The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently issued a revised hazard alert to hair salon owners and workers about potential formaldehyde exposure from working with certain hair smoothing and straightening products.
The revised alert was prompted by the results of agency investigations, a warning letter issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and factually incorrect information recently sent to salons by a company that manufactures hair products. OSHA's updated alert can be viewed at:
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/formaldehyde/hazard_alert.html.
According to a report from the Department of Labor, during recent investigations, OSHA's air tests showed formaldehyde at hazardous levels in salons using Brazilian Blowout Acai Professional Smoothing Solution and Brasil Cacau Cadiveu, resulting in citations for multiple violations. OSHA found that workers were exposed to formaldehyde in these salons at levels higher than the agency's protective limits. OSHA also cited two manufacturers and two distributors of hair smoothing products for violations that included failing to list formaldehyde on product labels as well as on accompanying hazard warning sheets, known as material safety data sheets, that are provided to the products' users.
The FDA issued a warning letter to the importer and distributor of Brazilian Blowout Acai Professional Smoothing Solution stating that the product is adulterated and misbranded. Although the solution contains methylene glycol, which can release formaldehyde during the normal conditions of use, the product is labeled "formaldehyde free" or "no formaldehyde" and does not list formaldehyde on the material safety data sheet.
Following an Aug. 24 letter sent by Brazilian Blowout to salon owners claiming that all OSHA air tests performed on the company's Brazilian Blowout Professional Acai Smoothing Solution yielded results below OSHA's standard for exposure, the agency sent a letter today to the company refuting that assertion.
"Misleading or inadequate information on hazardous product labels is unacceptable," said OSHA Assistant Secretary Dr. David Michaels. "Salon owners and workers have the right to know the risks associated with the chemicals with which they work and how to protect themselves."
Formaldehyde can irritate the eyes and nose; cause allergic reactions of the skin, eyes and lungs; and is a cancer hazard. The revised hazard alert notifies salons that if they use products that contain or release formaldehyde, they must follow the requirements in OSHA's formaldehyde standard at 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1048. OSHA further requires manufacturers, importers and distributors of products that contain formaldehyde as a gas or in solution, or that can release formaldehyde during use, to include information about formaldehyde and its hazards on product labels and in the material safety data sheets. (WCxKit)
The alert also now includes details about the information that is required to be listed on the labels and the material safety data sheets of products that contain or could release formaldehyde.
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.
Chiropractors may receive a bad rap. If anyone mentions excessive treatment that may not heal a patient, chiropractors are first on the list. But, there are certain medical practices, in every medical specialty, in every medical area, that may have a “chiropractor” of the known group. This group may be known within the medical community for having liberal treatment styles pairing up with liberal prescription dosage, and that is never a good combo in a workers comp matter. Workers comp adjusters can probably list a good handful of doctors or practices that fall within this realm, and cringe when seeing that letterhead come across their desk.
To determine if an injured worker may be treating with a “red flag” clinic, check the criteria below. If you have concerns, discuss with the adjuster.
1. The diagnosis is inconsistent with the treatment. Maybe this started out as a simple enough back strain, but the diagnosis reads “multilevel disc herniation with severe radiculopathy” … that could be an issue.
2. The Practice is known for questionable/suspicious treatment. Is this practice featured on billboards? Are their TV commercials on all the time? When you mentioned them to the adjuster, is there an audible groan? If the answer is yes, you should be talking about the plan of action on this claim with the adjuster.
3. The doctor will not release the patient from care. Sometimes doctors will keep a patient on a rotation of coming back to the clinic, maybe every 3-4 months or twice a year. If so, this should raise an eyebrow. Not only is that excessive, but it is probably unnecessary.
4. The clinic treats without prior approval or authorization. This will vary by jurisdiction, and by treatment, but if the doctor rushes a potential workers comp case into surgery without verifying any information or taking an insurance card, then that is a problem. “Slash for cash” doctors will operate first, ask questions later. They know they will be paid by somebody, and they do not care who it will be. It could be comp, personal insurance, Medicare, etc. As long as they get paid, that is their main concern. Check with the counsel about rules regarding invasive treatment without authorization and make sure to be as proactive as possible so the company is protected against unnecessary expense.
5. The bills include extra body part codes. The worker has an injured left arm, but the clinic bill states they performed treatment on the arm, wrist, elbow, shoulder, neck, and head. Be sure to read the records carefully, the billers may be trying to slide in some extra body parts and extra treatment that is already covered. Known as “unbundling,” this is where a clinic tries to bill separately for services that are usually combined into one already negotiated rate.
6. Unexpected high cost. The worker goes to the chiropractor for 12 visits to resolve a lumbar strain. He is a lot better, and it appears this doctor did a great job but then the bill arrives for $8,000.That is not so great and should prompt a call to the doctor for explanation. Sometimes when doctors see that a workers comp case is involved, the costs go sky-high.
7. Doctors that steer patients to plaintiff counsel. Every now and then you will see in the medical notes a doctor that flat out tells a patient to go see someone for a legal opinion. That is a red flag. The doctor is not there to give out legal advice. Some doctors have a tie in with certain plaintiff counsel, and they pass people back and forth to create new business. Beware.
8. The doctor will not answer the questions or return phone calls. Why is the doctor dodging calls from the claims adjuster? Doctors that have a practice know they have a business to run. An empty waiting room means you are a great doc and a poor businessman. The doctor wants that waiting room to be full all day and everyday. And the more they can do to keep a person coming back, the doctor may try and do.
9. The physician refers patients to specific medical specialists. Now, this one is not all bad. Sometimes this doctor knows which specialist docs are successful and have a good track record, and will refer the worker to this doctor with confidence. But there are those docs who are just passing a patient on to a pal, and chances are these docs do this a lot between the two practices. Just be on alert if this is happening frequently between clinics.
10. The physician prescribes unneeded and/or unnecessary durable medical equipment (DME). And the reason why the doctor does this is because they are probably getting some sort of kickback (referral fee) from the DME provider, such as paid golf, concert tickets, etc. When entering the doctor’s office and he has one drug company calendar, pen, paper, clock, and poster, then I think I know which medication you will be receiving….
Part 1 of this 2-part series should raise the awareness of the red flags that can affect the workers compensation cases. Do not be alarmed as this does not happen in a a huge number of cases. But it can happen, and the more vigilant you are, the better you can protect the company. To find out more about questionable physicians or clinics in the area, contact your adjusters or attorneys.
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. She is the author of the #1 selling book on cost containment, Manage Your Workers Compensation: Reduce Costs 20-50% www.WCManual.com.
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
Stuart Colburn, Esq., has done it again with his third installation on prescription drug abuse in America for the LexisNexis Communities on Workers Compensation.
Part One explained “the problem”.
Part Two identified stakeholders and his final blog offers solutions. You may read his complete blog
here or take a look at this brief summary.
1. Government Regulation
“Prescription drug abuse and diversion is a problem requiring close interaction between public and private sectors. Stakeholders must work together using tools at their disposal in a coordinated effort to fight supply and demand,” Colburn wrote. He suggests a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) that would include:
- Scheduled and other highly abusive substances.
- Real time data transmission between stakeholders.
-A requirement for doctors to check the PDMP database before writing a prescription.
- A requirement for pharmacies to check the PDMP database before dispensing narcotics.
Integration with neighboring states.
2. Physicians
“The public has an unreasonable view of the knowledge base of healthcare providers. Although every doctor graduated from medical school, knowledge itself comes from specialized training,” he wrote, “Scheduled narcotics should only be prescribed by doctors with the requisite training and experience. Those doctors granted the additional license to prescribe scheduled narcotics would be subject to additional regulation.”
3. Pharmacies
“Pharmacies should be required to participate in a prescription drug monitoring program for scheduled narcotics before dispensing scheduled narcotics,” Colburn suggested.
4. Pharmaceutical Companies
“Drug companies should design drugs to deter abuse. Drug companies can employ manufacturing techniques, making it more difficult or impossible for drugs to be ground up into a powder,” he added.
5. Consumers
“Public education about prescription drug abuse should be paramount on billboards and in our school systems. Every day, 7,000 young people abuse prescription narcotics for the first time. Patients who receive a prescription or scheduled narcotics should also undergo approved education and information,” Colburn wrote.
6. Payers
“Payers should implement strategies designed to identify addicts, diverts and outliers. Payers should urge policy makers to adopt PDMP and common sense laws giving regulators the information and power necessary to fight PDA,” he wrote. “Payers have ever more increasingly sophisticated software able to perform advanced predictive modeling and performance analytics that can identify outlier doctors and possible addicts.”
© Copyright 2011 Stuart Colburn, Esq. Reprinted with permission.
This information was provided by attorney
Stuart Colburn, a Shareholder at Downs Stanford in Austin, Texas. Colburn has extensive experience in all phases of dispute resolution before the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers Compensation and in district courts across the state. Stuart represents clients regarding workers compensation, non-subscription, subrogation, and bad faith litigation. He is the founder and the first chairman of the State Bar of Texas (SBOT) Workers Compensation Section; course coordinator for the SBOT the Advanced Workers Compensation Seminar; and course coordinator for the Texas Workers Compensation Forum. He can be reached at:
scolburn@downsstanford.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
A Methuen, Massachusetts-based developer has been ordered to pay a $20,000 fine and serve probation after pleading guilty for the improper removal and disposal of asbestos for work performed on a multi-family residence in Lawrence, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced recently.
Robert A. Norcross, 51, pleaded guilty in Essex Superior Court to three charges of violating the Massachusetts Clean Air Act: failure to file a notice of asbestos removal with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), improper removal of asbestos-containing material, and improper disposal of asbestos waste. The asbestos containing material was pipe insulation in a multi-family residential property in Lawrence owned in trust by Norcross. (WCxKit)
After the plea was entered, Superior Court Judge John T. Lu sentenced Norcross to 18 months’ probation. Under the terms of probation, and an administrative consent order with Mass DEP, Norcross must pay a fine of $20,000, with $10,000 suspended during the period of probation. Norcross is also required to participate in asbestos training and have all of his properties inspected and properly abated of asbestos containing materials.
“Asbestos is a hazardous material that must be reported, removed, and disposed of properly to ensure the health and safety of the public at large,” AG Coakley said. “The defendant ordered unlicensed workers to remove and dispose of asbestos containing materials without taking the proper precautions, putting people at risk.”
The Massachusetts Environmental Strike Force received information that Norcross had ordered the improper removal of asbestos containing insulation from one of his residential properties. Norcross engaged workers in the removal process without the required notification to MassDEP. Further investigation revealed that the insulation had been removed by untrained workers in an area of the property used by tenants to wash laundry.
The workers failed to do the work in a properly contained space to prevent the release of asbestos fibers within the building, and did not adhere to air filtering or other protective measures while removing the asbestos containing materials. Pursuant to Mass DEP regulations, the removal of asbestos must be performed by a licensed contractor with notification as to when the removal will occur and requires certain methods and standards for the safe removal, storage, and disposal of the asbestos throughout the abatement process.
After the illegal removal process had occurred, one of the workers transported bags of the asbestos debris to an unlicensed facility in New Hampshire for disposal. (WCxKit)
A grand jury returned indictments against Norcross and he was arraigned in Essex Superior Court at which time he entered a plea of not guilty and was released on personal recognizance. Norcross pleaded guilty recently and was sentenced.
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.
On September 26, 2011, the WCAB issued an en banc decision in Messele v. Pitco. In short, the WCAB said that a party must wait 16 days after objecting to the treating doctor and offering an Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) before requesting a Panel of QMEs (PQME).
The 16-day rule is still good law.
But, on November 22, 2011, the WCAB amended its September 26, 2011 decision to clarify that it shall apply prospectively from September 26, 2011.
The WCAB explained,
"If prior to our September 26, 2011 decision, a panel was prematurely but otherwise properly requested and there was no objection on the ground of prematurity, then the resulting panel may not later be challenged on that ground. In other words, if an objection based on prematurity was not made prior to our September 26, 2011 decision, neither party may challenge the request, the ensuing panel, the remaining QME following the striking of names, or the resulting report for prematurity."
"Thus, for example, if a QME evaluation has already taken place, our September 26, 2011 decision does not provide grounds for a new one. If the DWC Medical Unit has already issued a panel and no objection based on the panel request's prematurity was raised prior to our September 26, 2011 decision, that panel may not be challenged based on our September 26, 2011 decision. If an otherwise proper panel request was made, and was premature according to our September 26, 2011 decision, but no objection based on its prematurity was raised prior to September 26, 2011, any panel subsequently issued in response to that request shall not be invalidated based on that decision."
"If, on the other hand, a panel request was made prior to our September 26, 2011 decision, which was premature according to that decision, and the opposing party promptly objected on that basis before the September 26, 2011 decision issued, the objecting party is entitled to the benefit of its correct interpretation of section 4062.2(b) because the party timely raised the issue in its own case. We express no opinion at this time as to what constitutes an adequate objection." [emphasis in original] (WCxKit)
Finally, "Our September 26, 2011 decision does not constitute good cause to reopen any order, decision, or award."
California Attorney: Albert A. Navarra is a practicing lawyer from Newport Beach, CA, a Board Certified Specialist in Workers Compensation law, and a partner at Sapra & Navarra, LLP. Navarra is a frequent speaker about workers compensation issues, and has represented employers in the area of workers compensation for over 10 years. He is also an expert in constitutional law, the author of The Elements of Constitutional Law, and a frequent guest on radio stations across the country. He can be reached at: (866) 384-4891 or Albert@snworkcomp.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
1. Introduction
This is an outline of measures that can be taken by employers to reduce NY comp expenses. The measures outlined have been undertaken by employers in the past with success. The measures do not come at the expense of workers and worthy claims; they limit delay and arrive at correct payments without enlargement due to inefficiency and insufficient information.
2. The NY workers compensation system since 1947
The present compensation system was largely created by the 1947 changes, the most significant of which was enlarging the number of lump-sum settlements. Although only 1% of all claims resulted in a lump sum, these claims carrier 60% of all attorney fees awarded. (WCxKit)
The second significant change occurred in the 1960s when the Board declared that its medical guidelines were obsolete but failed to adopt new guidelines until the 1990s. In the intervening period, this led to decades of litigation with a “blank yardstick” resulting in the majority of settlements clustering at 50% disability on PPD claims.
3. Recent attempts at reform
In 1984, a compensation commission report called for creation of objective medical guidelines to limit the growing number of trials, appeals and prolonged adjudications of claims which resulted in frustration of workers and dubious accuracy in results. The then proposed changes threatened to radically alter the practice of comp law for both claimant and defense lawyers and were resisted, as have recent changes.
Currently, extensive guidelines have been enacted for medical treatment and evaluation of permanent disability, but there are still no published methods for measuring post-injury loss of wage earning capacity a claimant has returned to work or has received a valid offer of work within residual capacities. Such offers will be one of the methods for cost reduction described in this outline.
4. Reasons for prolonged litigation in New York
New York has had an anomalous workers compensation system for decades. The reasons have to do with the politics of the 1940s which, after a generation, were forgotten, but the residua have remained.
The system became marked by an elevated number of hearings, trials and appeals. Law, regulations and court decisions were seldom cited and the proceedings were seemingly governed by informal customs rather than law and fact.
That is currently changing, with restrictions on litigating issues without cause or preparation, but the generally casual atmosphere has remained. However, parties making efforts to diligently investigate all facts and research law to prepare claims – especially prior to the first hearing – will realize advantages and results.
5. Opportunities for employers
There are a number of critical points in a New York claim where an employer’s efforts can achieve unexpected results. The results can take many forms reaching a correct resolution months or years sooner, limiting unnecessary testimony, reducing adjournments to obtain material that should have been available at the first hearing and reducing unwarranted awards.
The Principal Employer Initiatives
- Use of OSHA for investigation of problematic claims. (29 CFR 1904.5 can be used to obtain HIPAA releases and schedule an early IME exam.)
- Enhanced preparation of the first report (C-2) with location and attachment of supporting documents for defense.
- On PPD claims,
- a search for prior medical conditions to be conducted 6-9 months after date of injury,
- an ADA conference with worker, with spouse present,
- offers of modified or full RTW prior to Sect 32 settlement discussions,
- for certain acute conditions, employer assistance and support for SSDB
- claims although no comp claims have been contemplated.
Initiative A (OSHA)
permits HIPAA releases and an IME exam, by the employer,
Far faster than is possible under the NY WCL by a carrier or TPA. The OSHA records remain separate and are not automatically released to the comp file
but, with proper efforts, can be used in in the compensation claim. The HIPAA releases produce information that is a highly effective method for keeping unrelated conditions from becoming merged into the comp claim.
The active role by an employer in the beginning of a claim is, in fact, appreciated by most employees.
Initiative B (enhanced C-2)
is designed to utilize the employer’s superior background knowledge and access to relevant documents. These assets are not developed simply by completion of a C-2. Often, a claim will come to a successful conclusion at the first hearing solely because a fact is identified, explored and developed before hearings start.
Initiative C
contains three separate parts for limiting PPD claims.
- A. The location of prior medical records which can support a reduction, or halting, of future wage loss payments, per the April, 2011 “Poli” decision.
- B. An ADA conference, so that the claimant, and spouse, may hear of RTW possibilities prior to any Sect 32 settlement offers. (Spouses are usually supportive of RTW rather than settlement and should be present at the conference.)
- C. An offer of limited or modified work which, if refused, can be construed as a voluntary withdrawal from labor. The offer also acts as an objective measure of wage earning capacity and can supplant Board guidelines for medical evaluation of PPD final rates. (WCxKit)
Initiative D
employer SSDB assistance for certain medical conditions such as heart attacks, can reduce comp claims filed later. Many workers comp heart attack claims are not filed until after a worker has consulted an SSDB attorney, most of who are also comp attorneys, and the time to file a compensation claim has not yet expired. Workers frequently resist filing claims against employers who have been supportive.
Author: Attorney Theodore Ronca is a practicing lawyer from Aquebogue, 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. Attorney Ronca can be reached at 631-722-2100. 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@WorkersCompKit.com
Occupational therapy is a medical practice that promotes the health of a person to recover from an injury or illness in a way that allows them to return to some degree of self sufficiency after a severe medical condition. Occupational therapy should not be confused with physical therapy which is designed to restore the loss of function to a specific body part. Occupational therapy will assist the severely injured employee to rehabilitate from a disabling injury physically, mentally, and emotionally as they adjust to the permanent loss of function.
Occupational therapy is utilized in various
medical situations including: inpatient rehabilitation, acute care hospitals, assisted living facilities, hospices, skilled nursing facilities, and rehabilitation hospitals. For the purpose of this article, we will limit the discussion of occupational therapy to workers compensation and the assistance occupational therapists provide to the severely injured employee. (WCxKit)
When an employee incurs a life altering injury like a spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, limb amputation, loss of use of a limb or hand, or any injury that prevents the employee from returning to the prior level of employment, occupational therapy is designed to assist the employee to adapt to the permanent loss of function. Occupational therapy is more than just medical recovery. It will also entail psychology, sociology, and other aspects of daily living.
Occupational therapy will assist the severely injured employee in numerous ways. The occupational therapist can assist the employee in the following ways.
1. Stabilizing the employee's medical condition so the medical condition does not continue to deteriorate
2. Facilitating mobilization
3. Restoring function (overlaps into the area of physical therapy)
4. Compensating for mobility impairment
5. Learning/relearning sensory processes
6. Learning skills to adapt to the loss of function
7. Coordinating care from medical providers of various disciplines
8. Returning the injured employee to a meaningful life
9. Teaching adaptive skills for eating, bathing, grooming, dressing, etc.
10. Teaching the use of adaptive equipment – wheelchairs, artificial limbs, shower benches, etc.
11. Regaining the ability to live independently
Occupational therapy can also be utilized when the employee's injury is severe, but not life altering. It is often used in conjunction with physical therapy to optimize the use of a severely damaged hand or arm. The occupational therapist will work with the injured employee to teach the employee to compensate or adjust to biomechanical issues. The occupational therapist will tailor the treatment plan to the individual's needs.
When the employee has the ability to regain enough physical capacity to return to the former job, or to some time of employment, occupational therapy will provide “work hardening”. Work hardening is a customized approach to recondition the employee's cardiovascular, neuromuscular, and biomechanical systems. Work hardening will use either real or simulated work activities along with exercises to assist the employee in the transition from non-working to working. It will often start with the employee “working” 2 to 4 hours a day, 2 or 3 days a week. The time frame, both sessions and days, is gradually increased until the employee is able to work 8 hours a day, five days a week.
Occupational therapists are often called upon to provide a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) after the course in work hardening. In an FCE, the employee goes through a series of testing to determine what the employee can safely do in a variety of tasks. The FCE will also be used to establish what level of accommodations, if any, the employer will need to make in order to return the employee to full duty or permanently modified duty. The FCE is also used in some states to establish the level of permanent impairment rating that will be assigned to the employee. (WCxKit)
Occupational therapy is often the employee's “last stop” in the medical recovery process between injury and the return to work. Or it will be the last stop between injury and the permanent total disability status where the employee will never be able to return to work. The skill level of the occupational therapist can impact the overall outcome. Therefore, it is imperative the employer and the claims office understand the importance of occupational therapy and select the most qualified and skilled occupational therapy facility for the injured employee.
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. Shafer is the author of the leading book on workers compensation cost control www.WCManual.com 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.
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited Illescas Brothers Construction Inc. of Paterson for exposing workers to 12 safety violations while performing masonry work on the exterior of a new home in Fort Lee. According to a report from the agency, proposed penalties total $65,340.
When OSHA inspectors arrived at the work site on June 28, they found several fall protection and scaffolding violations. For example, employees performing overhand bricklaying were permitted to climb the cross braces of the platform to access a work platform 24 feet above the ground, proper fall protection was not provided to employees trying to erect scaffolding and employees were allowed to work on an unstable scaffold 18 feet above the ground. (WCxKit)
Three repeat violations with $55,440 in penalties include failing to use proper scaffolding and provide fall protection for employees erecting scaffolding. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been 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. Similar violations were cited in August 2007 at an Edgewater work site.
Six serious violations with $9,900 in penalties include failing to implement a respiratory protection plan, protect employees from falling material and provide safe access to a landing surface. 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.
Three other-the-serious violations with no monetary penalties include the absence of a portable fire extinguisher, failing to provide a written hazard communications program and failing to make a material safety data sheet readily available. (WCxKit)
An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.
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.
The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (WCB) is accepting the recommendations of a privacy review report recently unveiled by the Privacy Review Office (PRO). To see the report, visit: http://foipop.ns.ca/rep_recent.html .
According to a report from the agency, the WCB will implement some of the recommendations immediately, and others, it will accept in principle with the process of implementation to happen over time. (WCxKit)
“We have a strong privacy policy in place and we continue to evolve our approach and make improvements to protect the information of those we serve,” said Leo McKenna, CFO, and VP of Corporate Services. “The privacy review has been a valuable learning process for the WCB and we’ve gained some fresh perspective and helpful feedback.”
The WCB handles more than one million claim-related documents and payment transactions every year, most containing personally identifying information. All WCB employees are required to complete annual privacy training with a focus on containing breaches, remedying and learning from them in order to prevent further breaches. (WCxKit)
“Privacy breaches, much like workplace injuries, can be prevented and our employees achieve this in the vast majority of our transactions,” said McKenna. “However, just as we believe one workplace injury is too many, we also believe one privacy breach is too many, and we will continue to strive towards achieving this goal.”
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@WorkersCompKit.com
Hope v. Warren County Board of Elections, 2011 NY Slip Op 08543, was decided this week. The decisions carries far reaching consequences to businesses employing part-time workers.
The claimant, employed a day or two a year, had an average weekly wage as a poll inspector of $3.56 per week. The claimant had another part time job which generated an average weekly wage of, roughly, $77 per week.
The New York compensation law provides that person with concurrent employments have the average weekly wage from ALL employments combined. The rate of compensation is paid by the employer on whose job the injury occurred. Prior to changes in the law in 2007, the employer would be reimbursed for payments made higher by the combined wages from the special funds. In the above case, the employer would have been ultimately liable for only $3.56 per week, using the law prior to 2007.
However, NY WCL Sect 14(6), which granted the reimbursement, was repealed in 2007. Therefore, the employer, without reimbursement, paid the full award at $80 per week. (The “two-thirds” calculation does not apply to weekly wages less than $150 per week, which have a minimum of $100 per week, unless the wages are below $100 per week, in which case the minimum rate is the average weekly wage.)
In the present case, the employer paying $80 per week will not cause much worry, but what will happen when the second job has wages which exceed (roughly) $60,000 per year? In that case, the present employer, properly liable for only $3.56 per week, could be required to pay the current maximum of over $770 per week – about 216 times the weekly wage on the job where the injury occurred.
These hypothetical scenarios are not far fetched. Many employees at higher paying jobs have occasional part time work for far less. In the case of poll inspectors, many view the day or two per year as “civic duty.” Nevertheless, injuries do occur.
What of businesses that prefer to hire workers looking for a second job part time? These businesses will have consequences which can be disastrous. Workers, depending on what other employment they may have, can cause an employer to pay many multiples of the wages for a single comp claim.
Businesses that have come to see part time workers as essential (the part time holiday season workers are the best example) may find that the x-mod calculations cannot bear the strain of this new decision. For workers, this could result in substantially fewer holiday part-time opportunities in New York. Truly a “Grinch” decision.
Author: Attorney Theodore Ronca is a practicing lawyer from Aquebogue, 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. Attorney Ronca can be reached at 631-722-2100. medsearch7@optonline.net
WORKERS COMP 101 (BOOK): www.WCManual.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
Posted in
