A construction worker died and five others were injured after building equipment collapsed at Toronto's York University.
According to a report from The Canadian Press, dozens of emergency responders worked frantically to free the workers trapped under a toppled drilling rig at the site of the future York University subway station. (WCxKit)
A 25-year-old man was pronounced dead at the scene. He was still buried in the debris when the last of the injured was removed. The victim's name was not immediately released.
The injured included a man who was trapped in the twisted equipment and was extricated as a surgical team stood by. The man was pulled free and transferred to hospital in stable condition, police, and emergency officials said. Of the other four injured, one was taken to hospital in serious condition with multiple injuries.
No students were in the immediate area of the collapse but university officials said classes at Seymour Schulich Building were canceled due to the accident.
There is no word on what caused the drilling rig to collapse. The Ministry of Labour has been called in to investigate.
Peter Macintyre, a spokesman for Toronto Emergency Medical Services, had little information about the patients on Tuesday. He said at least one of them was taken by air ambulance to Sunnybrook Hospital.
Although the construction site belongs to the Toronto Transit Commission, the work was being done by sub-contracted workers, said Brad Ross, a spokesman for the commission. (WCxKit)
That means the contractor is ultimately responsible for the workers safety, Ross said
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risk 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
A Battersea, Great Britain laundry firm showed scant regard for employee wellbeing and safety after ignoring instructions to make it easier and safer for workers to move heavy loads of laundry, London magistrates heard recently.
According to a report from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Niva UK (Ltd), trading as Sunbeam Laundry, failed to act on two separate Improvement Notices served by HSE following a routine inspection of its premises at the London Stone Business Estate, on Broughton Street. (WCxKit)
The first Improvement Notice required the removal of bags of laundry and other items from walkways, including a stairway, and the entrance to a female staff toilet. The second required an urgent review and improvements to reduce the lifting and handling of laundry.
City of London Magistrates Court heard that when HSE made a return inspection two months later, Niva had done nothing to comply with either notice. Employees were still carrying heavy loads through blocked walkways and were routinely risking tripping and falling as a result. (WCxKit)
The company pleaded guilty to two separate breaches of Section 33 (1) (g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for failing to take action and was fined $3,155.6 and ordered to pay $7,986.32 in costs.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risk 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
OSHA recently issued a directive on Enforcement Procedures for Investigating or Inspecting Incidents of Workplace Violence.
According to OSHA, the directive establishes uniform procedures for field staff responding to incidents and complaints of workplace violence and conducting inspections in industries considered vulnerable to workplace violence, such as healthcare and social service settings, and late-night retail establishments. (WCxKit)
As statistics have indicated, workplace violence is a serious recognized occupational hazard, ranking among the top four causes of death in workplaces during the past 15 years.
More than 3,000 people died from workplace homicide between 2006 and 2010, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.) Additional BLS data indicate an average of more than 15,000 nonfatal workplace injury cases were reported annually during this time.
Studies by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and other organizations show that employers who implement effective safety measures can reduce the incidence of workplace violence. These measures include training employees on workplace violence, encouraging employees to report assaults or threats, and conducting workplace violence hazard analysis.(WCxKit)
Other methods such as using entrance door detectors or buzzer systems in retail establishments, and providing adequately trained staff, alarms, and employee "safe rooms" for use during emergencies in healthcare settings can help minimize risk.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risk 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@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Have you ever had an employee turn in a “work status note”, “off work slip”, “ disability note” or even a “functional capacity worksheet”, and the only thing you know is the employee will not be at work? The purpose of disability slips is to advise the employer when the medical provider does not believe the injured employee is able to do any work in their current medical status or is able to work only in a restricted capacity. If the disability slip is properly formatted, it will provide the employee's limitations for restrictive duty.
The quality of the disability slips covers the spectrum from telling the employer everything about the injured employee's injury and disability to telling the employer nothing at all, or only that the injured employee will not be at work. The lack of uniformity can create issues for the employer in tracking the status of the injured employees. (WCxKit)
Florida's Division of Workers Compensation mandates every medical provider use the same Medical Treatment Status Reporting Form, DWC-25, which does double duty as the off work status report. Most states, however, do not mandate the use of a particular disability slip.
When the medical provider does not provide the off work slip and the employer does not ask for one, the employee becomes the person determining when the employee will return to work. Usually that is not a good situation. The employer should require a disability slip be turned in by the employee after every medical appointment. What happens when the employer does not require an off work slip is the employee recovers from the injury beyond the point where the employee could return to work. But the employee continues his “vacation on workers comp” until the doctor refuses to see the worker again.
CRITICAL POINT: If the employee does not bring a Medical Treatment Status Form to the doctor ON THE FIRST MEDICAL VISIT, the claim will almost surely become a LOST TIME CLAIM….because the employee will need to go BACK to the doctor to get the disability form completed and this will require additional time to make and attend the next medical visit.
If the medical provider treating the employee is sending an off work slip that states “no work until seen by this office again” with no further information than the employee's name, the employer needs to take charge and advise the medical provider's office that is insufficient. At a minimum, the off work slip should provide the date of the next office visit and the employee's current physical limitations. If the medical provider is giving inadequate information, contact the medical provider's office and tell them an off work or disability slip is required after every employee visit that provides the following information.
1. the employee's name
2. the date of the office visit
3. whether or not the office visit was work related
4. objective findings
5. diagnosis
6. whether or not it is a pre-existing condition
7. the specific nature of any functional limitations, for example
no bending
no carrying over ____ pounds
no climbing
no kneeling
no lifting over _____ pounds
standing limitation ________
sitting limitation _________
walking limitation _________
other limitations
8. date of next office visit
9. anticipated full duty date
10. anticipated MMI date
11. date of next appointment
12. anticipated treatment plan
13. doctor's signature
The medical provider is in the business of providing medical care. Often the medical provider will have no knowledge about the type of service or product the company provides. The medical provider who does not receive any input from the employer has only the employee to describe the employee's job and the job’s physical requirements. It is highly probable that the employee will overstate, not understate, the physical requirements of the job.
By requesting the medical provider provide a disability slip that specifies the employee's restrictions and/or limitations, the employer can receive a more honest assessment of the employee's ability to work rather than letting the employee specify the requirements of the job,. A properly formatted disability slip can be an excellent way for the employee to maintain the proper level of physical activity while working transitional duty during recuperation. (WCxKit)
If the medical provider has an inadequate off work slip, feel free to create an off work/disability slip using the information outlined above. The medical provider office does not get paid extra for completing the off work slip, so make it simple and easy to fill out, yet informative. Offer to let the medical provider's office copy and use this off work slip for the employee's of other companies.
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risk 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.
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.
WorkSafeBC recently announced that the average base premium rate for registered employers in British Columbia remains unchanged from 2011.
According to a report from the WBC, the 2012 average published base rate will be $1.54 per $100 of employers assessable payroll. WorkSafeBCs average published base rate for 2008 through 2010 was $1.56. The rates continue to be among the lowest in Canada and the lowest rates in B.C. for the last 30 years. (WCxKit)
The average published base rate is a composite of rates in 67 individual rate groups, or insurance pools, which are compilations of various classification units. Insurance premium rates for B.C.’s 206,000 employers are based on the claims cost (or safety) history of their industry and of similar employers, and are further adjusted based on individual performance.
For 2012, 53 percent of employers will experience a base rate decrease and eight percent of employers will have their base rate remain unchanged, while 39 percent of employers will experience a base rate increase.
WorkSafeBC projects a deficit at the end of 2011 and modest increases to the average base rate starting in 2013.
Premium rates charged to employers must be sufficient to cover the current and future needs of B.C.’s injured workers, some of whom will require financial and medical aid for the rest of their lives. To support financial requirements and maintain low and stable rates, WorkSafeBC invests a portion of the funds collected from employers.
Rate decreases are projected for the following industries: municipalities, public schools, fishing, ranching, log hauling, real estate, steep- and low-slope roofing, retail art galleries, movie theatres, bingo halls, telephone and cable services, ferry services, heavy equipment manufacturing, general retail, private schools, greenhouses, wineries, couriers, auto servicing, dentists, optometrists, most health care services, orchards and berry farming, coffee shops, wood mills, libraries, garbage removal services, recycling depots, public art galleries, and construction management consulting.
Most accommodation services, finishing carpentry, supermarkets, butcher shops, colleges, law and notary public offices, travel agencies, insurance, accounting, business and computer consulting services, restaurants, taxis, and general trucking will see their rates remain virtually unchanged or will incur modest rate changes. (WCxKit)
Industries whose rates are projected to increase include: movie and television production and post-production; television or radio broadcasting; ski hills; retail bakeries; animal boarding; airports; flooring stores; farm labour supply services; dump truck operations; campgrounds; liquor stores; residential framing; most waterfront operations; sawmills; construction labour supply; log-home construction; helicopter services; log towing; house construction; unions; residential tree services; casinos; manual tree falling; and grain, hay, white-mushroom, and vegetable farming.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risk 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
The role of the employer after an accident is vital. Unfortunately, it is a misconception that it consists solely of filing a report (C-2) with the carrier and Workers Compensation Board within 10 days. That might be the barest minimum legally possible, but it is rarely adequate for anyone involved in a claim and certainly not for the employer and employee.
An employer trying to complete the Board’s prescribed form for reporting an injury is immediately confronted by puzzling requirements. Many of the questions are for small details which are never part of a compensation adjudication (the employers industrial code) while others allowing a woefully small amount of line space for what might require a lengthy explanation (how did the accident occur). Other parts of the form seem to assume that an accident must have occurred, even though many employers are equally certain that it did not. (WCxKit)
(Attach additional documents to the C-2, where necessary to explain fully what happened.)
The employer should realize that its role is much larger than a single C-2 form. To assist in the proper resolution of a claim (even though that sometimes means a dismissal) the employer should be aware that they frequently have far more information than is requested. The information may be forwarded to a carrier and the Board, taking care that confidential medical information may require special handling.
An employer should make the carrier aware of relevant information which it possesses about the employee’s physical limitations at time of hire, so that these are not automatically assumed to be a consequence of a new injury.
The employer can also list for the carrier known prior injuries, especially those resulting in a lawsuit or compensation claim. The employer can also list prior employers, with dates of work and name address and phone number of the employers.
The employee may have periods of absence due to illness or injury. These should be made known to the carrier. Since a claim is being filed for medical disability, such information must be available to treating doctors and independent examiners.
The employer’s role also extends to maintaining a relationship with the employee. The law imposes upon the employer (not the carrier) the obligation to see that appropriate medical treatment is provided. Calling the employee to make sure that they are under care is entirely appropriate and much appreciated by the worker’s family.
The employer can also begin return to work measures. Asking the worker about the treating doctor’s opinion about possible return to work is not intrusive. In fact, it is essential. (WCxKit)
Being involved means a lot more than the completion of a single form. Remaining an active presence results in faster adjudication, quicker return to work, less wage loss and fewer contested issues.
Author Attorney Theodore Ronca is a practicing lawyer in Aqueboque, NY. 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 workers Compensation claims. Contact Attorney Ronca at 631-722-2100 or medsearch7@optonline.net
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.
Workplace safety is set to get a boost as changes to Manitoba's occupational health and safety provisions will soon make it mandatory for employers to implement violence-prevention policies, according to a report from Canada OH&S News.
Employers in specific sectors will be required to monitor, track, and report annually on violent incidents in the workplace. They will have to put in place procedures enabling employees to get immediate help when a violent or threatening situation occurs. Employers can also release personal information when deemed necessary to protect employees from the risk of violence, according to Joe Czech, a spokesman for Manitoba Labour and Immigration in Winnipeg.(WCxKit)
The changes cover the following sectors: health care, security, policing, corrections, crisis counseling and intervention, financial, pharmaceutical, education, and public transit and taxicab services. Workplaces that are not included in the elevated risk category will still be required to assess the risk of violence. "If a risk is identified, the employer must put in place measures to protect their workers," Czech said.
The new rules are based on recommendations from the Minister's Advisory Council on Workplace Safety and Health, and consultations with a number of stakeholders, including representatives from the health care sector.
Sandi Mowat, president of the Manitoba Nurses Union (MNU) in Winnipeg – which partnered with the provincial labor department to address the issue of workplace violence in health care facilities – said she is "very pleased with the changes." Findings from MNU focus groups investigating the extent of workplace violence incidents in the sector indicates many of these incidents are underreported, Mowat said.
In her blog entry for Working Families Manitoba, a community campaign launched by the Manitoba Federation of Labor to raise awareness of issues of concern to workers and their families, Mowat cites research that health care providers are victims of violence at an increasing rate. National studies also show that 48 percent of all non-fatal injuries from occupational assaults and violent acts occur in health care and social service settings.
"This fact is extremely alarming to us, since nurses were identified as the most likely of all health care workers to be assaulted," she writes.
With the regulatory amendments, it becomes clear that health care providers can flag a patient’s file who has exhibited violent behavior in the past. This measure, which also applies to mental health patients, will make information more readily available to the caregivers concerned, Mowat said.
"Health care workers, and in particular nurses, have a right to know if this individual has put a health care provider at risk in the past," she said. While existing regulations have provisions enabling health care providers to flag patients with violent tendencies, "most employers didn't do it because they believe that it was a breach of confidentiality," Mowat said.
A system to annually review and report violent incidents, which will include results of investigations and the measures taken, will help ensure that such occurrences cannot be ignored. "Literature does say that in places where the incidents were tracked, there was a decrease in those incidents," Mowat said.(WCxKit)
In addition, changes to the provincial employment standards regulation will require police services to provide adequate transportation home, within the boundaries of a city or town, to members who have to work after midnight and before 6 a.m. The move, notes Czech, is aimed at reducing the risk to law enforcement members from potentially violent situations while commuting to or from work during late-night shifts.
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@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Authors: Brian Anderson DC, CCN, MPH and David C. Radford, DC, MSc
Employers are unlikely to find another issue that leads to more absenteeism and detracts from productivity in the workplace more than occupational low back pain (LBP). This, the
first in a series of articles, introduces the ubiquity of this problem in the workplace, what solutions are effective in addressing it, and what treatment options can be most successfully employed when workers do injure their low backs.
In order to understand the scope of this problem, it is worthwhile to discuss some statistics related to occupational LBP.
· Occupational LBP is the largest single health problem related to work absenteeism, and the most common cause of incapacity among workers younger than forty-five years old.
· Worldwide, 37% of LBP was attributed to occupation.
· 1% of the US population is permanently disabled from this problem.
· Occupational LBP accounts for 68% of sick days and 76% of sick leave payment costs in some industries.
As is obvious from the above statistics, LBP consistently creates huge expenditures and time loss from work. Employees whose job involves lifting, bending, twisting or repetitive spinal movements are most at risk for these injuries. This type of LBP is classified as kinetic or dynamic overload injury. Due to the nature of LBP, these workers are also more likely to need extended time off work when suffering a low back injury. Transitionally, they may also need modified duty for a period of time on their return to work.
Ergonomic interventions, which will be addressed in part two of this series, are crucial for the prevention of occupational LBP. Acute LBP is almost never
related to one specific event, but rather is the culmination of a long history of improper mechanics and micro-trauma to the spine. As apposed to kinetic injury, static or postural LBP is also a huge problem for “desk jockeys,” or those who sit for prolonged periods of time. Lack of movement can sometimes be as detrimental as too much movement.
To summarize, the risk factors for occupational LBP are:
· cumulative traumas;
· dynamic activity-trunk flexion and rotation, heavy physical work, bending or squatting, lifting or carrying loads;
· long work shifts without pauses;
· static and inadequate postures.
Workers suffering low back injuries can be divided into three groups: work being the primary cause of LBP; work being one of many contributing factors related to LBP; and those with a preexisting back injury which may be aggravated by work. Those workers who fall into the latter category should be very carefully monitored. There will always be cases of occupational LBP that cannot be predicted or even prevented, but a worker with a previous history of LBP does not fall into this category. Matching the worker to the job is a crucial prevention strategy, which will be discussed in part two of this series.
What should be most concerning to employers, and is likely the most important reason for intervention, is preventing acute low back pain from becoming a
chronic problem. There is plenty of data to suggest that most acute low back pain is self-limiting. With or without treatment, many cases of acute low back pain resolve in a few weeks. There are, however, two issues that should be of concern regarding occupational LBP; recurrence and chronicity. The recurrence rate of low back pain is 30-60% within 1-2 years.
There are also some documented risk factors for developing chronic LBP after an acute injury which employers and health care providers should be aware of. These are:
· dissatisfaction with work
· physical inactivity/obesity
· low vitamin D levels
· smoking
· performing heavy lifting
· depression
· being involved in litigation
· educational level
In part three of this series, we will discuss treatment options designed to prevent chronic low back pain.
If employers are not actively working with their company nurses and doctors developing strategies and programs to address and prevent occupational LBP, hopefully they will after reading this series of articles. Next time we will address programs and interventions targeting primary and secondary prevention of occupational LBP. Stay tuned!
Resources:
1. Estimating the global burden of low back pain attributable to combined occupational exposures – http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/global/5lowbackpain.pdf
2. Occupational low back pain: Rev Assoc Med Bras 2010; 56(5): 583-9
3. Preventing Occupational Low-Back Pain. West J Med 1988 Feb; 148:235
4. Can We Identify People at Risk of Non-recovery after Acute Occupational Low Back Pain? Results of a Review and Higher-Order Analysis. Physiother Can. 2010;62:9 –16
5. Designing a workplace return to work program for occupational low back pain: an intervention mapping approach. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2009 10:65
6. Liebenson, C. Rehabilitation of the Spine- A Practitioners manual, 2nd edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Dr. Anderson works as a supervising clinician and instructor at National University of Health Sciences in Lombard IL. He has been in private practice, as well as part of a team in a University based Integrative Medicine setting. In addition, Dr. Anderson has experience in the medico-legal field, serving as an expert for various insurance companies and legal firms. He earned a Masters Degree in Public Health, as well as a Certified Clinical Nutritionist designation. He is currently working toward a specialty diplomate in Functional Rehabilitation. Contact Dr. Anderson for more information at
banderson@nuhs.edu
Dr. Radford is in private practice. He is a third generation Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine. He earned a Master’s Degree in Advanced Clinical Practice and he provides conservative primary care. He has treated work related injuries for more than 30 years. Dr. Radford has found that treating the co-morbidities that often accompany injured workers like obesity, medication overuse, and addiction lead to a more complete recovery. He was a founding member of the Cleveland Orthopaedic and Spine Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio. Contact for more information at
DCR8888@aol.com or (440)-248-8888.
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
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently cited Crown Battery Manufacturing Co. in Fremont, Ohio for three health violations relating to exposing employees to lead hazards. The company faces penalties totaling $97,000 following an inspection according to an OSHA report.
"Repeatedly failing to take basic safety precautions to protect workers from known workplace hazards such as lead is unacceptable," said Kimberly Nelson, OSHA's area director in Toledo. "Employers are responsible for knowing what hazards exist in their workplaces and ensuring workers are not exposed to risks that could result in injury or death." (WCxKit)
One willful violation, with a proposed penalty of $55,000, was cited for allowing employees to dry sweep in areas where lead is used and processed. OSHA standards require lead to be removed by a vacuum with a High-Efficiency Particulate Air filter or other equally effective method. A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements or with plain indifference to worker safety and health.
One repeat violation, with a proposed penalty of $35,000, involves multiple incidents of overexposing employees to lead and lacking engineering controls for lead exposure. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously was cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. Prior to this most recent inspection, Crown Battery Manufacturing was inspected by OSHA 21 times since 1974, and issued 23 final order citations for violations of the lead standard and four for lack of engineering controls due to lead overexposure. Those four citations were issued in 1980, 1981, 2005 and 2009.
One serious violation, with a proposed penalty of $7,000, was cited for failing to test the under-the-hook lifting device and mark its capacity. The device is used to lift lead weighing approximately 330 pounds and not testing or marking the device exposed employees to struck-by hazards. (WCxKit)
A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risk 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@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
By Martha J. Cardi
Think workers comp is hard to manage? Try FMLA, state and other leaves of absence.
These overlapping and ever-changing leave laws are so complicated many employers either grant too much leave in fear of being out of compliance, or refuse leave that legitimately should be granted, exposing the employer to risk of lawsuits. (WCxKit)
How employers (and/or their TPAs)
manage FMLA can have a big impact on costs, productivity, employee morale and, perhaps most important, reduce the risk of legal action for claims of noncompliance. Quite simply, it pays to devote the resources to make sure it is done right.
To give you an idea of how complicated managing these leaves can be, consider this hypothetical scenario and how it should be correctly handled. While reading, keep in mind that, while this scenario looks overblown, in real life it actually can get much more complicated than this.
Caring for an Injured Military Service Member
This scenario illustrates how caring for someone injured in the line of duty differs and interacts with caring for an injured civilian.
Henry is an employee of a company covered by FMLA. When his son, Josh, a serviceman in the US Navy, is injured on an aircraft carrier during an engagement and is sent home, can Henry take time off to care for Josh?
An employee may take up to 26 weeks of job-protected leave in one 12-month period in order to care for a son, daughter, spouse, or parent who has been injured in the line of duty on active duty, or if the employee is designated by the injured service member as his or her “next of kin” per the regulations.
The 12-month period is measured forward from the first date of leave for this reason, regardless of the method used by the employer to calculate an employee’s leave entitlement for other FMLA reasons (e.g., rolling back, calendar year, or other fixed year).
The 26 weeks includes the employee’s 12 weeks of leave for other FMLA-qualifying reasons, but the military caregiver leave must be applied first, so that if the employee does not use the full 26 weeks for caregiver leave, he or she still has the remainder of the 26 weeks, up to 12 weeks maximum, to use for other FMLA reasons.
Assume Henry’s employer uses the 12-month rolling backward method of calculating employee FMLA leave entitlements.
1. Henry has taken no previous FMLA leave since he became eligible, and may take up to 26 weeks to care for Josh.
2. Josh recovers and Henry is no longer needed to care for him after 8 weeks. Henry returns to work and under the regulations forfeits the remaining 18 weeks of military caregiver leave as a result.
3. A month after returning to work Henry requests FMLA time off to care for his wife, who has a serious health condition. His employer is required to apply the military caregiver leave first, up to the 26 weeks. Because Henry used less than 14 weeks of the caregiver leave entitlement, he still has up to 12 weeks of FMLA entitlement for other reasons.
4. Suppose, however, that five months before Josh’s military injury, Henry had taken leave because he adopted a child and took 12 weeks of
FMLA leave to bond with the adopted child. When Josh is injured, Michael is still entitled to 26 weeks of leave to care for him, because the 12-month period for this leave reason is always measured forward from the first date of the leave. If his care is needed that long, he can take up to the full 26 weeks despite having taken 12 weeks within the past year, measured rolling backward.
5. Fortunately, Josh recovers within eight weeks, no longer needs Henry’s care, and Henry returns to work. Henry then forfeits the remainder of the 26 weeks of military caregiver leave.
6. A month after returning to work Henry requests FMLA time off to care for his wife, who has a serious health condition. Although Henry has only taken a total of 20 weeks, he no longer has any FMLA time available to use for his wife’s care. Looking back 12 months in accordance with his employer’s rolling back method, Henry has already taken 12 weeks of leave for reasons not related to the military caregiver leave (the adoption and bonding time). Thus, he has no regular FMLA time left to care for his wife.
What Should Employers Be Doing to Better Manage Leaves?
The takeaway from this example is that leave laws form a complex web that continually has to be untangled for each case. In addition, these laws are constantly being amended and updated as challenges are decided on in court. (WCxKit)
Every employer should:
1. Make sure supervisors are aware that leave laws are complex and that they should not try to handle leave requests without help from their HR, benefits, or legal department.
2. Make sure supervisors are aware their attitude is important, and that if they respond negatively to requests for leave, it could be construed as FMLA interference and expose the employer to potential legal action.
3. Understand that employers do not have to grant every leave request just to avoid the risk of noncompliance. With proper understanding of leave laws, there are many ways that employers can reduce the burden of unnecessary leaves while still giving employees the leaves to which they are entitled.
Up-to-Date Leave Law Information is the Key
No human being can be expected to hold this kind of complexity in his or her head, and researching leaves on various government databases is both time consuming and increases the risk of missing any important change or guidance on a gray area. Be sure you have the most current information on FMLA, state and other leave laws available in a format that is easy to search, complete and always up-to-date. If you encounter any “gray areas” in leave laws, be sure to seek expert advice to minimize the risk of legal challenges.
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.
Posted in
Canada Workers Comp, Medical Issues, Safety and Loss Control, WC in Other Countries (International) |
