Canadian OH&S, on March 29, a pair of workers at Topham Elementary School in Langley refused work, followed by a third worker on March 31. After the employer, the Langley School District, investigated the work refusals and made some minor alterations to its crisis response plan, WorkSafeBC was contacted on April 4 by one of the workers, says an inspection report from the workers compensation board. (WCxKit)
The investigation resulted in a pair of orders. The first is that the "three workers exercising their right to refuse unsafe work and any other workers who are required to respond to the student who is demonstrating aggressive and violent behavior in a crisis situation are trained in the Crisis Response Plan to ensure their risk of injury is minimized."
The second order directs the school district to form site- and task-specific procedures addressing work environment arrangements, "such as a safe area(s) which could minimize worker risk of injury from the specific student violent and aggressive behavior which has been occurring since January 2011."
As of the release of the report on April 7, the employer was using an administrator's office as a safe area, which WorkSafeBC says is inappropriate in the situation due to the type of room and its location relative to the classroom.
The report notes that since September, 2010, the employer has reported 16 physical and/or threatening incidents between students and workers, although it has blacked out the number of incidents that involve the specific student. (WorkSafeBC spokeswoman Donna Freeman confirms that portions of the inspection report have been "severed" as required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act).
Even though the crisis response plan outlines a "crisis prevention intervention" (CPI) protocol to be followed, the report says, "Workers have not been specifically trained in this protocol and related emergency response. Controls have not been effective in minimizing worker risk to violence and aggressive behavior." (WCxKit)
The three workers involved in the work refusal have "certainly had really negative health impacts," a spokesperson for the Langley Teachers Association says. "Most people can understand that high school teachers still can be confronted with violence in the classroom. I think it is more surprising to hear that little kids… can inflict injuries on people and can have aggressive and violent behaviors."
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. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact:Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
Great broker/agents are like magicians. They listen to your insurance issues, and with a sweep of their laptop they display a handful of carriers ready to solve your biggest Insurance problems, and they all compete to be the lucky one chosen to provide your company with all insurance needs. Brokers are near and dear to my heart, having worked with them for over 25 years, so take this with a grain of salt. Most brokers are open and honest, but there are a few that are less candid and some that don't know the difference between claim handling capabilities of carriers, and they don't have first hand experience with the multitude of services a carrier offers.
The truth is, some of these carriers can be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Some may be worse than others. Some may be fantastic in one area, but awful in the next. Foolishly, some employers go with the cheapest option. The “cheap” choice always comes back to haunt them when the wheels fall off later down the road. The goal should be TOTAL loss costs.
Here are five generalized issues that may affect the employer-carrier relationship…
1 – The squeaky wheel gets the grease
It just might not be an unheard of concept that the bigger employers with the higher premiums get more attention and better customer service than smaller employers. The truth is people can’t be everywhere at once. Sure, bigger accounts get more attention because they bring higher claim volume and have more day-to-day interaction with adjusters than smaller accounts. But, that shouldn’t mean just because an employer has only 5-10 claims per year the business needs shouldn’t be met both promptly and professionally. If you are not getting the service you demand when you need it, it is time to switch carriers. Every claim should be handled properly and correctly, regardless of how large the premium.
2 – The adjusters have issues
Larger carriers often have high turnover. Every adjuster is different and with a different skill set. State licensing, current active caseload, years of claim experience, customer service skills, and medical knowledge are only a few items in the long list of demands an adjuster must meet. While there are many great adjusters, there are also some poor ones. Some are so poor at handling claims they are marking time until the insurance company replaces them.
An agent/broker probably will not tell an employer a certain carrier is being dropped by other employers because the adjusters assigned to their accounts were terrible. It’s important to meet and get to know the adjusters handing your account before you commit to bringing your business to them. If you do not get a good vibe, its best to keep looking. If the adjuster cannot sell themselves and their skills to you, then you might as well save yourself the headache they are going to cause later on when you need them and they let you down.
3 – There's not an actual person handing claims in your jurisdiction
Having an adjuster within the local area can be a great asset. Typically, these adjusters are up to date with current legal trends within their state, as well as physician/attorney/judge reputations within your claims jurisdiction.
For example, if you do business in Michigan, and your Adjuster is in Texas, chances are the adjuster is not informed about current insurance trends in Michigan, and that can hurt you and the outcome of your claims. Within each state, the cities and counties throughout the area can have a completely different demeanor than others within the same state. This is an extremely important fact to know, and it should determine how the claim is handled. Maybe a judge in one county is very pro-employee, and no matter what evidence you have when determining the compensability of the case, these factors would not come into play. Doctors in one area of the state could be very aggressive, whereas another group of doctors in another area is very liberal with their treatment and causal relation determinations. This unseen factor cannot be overlooked, as it plays a role in every case the adjuster handles.
4 – We pushed this carrier on you
Some agents/brokers choose to write business only with certain carriers and others do not. If your agent only presents two carriers to choose from, you aren’t getting a very big picture of the available insurance market. Now this is not to say you should be given a laundry list of carriers. Instead, make sure you have what you think is a good, comprehensive list to choose from, and make your agent/broker work for you.
The broker/agent should be able to tell you why one carrier fits your needs better than others. Let them educate you on the pros/cons of each carrier they know and heard about. Meet with your top 3 choices. If they care about getting your business, they will gladly take the time to meet with you and go over your insurance needs and they will tell you what they bring to the table and, more importantly, why they are better than the competition. A good broker will help sort through the multitude of information you will be given.
5 – Carriers may bait you with a low premium
Some carriers want to write every business and write as much business as they can. They may do this by underbidding their competition and baiting you with a low premium. In the end, the carrier hopes you will not have a large claim or other large loss for them to deal with or absorb from a financial standpoint.
The loss ratio is always king for carriers (premium-billed vs claims dollars spent). However, these carriers do not last forever and quite often end up unable to meet their financial obligations. They dissolve their companies, leaving you with a huge mess to clean up. If you thought claims were hard to deal with imagine doing them with a bankrupt carrier. Remember the old saying, “You get what you pay for.” This is true when it comes to picking a company to provide you with Insurance or administration. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Summary
Picking a carrier to handle your needs as an employer is a large, complex task – a task requiring the utmost thought and care. Through a relationship with an agent/broker, everyone should be helping you arrive at the correct decision for what is best for your company. If something does not feel right or if you do not think a carrier has your best interests in mind, you are probably correct – keep searching.
Note: Obviously this is tongue-in-cheek article with a little humor (attempted), intended only to provide an insider's view of industry issues.
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.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Many injured workers and the public in general often feel it’s “them” against the EMPLOYER. They also think insurance companies live to deny claims – of any type. So, okay – now and then we hear of an insurer who denies claims left and right, but in truth most claims are accepted.
When claims are denied there is usually a good reason. Let’s explore how an adjuster handles fraudulent claims…
The Fraudulent Claim
When the adjuster has questions about a claim it may be denied or suspended pending investigation. Receiving a Notice of Dispute or Suspension of Benefits does not mean the claimant (injured worker) is suspected of fraud, it just means there is an ongoing investigation to determine the validity of the claim- the claim is being substantiated.
Fraud constitutes statements made or injuries claimed that are 100% untrue. Carriers rarely see an outright fraudulent claim in workers compensation even though this is what is so often reported on television. The carrier must prove without a shadow of a doubt that the claimant is lying about the circumstances or statements surrounding the injury claimed. And, even though I use the words "shadow of a doubt" that is not the true legal standard for how much proof the carrier must have. The burden of proof is established by the workers comp laws in each respective state and varies, and is much less than in a criminal case.
Adjusters are always looking for more definitive information from doctors including: past medical records, workers comp injuries or auto accidents, pre-existing conditions, and witness statements to help correlate the injury to the claim details. They will also review photographs of the location where the injury is said to have occured and a handwritten statement from the claimant. A recorded statement is critical for further action against the claimant if the claim is determined to be fraudulent. Good claim investigation takes time. Medical report statements and objective medical evidence are the most solid details to go on.
If a worker claims a knee injury at the workplace, unwitnessed by anyone and has no classic signs of a knee injury, that doesn’t constitute fraud. It just means the claim is weak and may be denied. In such a case, an adjuster may speak with the insured to request surveillance to "see" what degree of disability the claimant is exhibiting in their day-to-day activities.
On the other hand, if the worker claims a knee injury and submits a medical slip created on a home computer, fraud is possible if it is an attempt to submit a piece of evidence for the support of a claim that is a 100% fake. The carrier may initially accept the claim and then discovers through investigative means the medical slip is a fake, completely made up or altered to state there is a higher degree of disability than there really is. The claim will be denied and, in some jurisdictions, the carrier will pursue recovery of payments made to the claimant through legal means.
A claimant has to be very bold, and ready to risk probable legal action from both the carrier and the state were the claim is filed. Filing a fraudulent claim is not very rewarding, and the down side is huge – which is probably why true fraudulent claims are rare. (WCxKit)
A claim under investigation doesn’t mean it is denied due to fraud. It means the adjuster’s investigation is not complete. The most common mistake employers make is not reporting a claim to the adjuster. Even when an employer has a good idea the “injury” is not legit, or doesn’t make sense, report it and let the adjuster decide. If the claim is denied be assured it is done properly and ethically.
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.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Close to 10 individuals lose a finger or mangle a hand in a table saw each day across the country. And for years there has been a technology designed to stop those injuries, leading consumer advocates to demand that federal officials speed up new rules enabling table saws to be safer.
According to a report from the Associated Press, the technology, which has a sensor that can prohibit the blade from continuing if a finger gets too close, was first developed in the late 1990s. To date, the majority of manufacturers haven't embraced it, in part to disagreements over spending. (WCxKit)
According to manufacturers, adding the technology would make saws considerably more costly. On the opposing side of the aisle, the technology's inventor wants to be paid for their creation – something they claim the companies making saws aren't willing to do.
The manufacturers, via a trade association, have brought on high-powered Washington lobbyists – compensating Bracewell & Giuliani $30,000 in the first quarter of the year – to promote their case in front of Congress and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the federal agency charged with overseeing the safety of a countless number of products.
In 2006, the commission was slated to address table saw safety based on a petition Gass filed three years earlier seeking the agency require that saws have a technology to stop the blade if flesh is sensed. But a change in leadership at CPSC seeking more research on the problem, resulted in a delay.
To date, several hundred lawsuits have been filed against manufacturers regarding table saw injuries. (WCxKit)
Meantime, the industry reports it has come up with new plastic guards to shield table saw users from the dangers of a spinning blade. Great, let's see them!
Having worked for a manufacturer and a defense law firm, I believe that even though guards do cost money and recalls are expensive, there are some things that just need to be addressed – and machines that cut off fingers and hands fall into that category. This is where we balance the needs of consumers with those of the manufacturer and society as a whole.
I hear criticism about how plaintiff's attorneys cause costs to rise, however, keep in mind that without plaintiff's attorneys and the contingency payment system we have in this country, it would be impossible for those who lose their body parts to address these safety concerns in court.
Manufacturers have little incentive to make safer products and recall those that are unsafe without the threat of expensive litigation. Without large punitive damage awards, safety measures would not be improved. Or, to put it another way, it is the large punitive damage awards that force manufacturers to design safety into their products and guard those products which are necessary for consumers even with inherent safety concerns where a design flaw cannot be designed out.
These machines need to have proper, effecitive fail safe guards. A fail-safe guard is one where if the guard is removed the machine will stop working (before an injury occurs) — spinning blades must stop immediately upon the guard being removed. Also, slapping a warning label of a product that could have had the defect designed out or guarded, is simply not adequate.
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.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
When an employer receives notice of a work-related injury, Form C-2 must be complete and filed with the Workers Compensation Board (WCB). Normally, this must be done by the employer, who alone is in a position to discover the facts and report them accurately and promptly. New York law, however, provides for a “designee” to complete the form.
Some carriers insist on being the designee. The rationale being: If one doesn’t ask too many questions about the injury it might appear to have merit. The carrier, it is assumed, is the expert on workers comp. Who better to complete a form? Maybe not…
Since the report of injury is a legal document with hundreds of thousands of dollars in consequences and may affect the very future of an injured worker and the family, the best person to complete the form is someone on the spot who knows the facts and wants to remain in control of business operations and obligations. When the employer loses control of the first report of injury (FROI) it has lost control of the claim and its own business.
FROI by proxy generally works as follows:
1. An employer, by any number of ways, learns there may be a work-related injury or illness.
2. The employer goes to the carrier’s website and answers a number of questions about the incident. The answers do not complete the injury report. The computer then takes the various answers and puts them into a C-2 form. The carrier arranges for a signature on the C-2 and files it (by e-filing) with the WCB and copies the employer.
This seems simple and appropriate but, in fact, it contains deadly assumptions and pitfalls.
First, who actually at the carrier is reading the material and making sure it meets minimum standards?
Second, what if the carrier doesn’t follow up on deficient information?
It is generally assumed that nearly all C-2s are correctly filled out and only a few exceptions actually fall between the cracks. In fact, only a few percent are correctly completed. Vital information, if not provided by the employer, is ignored, leading to unnecessary litigation, hearings, and costs. In addition, the honest employee is damaged even more.
A highly accurate first report is all that separates an employer and an employee from financial disaster. Even if matters are finally resolved, the process takes years at the WCB – years during which a family may be cut off from meaningful support. Or, equally likely, an unworthy claim which could have been put to rest at the start, is eventually “settled” for “nuisance value.” When the employer gets the bill – in higher x-mods – it will be a lot more deadly than mere nuisance. Unwarranted workers comp claims costs destroys jobs.
If an employer fails to provide sufficient information in a first report to get and keep a claim on the right track and receives no follow-up from a carrier, it is time to rethink reporting procedures. (WCxKit)
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. Mr. Ronca has 21 years experience in searching and retrieving medical records and many other types of documents for defense of workers compensation claims. Contact Attorney Ronca at 631-722-2100 or
medsearch7@optonline.com
FREE TOOLS
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
Great Britain's economy lost 190 million working days to absence in 2010, with each employee taking an average of 6.5 days off sick, according to the latest CBI/Pfizer Absence and Workplace Health Survey.
Despite the introduction of the new “fit note” in 2010, the rate of absence last year was marginally higher than in 2009, when employees averaged 6.4
sick days, the lowest rate since the survey began in 1987. The 190 million days cost employers £17bn, including over £2.7bn from 30.4 million days of non-genuine sickness absence – so-called “sickies”. This does not include the other indirect costs of absence, like lower customer service and lost productivity. (WCxKit)
This year’s survey is the first since the launch of the fit note – the new medical certificate focused on what people can do rather than what they can’t, designed to aid returns to work and reduce absence costs. Despite strong support for the initiative, employers have been disappointed by their experience so far: 66% of firms said that it had not yet helped their
rehabilitation policy, and 71% were not confident that GPs were using the fit note differently from the old sick note.
Katja Hall, CBI Chief Policy Director, noted, “There’s been no let up in the cost of absence to the UK economy, which runs into billions of pounds a year. Although many organizations have been successful in bringing down levels of absence, the gap between the best and worst has widened.
“
The substantial costs of absence to the economy put a premium on managing
longer-term absence well. The fit note is a great initiative, which could play an important role in helping people back to work and stopping them slide into long-term absence. But employers are far from convinced that the scheme is working properly and don’t think GPs are getting the necessary training.
“The launch of the electronic fit note should be an ideal opportunity for the Department of Work and Pensions to extend the reach of its training program and address GPs’ engagement. There can be no room for complacency in addressing the so-called sick note culture.”
On the cost of “sickies”, Hall added, “Sadly, more days were lost to non-genuine absence than in 2009 and the cost of these bogus sick days is over £2.7bn a year. Sickies are unfair on colleagues and damage employers' competitiveness at a critical point in the recovery.”
Employees in the public sector took more sick days than those in the private sector, an average of 8.1 days a year compared with 5.9 days. This represents an improvement on last year’s average of 8.3 days and a marked improvement since 2007’s average of 9 days. Far more absence in the public sector is long-term than in the private sector, and reducing this will be key to reaching private sector levels. (WCxKit)
The CBI estimates that if the public sector could reach private sector absence levels, it would save the taxpayer around £5bn by 2015-16. The cost of absence is much higher in the public sector – a median of £1040 compared with £710 in the private sector, or a difference of 46%.
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. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact:Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 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 one year anniversary of the West Virginia Upper Big Branch mine tragedy of April 5, 2010, where 29 miners lost their lives, is an appropriate time for a review of mine safety. While mines are much safer today than they were 25, 50 or 100 years ago, they are still a dangerous business. The 29 miners who died in the Upper Big Branch explosion was the worst
mining tragedy in the United States since 1970 when 38 miners did in an explosion at the Finley Coal Co. in Kentucky.
The workers compensation claims arising from injuries, illnesses and death among miners are often substantial in size. This results in miners having some of the highest rates for workers compensation premiums. Mine safety improvements, with the resulting reduction in the number of injuries and the seriousness of the injuries that do occur, is the best way for mine companies to reduce their cost of workers compensation. (WCxKit)
Mine safety is so important that the United Stated Department of Labor has a division dedicated to the safe operation of mines, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). MSHA was created in 1977 by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act. Like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that regulates most industries, MSHA is responsible for the regulation of mines and mine operators. The goals of MSHA include the prevention or reduction of injuries, illnesses and death in mines and due to working in mines.
The primary goals of MHSA are to improve the safety and health of all miners. To accomplish this, MHSA strives:
1. to develop safety rules for mines
2. to develop health rules for mines
3. to enforce the safety and health rules
4. to provide technical assistance to mines
5. to provide educational assistance to mines
6. to assist mine operators with compliance to the rules and regulations
There are two divisions of MHSA, The Coal Mine Safety and Health and The Metal and Non-metal Mine Safety and Health. The Coal Mine Safety and Health division oversees inspections, investigations and training for coal mines, while The Metal and Non-metal Mine Safety and Health divisions provides the same functions for all mines other than coal mines.
While there are many hazards that miners must contend with, the most dangerous hazards include:
1. Explosions – Coal dust can cause violent explosions. Methane gas is another common source of explosions in mines
2. Hazardous gases – Various gases that can develop in the mining process can cause asphyxiation
3. High temperatures & humidity can cause heat stroke
4. Dusts – Miners who are exposed to dust develop lung problems like pneumoconiosis and silicosis
5. Hearing Loss – The mining equipment used to cut through coal and other hard surfaces can create a high decibel level which is amplified by the enclosed area
6. Cave-ins – The tunnels and caverns dug underneath the ground can collapse due to the weight of materials above
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act combined the prior regulations that were in force prior to 1977. it requires the same degree of safety in non-coal mines as were previously in place for coal mines, and it also streamlined the oversight process for mines. Among the provisions in the Mine Act were:
1. all underground mines to be inspected by MSHA at least four times a year
2. all surface mines to be inspected by MSHA at least twice a year
3. strengthening of the existing mine safety laws
4. the issuance of regulations to control safety
5. civil penalties for mine companies that violated the MSHA rules and regulations
6. education and training of miners and management in mine safety
There are numerous ways the mine operators and the miners can work together to reduce the risk of injuries and illnesses from working in mines. Some of the more successful approaches to reducing the risk of injuries and illnesses include:
1. requiring all new miners to have basic safety and health training before they ever enter a mine
2. refresher training each year for all miners
3. specific task training for miners who change jobs within the mine
4. motivation of miners to perform their job duties in a safe manner
5. training – providing skills and knowledge – on how to safely perform their jobs
6. mine rescue training
In addition to the above approaches to reducing risk in mines, there are numerous training materials available from the MSHA on various subjects including:
1. ventilation procedures for underground mines
2. how to prevent the ignition or explosion of gases or dust
3. how to prevent fire
4. how to prevent flooding
5. how to prevent suffocation due to oxygen deficient air
6. how to prevent hydrogen sulfide gas
7. conveyor belt fire prevention
8. high pressure hosing
9. proper maintenance and use of mine elevators (WCxKit)
Mine safety not only reduces the cost of workers compensation, it reduces the cost of repairs to both the equipment and the mine. Mine safety is a win-win situation for both the employees and the mine operators.
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.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 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 U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration has issued 10 withdrawal orders at Bledsoe Coal Corp.'s Abner Branch Rider Mine; just one month after the Leslie County, Ky., operation received a notice of a pattern of violations. These orders mark an unprecedented use by the agency of an enforcement action under Section 104(e) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
Under Section 104(e) of the Mine Act, a
mining operation on a POV is subject to a withdrawal order each time MSHA issues a significant and substantial, known as an S&S, violation.open-ended The order remains in place until the violation is abated. An operator can be removed from POV status only after undergoing a complete inspection without receiving an S&S violation. (WCxKit)
"I've said time and again that MSHA will use all the tools at its disposal to prevent accidents, illnesses and injuries in the nation's mines," said Joseph Main, assistant labor secretary for mine safety and health. "Mine operators must be held accountable, and we will make sure that those who persistently violate safety and health laws are subject to this enforcement action."
The 10 withdrawal orders include two issued on May 3 because the mine roof was not adequately supported to prevent a potential roof fall. To terminate the order, the mine operator scaled the loose draw rock and installed cap blocks and wedges over the bearing plates to support the mine roof. Two miners were withdrawn from the mine until the conditions were corrected.
Of the remaining orders, three were issued on May 10 for inadequate ventilation controls and inadequate roof, rib and face support, causing the withdrawal of more than 30 miners working over three shifts. Inspectors found that ventilation controls between the secondary escape way and the belt entry had become damaged and difficult to open.
The order related to inadequate ventilation controls was terminated the following day when the operator installed a pressure relief slider in the personnel door and made modifications to enable the doors to easily open. Inspectors found large slabs of material measuring approximately 5 feet in height, 12 feet in length and 4 to 8 inches in thickness, as well as the presence of a crack 2 to 4 inches behind the rib material. open-ended. The order related to inadequate rib support was terminated the following day when the unsafe ribs were wrapped with banding material and 1- by 6- inch boards.
The New West Virginia Mining Co.'s Apache Mine in McDowell County, W.Va., also received a POV notice; however, the mining operation is currentli idle.
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. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact:Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 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 EEOCs final regulations to implement the
ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) were published in the Federal Register recently (3/25/11) and go into affect May 25, 2011. The final regulations reflect significant changes in the interpretation of the ADAs definition of “disability” but not in the actual definition of the term "disability."
The ADAs definition of the term “disability” has not changed. The ADA believes a disability to be a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; a record (or past history) of such an impairment; or being regarded as having a disability. However, the law makes major changes in how those terms are interpreted:
1. An impairment does not need to prevent or significantly restrict performance of a major life activity to be considered a disability.
2. What is considered an impairment must be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA
3. “Mitigating measures,” such as medication and assistive devices like hearing aids, must not be considered when determining whether someone has a disability (with the exception of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses.)
4. The term “major life activities” includes “major bodily functions.”
5. Impairments that are episodic, such as epilepsy, or in remission, such as cancer, are disabilities if they would be substantially limiting when active.
The final regulations will go into effect 60 days from March 25, so on May 25.
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. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact:Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 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
Canada Workers Comp, Safety and Loss Control, WC in Other Countries (International) |
