Alabama Employer Gets OSHA Citation

Fines of nearly $42,000 were recently levied against one employer in Alabama.

 
Austal USA LLC was cited by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration for 12 safety and health violations that involved fall and other hazards following a May 2014 complaint regarding the Mobile shipbuilder’s facility. Proposed penalties total $41,500.

 
“The government expects that contractors, such as Austal, should not only deliver a good product, but also conduct operations in a safe manner,” said Joseph Roesler, OSHA’s area director in Mobile. “The lack of attention to safety and health issues unnecessarily exposed employees to hazards at the Mobile facility, and these hazards need to be addressed and controlled throughout the shipbuilding process.”

 
Nine serious citations were issued for lack of standard railings on all staircases, which exposed workers to fall hazards; improperly secured gas cylinders; and failure to reduce the pressure in a compressed air device to less than 30-pounds-per-square inch when cleaning. OSHA also cited the company for allowing worker overexposure to copper fumes during welding operations. Other citations included failure to ensure workers followed safety procedures to prevent accidental machine startup and to protect workers from unguarded machinery.

 
Three other citations were issued for using temporary flexible cable instead of permanent wiring, improperly labeling hazardous chemicals and failure to ensure that temporary wiring was not damaged. 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.

 

Employer Cited 3 Times in Past 5 Years

 
OSHA has cited this facility three times in the past five years.

 
The company was issued citations for improper use of slings and maritime gear, poor walking and working surfaces, a lack of accident prevention signage and electrical hazards.

 
Austal USA is a global contractor, designer and manufacturer of defense and commercial ships.

 
The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, request a conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

 

 

 

Author Kori Shafer-Stack, Editor, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. is an expert in post-injury response procedures and part of the Amaxx team helping companies reduce their workers compensation costs by 20% to 50%. www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com.  Contact: kstack@reduceyourworkerscomp.com.

 

©2014 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law.

 

WORK COMP CALCULATOR:   http://www.LowerWC.com/calculator.php

MODIFIED DUTY CALCULATOR:   http://www.LowerWC.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php

WC GROUP:  http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/

SUBSCRIBE: Workers Comp Resource Center Newsletter

Physician Dispensing Associated With Unnecessary Prescribing Of Opioids

 

Cambridge, MA, Dec. 16, 2014―A new study from the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) found evidence that physician dispensing encouraged some physicians to unnecessarily prescribe strong opioids. The study analyzed the prescribing behavior after Florida banned physician dispensing of strong opioids.

 

 

The authors of the study, The Impact of Physician Dispensing on Opioid Use, expected little change in the percentage of patients getting strong opioids—only a change from physician-dispensed to pharmacy-dispensed. Instead of finding an increase in pharmacy-dispensed strong opioids, the study found no material change. Rather, there was an increase in the percentage of patients receiving physician-dispensed weaker pain medications—specifically, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (e.g., ibuprofen)—from 24.1 percent to 25.8 percent, and the percentage receiving weaker (not banned) opioids increased from 9.1 percent to 10.1 percent.

 

The study found there was a high level of compliance with the ban by physician-dispensers. Prior to the reforms, 3.9 percent of injured workers received strong opioids dispensed by physicians during the first six months after their injuries. After the ban, only 0.5 percent of patients with new injuries received physician-dispensed strong opioids. If the pre-ban strong opioids were necessary, researchers would expect that workers who received weaker physician-dispensed pain medications after the ban would later need strong opioids (that can be dispensed only at a pharmacy). But only 2 percent of those with weaker physician-dispensed pain medications in the first six months after the ban received strong opioids at a pharmacy in the next six months.

 

According to the study, the policy debate in a growing number of states has been focused on the much higher prices charged by physician-dispensers than pharmacies for the same medications. The debate has recently begun to focus on whether the economic incentives attendant to physician dispensing (like any form of physician self-referral) lead to prescribing and dispensing of unnecessary medications. Over the past 10 years, 18 states have modified reimbursement rules to reduce the prices paid for physician-dispensed drugs. Until recently, few of these states also limited the use of physician dispensing. The findings of this study raise the question of whether policymakers should consider reforms that limit the use of physician dispensing of certain medications in addition to reforms aimed at limiting the prices of physician-dispensed drugs.

 

“When we compare pre- and post-reform prescribing practices, it appears that physician-dispensers not only reduced their dispensing of strong opioids, but also reduced prescribing of strong opioids. This raises concerns that a significant proportion of pre-reform physician-dispensed strong opioids were not necessary, which means injured workers in Florida were put at greater risk for addiction, disability or work loss, and even death,” said Richard Victor, WCRI’s executive director. “Since Florida has banned physician dispensing of strong opioids, the lessons of this study are relevant for the other states concerned about eliminating unnecessary costs in their system while protecting injured workers from unnecessary medical care.”

 

This study analyzed data on the medications dispensed for injured workers covered by the Florida workers’ compensation program. It included both open and closed Florida claims. The claims were divided into two groups: pre-reform, with dates of injury from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2010 (prior to the July 1, 2011, effective date of the ban) and post-reform, with dates of injury from July 1, 2011, to December 30, 2011 (immediately after the ban). The data included 24,567 claims with 59,564 prescriptions in the pre-reform group and 21,625 claims with 52,747 prescriptions in the post-reform group.

 

For more information about this study or to purchase a copy, visit http://www.wcrinet.org/result/PD_opioid_result.html.

 

 

ABOUT WCRI:

 

The Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) is an independent, not-for-profit research organization based in Cambridge, MA. Founded in 1983, the WCRI is recognized as a leader in providing high-quality, credible, and objective information about public policy issues involving workers’ compensation systems. WCRI’s diverse membership includes employers; insurers; governmental entities; managed care companies; health care providers; insurance regulators; state labor organizations; and state administrative agencies in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. For more information, visit: http://www.wcrinet.org.

 

 

Vietnam’s Construction Ministry Tightens Safety Measures

Officials in Vietnam are heightening their efforts to protect workers.

 
The Construction Ministry recently said it would suspend all works that cannot ensure safety standards for workers and the general public.

 
In a communique sent recently to other ministries as well as provincial and city administrations, the ministry called for immediate dissemination of the National Standard for Construction Safety developed in September.

 
It also asked provincial and city administrations to carry out strict inspections of safety standards in construction works, focusing on equipment, including cranes and scaffolding in urban areas.

 

Contractors and Investors Not Following Safety Regulations

 
The ministry noted that reports of several construction accidents, including collapsed cranes and scaffolding that have killed people and damaged property, showed that contractors and investors were not following safety regulations.

 
In a recent accident, one man was killed and two others injured when a steel beam dropped from a crane at the construction site of the urban railway project in ThanhXuan District.

 
The Ministry of Transport has suspended the project pending investigation and assessment of safety standards.

 

 

 

Author Kori Shafer-Stack, Editor, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. is an expert in post-injury response procedures and part of the Amaxx team helping companies reduce their workers compensation costs by 20% to 50%. www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com.  Contact: kstack@reduceyourworkerscomp.com.

 

©2014 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law.

 

WORK COMP CALCULATOR:   http://www.LowerWC.com/calculator.php

MODIFIED DUTY CALCULATOR:   http://www.LowerWC.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php

WC GROUP:  http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/

SUBSCRIBE: Workers Comp Resource Center Newsletter

Cal/OSHA Cites Fuel Distributor Following Fatal Blast

The death of one worker and major injuries to another recently led California officials to site the employer of the pair.

 
Cal/OSHA cited fuel distribution company National Distribution Services Inc. (NDS) $99,345 following an investigation into an explosion at the company’s Corona facility that killed one employee and left another with severe burns.

 

The owner of the company has been previously cited for similar incidents.

 
On May 6, 2014, two employees attempted welding operations on a 9,000-gallon tanker truck containing an unknown amount of crude oil. The tank had not been purged or tested for flammable vapors, resulting in the explosion.

 
Samuel Enciso, 52, was a welder who had been with NDS for four years. He was found dead on the floor of the facility with his right hand and lower arm completely severed.

 
A second employee with five years of experience suffered burns to more than 50 percent of his body.

 

 

Safety Procedures Were Lacking

 
Investigators from the San Bernardino Cal/OSHA District Office determined that NDS contributed to this incident by failing to have required safety procedures in place for working with flammable vapors.

 
Additionally, investigators found that NDS failed to train employees on the dangers of welding near combustible materials.

 
“California requires employers to have and adhere to an Injury and Illness Prevention Program” said Christine Baker, director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR).

 
Cal/OSHA, formally known as the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, is a division of DIR. “This preventable death is a reminder of what can happen when that requirement is ignored,” said Baker.

 

Previous Explosion at Facility

 
While investigating the May 6 event, investigators learned about a previous explosion at the Corona facility that occurred under similar circumstances, and involved the same two NDS employees.

 
On Sept. 25, 2012, the lid of a fuel tanker blew through the ceiling of the repair facility after the employees commenced welding on a truck filled with flammable vapors. No injuries occurred on that date.

 
“Enforcement of California safety laws sends a message to non-compliant employers,” said Juliann Sum, acting chief of Cal/OSHA. “You cannot cut corners when it comes to worker safety.”

 
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration served NDS with an emergency restriction order on August 14, prohibiting the company from using cargo tank motor vehicles. The company appealed the order in September.

 
The owner of NDS, Carl Bradley Johansson, served prison time following a previous similar incident.

 
In the 1990s, Johansson operated a business in Montebello known as Atlas Bulk Carriers. On Sept. 27, 1993 there was an explosion involving welding operations on a fuel tanker that had also not been purged or tested.

 
This incident also took the life of a welder employed by the company. Atlas Bulk Carriers was cited by Cal/OSHA for this incident.

 

 

 

Author Kori Shafer-Stack, Editor, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. is an expert in post-injury response procedures and part of the Amaxx team helping companies reduce their workers compensation costs by 20% to 50%. www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com.  Contact: kstack@reduceyourworkerscomp.com.

 

©2014 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law.

 

WORK COMP CALCULATOR:   http://www.LowerWC.com/calculator.php

MODIFIED DUTY CALCULATOR:   http://www.LowerWC.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php

WC GROUP:  http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/

SUBSCRIBE: Workers Comp Resource Center Newsletter

EEOC Speaks Out on Workers Compensation ADA Obligations

Employers Must Begin Interactive Process for Return to Work Sooner Than Thought
Dated: December 4, 2014

[WorkCompRoundUp is authorized to provide this information on behalf of EEOC’s Aaron Konopasky, JD and Jennifer Christian, MD.]
EEOC’s Aaron Konopasky, JD and Jennifer Christian, MD Provide Guidance on When Employers Must Start Discussion Regarding Return to Work Accommodations

 

This may be surprising news for some readers: In workers’ compensation, MMI should not be viewed as the trigger for ADA-related protections and obligations.

 

Background: A common practice in workers’ compensation claims management may not be legal. Employers / claims organizations that postpone the reasonable accommodation process until an injured worker’s medical condition has reached MMI (maximum medical improvement) may be violating the ADA, now that the definition of “disability” has been broadened. Prior to MMI, if medical restrictions have been established by the treating physician, employers often decide whether to offer temporary transitional work without involvement of injured workers. If not, the workers remain out of work – and may end up losing their jobs. Jennifer Christian, MD, MPH who chairs ACOEM’s Work Fitness & Disability Section, asked Aaron Konopasky, JD, PhD, a senior attorney advisor to the EEOC about this. She was surprised to hear that the ADA does apply at any time – whenever a medical condition has the potential to significantly disrupt an employee’s work participation. This means that injured workers will need to be active participants in their employers’ stay-at-work and return-to-work decision-making process. Christian and Konopasky agreed to co-author a brief summary of the way these two programs interact during the post-injury period, which appears below. Please forward this on to anyone who needs to know.

 

In the Worker’s Compensation context, ADA-related issues can arise at any of several points along the injury management timeline. As a practical matter, employers should be pro-actively evaluating and managing Worker’s Compensation and ADA legal issues concurrently.

 

This is because an employer’s reasonable accommodation-related obligations begin as soon as the employer knows that an individual worker is having trouble at work because of a serious medical problem. By definition, if a doctor informs the employer that a worker has medical restrictions/limitations due to a work-related condition, whether or not the employee is actually working, the employer is now aware that a medical problem is having an impact on the employee’s ability to work. If the condition has the potential to significantly disrupt the employee’s work participation, the employer should immediately engage the worker in an interactive process to look for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

 

Although the employer can stop at this point to determine whether the individual is a “qualified individual with a disability,” it may not be worthwhile. Since employees with workers’ comp injuries are already employed at the time of injury, one can presume they meet the requirement of being “qualified” for the job. And, under the much broader standards established by the ADAAA, any conditions serious enough to require medical restrictions/limitations for more than a few days or weeks (and even some conditions that have not yet caused any work disruption) are likely to meet the definition of an ADA “disability.” An extended inquiry regarding the applicability of the ADA could result in unnecessary delay during a critical period.

 

Thus, whether or not the worker’s condition is stable and has reached maximum medical improvement (is at MMI) has no relevance, either (a) to the time when the employer’s obligation to engage in the interactive process begins or (b) to the time when a worker should be considered a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA. For more details about specific times when the ADA may apply, read below.

 

1. At the time a person is injured.
No matter whether the resulting condition is already stable or is still evolving, the ADA may require the employer to provide a reasonable accommodation that would enable the individual to perform his or her essential job functions, unless doing so would involve significant difficulty or expense. Examples might include specialized equipment, removal of non-essential job functions, and special scheduling. Individualized assessment is a key precept of the ADA, so a blanket policy is not appropriate. Employers might also choose to reduce job demands or productivity expectations on a short-term basis, although this would not be required by the ADA. It should be noted, though, that the ADA cannot be used to deny a benefit or privilege to which the employee is entitled on a separate basis. If, for example, the individual has other types of leave available at his or her discretion, whether paid (such as vacation leave) or unpaid (such as FMLA leave), the employer cannot deny that leave based on the fact that he or she could remain on the job with a reasonable accommodation.

 

2. While recovering out of work due to injury
The ADA may apply as soon as the worker’s condition becomes stable enough that on-the-job reasonable accommodations might allow the individual to perform the essential functions of the job (whether or not there has been a formal declaration of MMI). A blanket policy is not appropriate at this juncture, either. At this point, the employer should re-engage the interactive process to determine whether a reasonable accommodation would allow the individual to return to their usual job. As mentioned above, employers might also choose to reduce job demands or productivity expectations on a short-term basis, although this would not be required by the ADA.

 

3. When the individual has exhausted his or her leave and workers’ compensation benefits, and is still unable to return to the original position, even with an on-the-job reasonable accommodation.
At this point, whether or not the medical condition has reached MMI, the employer should consider other forms of reasonable accommodation, such as additional unpaid leave or, if the individual is not expected to regain the ability to do the essential functions of his or her current position, reassignment to a vacant position (if one is available). Again, a blanket policy is not appropriate.

 

In summary, legal obligations under Worker’s Compensation and ADA legal issues should not be assumed to be sequential, because they may run simultaneously. Duration is not the key issue; the main issue is the nature of the condition and its impact on the ability to function at work.

 

 

CLARIFICATION To MEMO dated December 4, 2014
Dated: December 11, 2014

The EEOC’s Aaron Konopasky and I were glad to see many thoughtful comments in response to our message about the ADA in workers’ compensation last week in the forums where it was posted. Our summary was primarily written to dispel two common myths:

  1. In workers’ compensation, the time to think about the ADA is at MMI. This is NOT true. MMI is late among several points in the post-injury timeline when the ADA needs to be considered.
  1. The ADA’s requirement for an interactive process doesn’t apply in decision-making about transitional work assignments. This is NOT true. Injured workers do need to be active participants in the workers’ comp stay-at-work and return-to-work process.

 

However, based on the comments we have received, we want to clarify that the ADA has several other significant implications for how employers should respond to existing employees who develop health problems. The ADA is about civil rights for people with disabilities, not financial benefits of one kind or another. The fundamental purpose of the ADA’s employment provisions is to help people with disabilities get and keep jobs, as long as they are qualified to do the work and can meet productivity standards. The cause of the disability is irrelevant. It does not matter what other types of policies or programs are also involved — whether workers’ compensation, FMLA, sick pay, or disability insurance programs. A disability can be newly acquired, transitory, fluctuating, progressive, or longstanding and stable. It can be the result of injuries, illnesses, congenital conditions, or the natural aging process. The only relevant question is whether the disability is now or is perceived as potentially having a significant impact on someone’s ability to perform their job, take home their regular paycheck, and stay employed.

 

Here are 5 more practical implications for management of ALL types of health-related employment situations:

 

  1. As the Federal agency that enforces the employment provisions of the ADA, EEOC’s biggest concern in situations involving disability leaves of any type will be that someone with a disability is being forced to take leave even though he or she could do the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation. Everyone involved in the decision to keep someone out of work — doctors, third-party benefit administrators, managed care companies, workplace supervisors and employee program managers — should keep that fact firmly in mind, so that people with disabilities are not needlessly forced out of the workplace.

 

  1. Only the employer is accountable for complying with the employment provisions of the ADA. However, treating physicians and the employer’s vendors (benefits claims administrators, managed care companies) who fail to communicate with the employer during the stay-at-work and return-to-work process may be exposing the employer to increased risk/liability. When a vendor or a doctor (especially one who has been selected by the employer) fails to notify the employer that an employee described difficulty working or an adjustment that might allow them to work, the employer could be held liable for failing to provide that accommodation — even though the information was never properly passed along. Doctors and vendors also can help educate employees and small or unsophisticated employers to ensure that the law is followed.

 

  1. Some employees may express the desire to remain on leave, rather than return to work with a reasonable accommodation. Of course, employees with disabilities must be allowed to use accumulated sick or annual leave, just like any other employee. And they may have a legal right to insist on leave if, for example, they qualify for FMLA. But if an individual with a disability has no discretionary leave, and a reasonable accommodation would allow performance of job functions in a manner that is safe and consistent with his or her medical needs, then the employee may be required to return to work with the accommodation.

 

  1. Paying people money to sit home who are well enough to do something productive does not count as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, especially when they were not part of the decision-making process that has put them out of work. The employee must be actively involved in arranging any temporary or long-lasting adjustments to their usual jobs in order for the employer to meet the interactive process obligation. With respect to specific cash payments made under workers’ compensation—

 

A.  Temporary Total Disability (TTD) Benefits – There is little difference between cash payments under workers’ comp TTD and disability benefit programs for personal health conditions except how the amounts are calculated. Employees are usually receiving them for one of four reasons:

 

  1. The doctor wrote “no work” because their patient’s medical condition is so severe or unstable that it is unsafe for them to do anything except try to get better;
  2. The doctor wrote “no work” because of a perception that the employer cannot or will not provide safe and suitably modified work on a temporary or long-term basis;
  3. The doctor released their patient to work with restrictions, but state or federal law, or a union contract means that the employee cannot work until fully able to do the essential functions of their job, so the employee is put out of work temporarily.
  4. The doctor released their patient to work with restrictions, but the employer said they cannot meet those restrictions (cannot find appropriate work to assign them within their current work capacity) so the employee is put out of work.

 

In all but # 1 above, the ADA may apply. However, the employee is often not consulted as these decisions are being made. As stated above, giving the employee money is not a reasonable accommodation, and the ADA requires that the employer interact with the employee in looking for a solution that will enable the employee to stay at work.

 

B. Other types of cash benefits: Temporary Partial Benefits, Permanent Partial Benefits and Permanent Total Benefits -These cash awards help compensate employees for economic loss as a result of their injuries. However, as stated above, giving people money is not a reasonable accommodation, and does not accomplish the public purpose of the ADA.

 

5. Employers sometimes limit the length of transitional work assignments (TWA) in order to avoid them turning into required permanent accommodations or becoming subject to union job bid rules. To avoid ADA liability, a “usual” 90-day limitation policy that provides for an individualized assessment of the individual’s situation and possible extension is more appropriate. If there is a specific reason why extending a particular employee’s TWA or granting extra (paid or unpaid) time off to heal more completely will allow them to keep their job that might be a reasonable accommodation. Some temporary adjustments are reasonable accommodations (including, for example, temporary use of adaptive equipment or temporary relocation of a workstation to the ground floor) and may need to be extended unless doing so would involve significant difficulty or expense. However, TWAs may have other aspects that can be discontinued without fear of ADA liability, including temporary reductions in productivity requirements and elimination of essential job functions. These measures go beyond what the ADA requires.

 

Aaron Konopasky, J.D., Ph.D
Senior Attorney Advisor
ADA/GINA Policy Division
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Email: aaron.konopasky@eeoc.gov

 

Jennifer Christian, MD, MPH
President, Webility Corporation
Chair, Work Fitness & Disability Section
American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
Email: Jennifer.christian@webility.md

 

If you would like to hear directly from the EEOC, inquiries can be submitted by mail to:

EEOC Office of Legal Counsel
131M Street, NE
Washington, DC 20507

The Prohibited Acts Doctrine: Do Not Pass GO; Do Not Collect $200

monopoly.imagesThe Prohibited Acts Doctrine is used in workers’ compensation cases as a primary liability defense.  While this defense is something every claims management team should explore in workplace injuries, it is often difficult to employ successfully.

 

 

A Hypothetical

 

Consider the case of a truck driver.  As part of the hiring process, the employee underwent a three-day orientation and received a copy of the employer’s policy manual.  The manual included a number of statements concerning employee conduct, which included a prohibition of the “possession or consumption of alcoholic beverage while on company property, using company equipment, or traveling for work.”

 

Shortly after employment begins, the employee stopped in central Kentucky for a two-day layover.  On the first full day of his layover, the employee wanted to watch the big basketball game and was told by an attendant at the truck stop he was staying that there was a bar about one mile away that had the game on the television.  That afternoon he walked to the bar to watch the game and consumed “a few alcoholic drinks.”

 

While walking back to the truck stop, a car with bright lights approached the employee, slowed to a crawl, and then accelerated causing him to jump back.  The employee fell off the road into a ditch hitting the base of his spine.  A workers’ compensation action was initiated related to this incident and primary liability was denied based on the Prohibited Acts Doctrine.

 

Sounds like a clear-cut case for the defense, right?

 

 

Application of the Prohibited Acts Doctrine

 

As a general rule, an employer/insurer can successfully use the Prohibited Acts Doctrine “where an employer expressly prohibits the doing of a certain specific act, the disregard of which is not reasonably foreseeable to the employer, a violation thereof takes the employee outside the scope of his employment and injuries resulting therefrom are not compensable even though the act might be considered to be in furtherance of the employer’s business.”[1]  Whether the employee’s performance of a prohibited act takes the employee outside the sphere of the employment depends, in part, on the nature of the act or conduct, which is prohibited.  Not every safety rule limits the scope of employment.  The less hazardous the conduct prohibited by the safety rule, the more likely the rule proscribes conduct within the scope of employment.  The more routine or minor the prohibited conduct, the more foreseeable it is an employee will violate the rule.[2]

 

Based upon the general application of the Doctrine, an employer and insurer asserting this defense in the above hypothetical would likely not prevail.  Even if consuming alcohol is prohibited, courts will often look to other factors such as the nature of one’s employment, rules considering traveling employees and other factors such as the surface or condition that play a role in the subsequent injury.

 

 

Tips to Successfully Asserting a Defense

 

Cases involving a Prohibited Acts Doctrine are complex, fact dependent and vary in each jurisdiction.  Employees are also given some latitude by the courts when the defense is asserted.  It is important to remember the following considerations associated with the defense:

 

  1. Each case should be analyzed on its own merits and fact. Other factors that make it a difficult defense to assert successfully include obtaining information and testimony from eyewitnesses and specific documentation or prohibitions by an employer.  Just because something is prohibited does not mean one will be successful when asserting the defense.
  2. Practitioners should also note that the prohibited act must also be causally connected to the injury. An injured worker will likely succeed in their claim if the prohibited act plays little to no role in the injury.
  3. Cases involving a prohibited acts defense may also include other defenses such as possible intoxication or the foreseeable activities of traveling employees.

 

[1] Bartley v. C-H Riding Stables, Inc., 206 N.W.2d 660, 663, 26 W.C.D. 675, 678-80 (Minn. 1973)

[2] Otto v. Midwest of Cannon Falls, 59 W.C.D. 25, 35 (W.C.C.A. 1999)

 

 

 

Author Michael Stack, Principal of Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. He is an expert in employer communication systems and helps employers reduce their workers comp costs by 20% to 50%. He resides in the Boston area and works as a Qualified Loss Management Program provider working with high experience modification factor companies in the Massachusetts State Risk Pool.  As the senior editor of Amaxx’s publishing division, Michael is on the cutting edge of innovation and thought leadership in workers compensation cost containment. http://reduceyourworkerscomp.com/about/.  Contact: mstack@reduceyourworkerscomp.com.

 

©2014 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law.

 

SALES TO PAY FOR ACCIDENTS CALCULATOR:  http://reduceyourworkerscomp.com/sales-to-pay-for-accidents-calculator/

MODIFIED DUTY CALCULATOR:   http://reduceyourworkerscomp.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculators/

WC GROUP:  http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/

SUBSCRIBE: Workers Comp Resource Center Newsletter

 

Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker, attorney, or qualified professional.

 

New Zealand Employer Hit with $37K Fine

The price of not practicing workplace safety to its entirety has cost one New Zealand company a stiff fine.

 
Kernohan Engineering Ltd was recently fined $37,000 and ordered to pay reparation of $20,000 after a worker had his hand crushed by a 1.8 ton housing block.

 
The housing block, which is a rectangular block of steel used to help support large cylindrical rollers, toppled forward from a forklift as it was being re positioned during planned maintenance at a fiber board factory near Rangiora in December 2013.

 
Michael Livingstone instinctively tried to stop the block falling by putting his right hand on its top corner. His hand became trapped between the block and the heel of the forklift fork. He suffered crush injuries and multiple fractures that have left him with restricted mobility and a weak grip.

 
Kernohan Engineering was sentenced in the Christchurch District Court under the Health and Safety in Employment Act for failing to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of employees and contractors.

 

Job Safety Analysis Was Missed

 
WorkSafe New Zealand’s Chief Investigator Keith Stewart says moving the 1.8 ton housing block was clearly hazardous work and a job safety analysis should have been done beforehand.

 
“A proper job safety analysis would have identified the risks and the best way to minimize those risks before anyone was in harm’s way. It would have identified the need to stabilize the housing block and ensured the proper equipment was used.

 
“In this case a crane should have been used to support and stabilize the housing block from above to prevent it toppling.

 
“This case is a reminder of the importance of taking the time to do proper analysis and planning before undertaking such dangerous work,” added Stewart.

 

 

 

Author Kori Shafer-Stack, Editor, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. is an expert in post-injury response procedures and part of the Amaxx team helping companies reduce their workers compensation costs by 20% to 50%. www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com.  Contact: kstack@reduceyourworkerscomp.com.

 

©2014 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law.

 

WORK COMP CALCULATOR:   http://www.LowerWC.com/calculator.php

MODIFIED DUTY CALCULATOR:   http://www.LowerWC.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php

WC GROUP:  http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/

SUBSCRIBE: Workers Comp Resource Center Newsletter

Workers Compensation Second Injury Fund Alert

Problem

Employers get little to no relief from state workers compensation second injury funds.  Many state second injury laws are weak, ill defined, are hard to penetrate, and may lack proper funding. Rules and regulations make it hard for a claim to be  acceptance by a second injury fund..

 

Funding programs for second injury funds vary greatly. Some are funded from insurance carrier premium assessments.  Others are funded from state budgets and legislative action.  Most funding programs may fail to meet the fund exposures or liabilities.  This means that even if a claim is accepted by a fund, the employer may not be able to recover their expended funds. The employer has to handle and pay the claim before seeking reimbursement from the second injury fund.

 

 

Background and Liability

Second Injury Funds and rules became prevalent after World War II as a program to induce employers to hire handicapped veterans.   By then workers compensation law, legal precedent, and regulation had clearly established that the employer took the employee as is.  This meant any employee with an underlying pathology or disability, who sustained a compensable injury which aggravated or increased the overall heath or disability costs had to be borne by the employer.

 

The second injury fund program gave the employer relief from the expense of the aggravation or increased disability. The fund would take over the claim handling and cost after certain set periods of time or at the end of normal work injury recovery periods.

 

Despite the current calls for employers to hire veterans, states have done little to nothing to bring second injury funds up to standard to ease the employer’s burden for military injuries.  As a result all veterans, especially Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are meeting hiring resistance.

 

More states are moving to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes.  The user’s health consequences will present great challenges to the employer.  Unlike tobacco and alcohol, marijuana effects can remain in the body for several days.  The dangers for permanent injury by marijuana are not being publically exposed like tobacco and alcohol.

 

 

A Strong Policy is Mandatory

Most second injury funds require that the employer has knowledge of the employee’s pre-existing condition prior to the compensable injury that invokes increased disability.  Employer knowledge can be established through: pre-employment physical examinations, prior compensable claims where the condition became known, accident and health claims (care needs to be invoked due to privacy law and rules), employees volunteering information on job applications, or in the course of employment. A private investigator might also be of assistance to review the employees’ disability background.

 

When the employer learns of the pre-existing condition the personnel file needs to be documented.

 

It is strongly recommended that the policy be well written, cover all know current contingencies, and be firmly adhered to.  It is best to have professional assistance from legal counsel, or organizations specializing in developing such programs.

 

When an injury occurs that might cause exposure for aggravation and increased disability, it is suggested that the file be given strong medical management by professional medical managers.  They will know the basics as to how to develop information for submission to the second injury fund.

 

 

Get Involved Legislatively

There needs to be pressure put on legislative bodies to fund and revamp second injury funds.   Explore what groups or organizations might be actively working for legislative action in the second injury fund legislation.  Determine which groups might be advantageous to support.  Then move forward to add assistance.

 

 

Summary

The financial exposure is growing for pre-existing aggravation and increased disability for workers compensation claims.   It is becoming harder for employers to recover claim costs from state second injury funds. Strong policies must be developed and adhered to for pre-existing conditions exposure. Use professional help to develop and implement policies, and keep them current with annual reviews. Finally, join effort groups working to accomplish legislative funding and reform.

 

 

 

Author Michael Stack, Principal of Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. He is an expert in employer communication systems and helps employers reduce their workers comp costs by 20% to 50%. He resides in the Boston area and works as a Qualified Loss Management Program provider working with high experience modification factor companies in the Massachusetts State Risk Pool.  As the senior editor of Amaxx’s publishing division, Michael is on the cutting edge of innovation and thought leadership in workers compensation cost containment. http://reduceyourworkerscomp.com/about/.  Contact: mstack@reduceyourworkerscomp.com.

 

©2014 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law.

 

SALES TO PAY FOR ACCIDENTS CALCULATOR:  http://reduceyourworkerscomp.com/sales-to-pay-for-accidents-calculator/

MODIFIED DUTY CALCULATOR:   http://reduceyourworkerscomp.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculators/

WC GROUP:  http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/

SUBSCRIBE: Workers Comp Resource Center Newsletter

 

Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker, attorney, or qualified professional.

 

Cal/OSHA Cites Disney Construction Following Pair of Worker Deaths

The deaths of two Disney Construction workers recently led to more than $100k in fines for their employer.

 
Cal/OSHA cited Disney Construction, Inc. of Burlingame $106,110 for serious violations following the May 30th deaths of two employees who fell 80 feet from a crane-hoisted platform at a bridge construction site in Winters.

 
The Sacramento District Office’s investigation found:

 
• Disney Construction’s crane had not been certified or visually inspected for defects to satisfy current testing and examination standards

 
• The crane operator failed to perform an unmanned trial run or have a competent person inspect the rigging and platform before usage

 
• There was no qualified, trained signal person to assist with the lifting operation

 

“Employers in California are required to perform regular equipment inspections to identify and prevent mechanical problems that can lead to tragedy,” said Christine Baker, director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Cal/OSHA, formally known as the division of Occupational Safety and Health, is a division of DIR.

 
Disney Construction was hired to build a new concrete vehicle bridge to connect the City of Winters in Yolo County to Solano County across Putah Creek. Workers were using a pile driver crane when a cable broke near the top of a pile driver. A second crane was used to hoist a personnel platform with two workers, Marcus Powell of Los Gatos and Glenn Hodgson of Richmond, so they could troubleshoot the cable on the pile driver.

 
Pair Fell Some 80 Feet

 
The rigging used to connect the platform to the crane dislodged, causing the platform and workers to fall some 80 feet to the ground.

 
“Specific regulations are in place to operate cranes safely. This incident is a sobering reminder of the tragedies that can occur when safety protocols are not followed,” said Acting Cal/OSHA Chief Juliann Sum.

 
Cal/OSHA also cited Disney Construction for not thoroughly surveying the conditions of the work site for predictable employee hazards and neglecting to implement the necessary safeguards required to perform this type of operation.

 

 

 

Author Kori Shafer-Stack, Editor, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. is an expert in post-injury response procedures and part of the Amaxx team helping companies reduce their workers compensation costs by 20% to 50%. www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com.  Contact: kstack@reduceyourworkerscomp.com.

 

©2014 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law.

 

WORK COMP CALCULATOR:   http://www.LowerWC.com/calculator.php

MODIFIED DUTY CALCULATOR:   http://www.LowerWC.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php

WC GROUP:  http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/

SUBSCRIBE: Workers Comp Resource Center Newsletter

How Many Claims Justifies Having A Nurse Triage Program?

Curtis Smith HeadshotThis is a good question that seems simple, but is actually complex and can be answered in many ways.

 

How Much You Spend On Claims Bigger Factor Than How Many

 

First, here is a practical rule of thumb based on our experience over many years: most insured’s who have 100 or more claims per year find triage to be justifiable by any measure, regardless of their industry or state.  The savings from avoiding unnecessary claims and by improving in-network utilization far outweigh the cost of the triage call.

 

Also, many organizations with fewer than 100 claims find triage to be financially justifiable.  Here’s an example.  If an insured has 24 claims a year averaging $2,000 each, they would spend $48,000 a year on those claims.  Even a mediocre triage service could help avoid 25% of claims, saving $12,000.  (A top performing triage service could save almost twice as much!)  The 24 triage calls would cost under $2,400, yielding a net savings after triage fees of $9,600 or 4 to 1 on the triage investment.   In actuality, many claims incur much more than $2,000 each, and additional savings in claims administration fees and productivity are often realized.

 

The determining factor in cost justification is usually what an insured spends on claims, rather than its number of claims. High claims costs justify triage faster.

 

 

Here are some other considerations:

 

- Insured’s who are self-insured realize the savings from triage immediately.  Even on referrals which become claims, good triage providers improve in-network utilization, generating savings on medical fees.  Top tier triage providers also direct referrals to the right level of care (e.g. an occ health clinic vs an ER), generating additional savings.

 

- Employers in fully insured programs may think that they cannot benefit from triage because they incur the cost but the savings accrue to their carrier.  In fact, they save in several ways, though it takes time – here is one example: they improve their experience modifier, which significantly impacts their premium cost in the future.

 

- Some insured’s in time-sensitive industries with specialty jobs calculate that triage’s ability to help keep workers on the job is worth more than the claims savings.

 

- One of the most important considerations is the medical outcome – call it the “human factor.”  The best triage service is focused on getting the right care for the injured employee.  Sometimes that means early identification of a serious condition, or an unrecognized risk, and making a referral that creates a claim because it’s the right thing to do for the injured employee.

 

Bottom line: insured’s can justify triage in a variety of ways, not just by cost or claims count.  The quality and consistency of the triage provider is a key factor, too – poor triage risks poor clinical outcomes, disgruntled employees, and extra costs.

 

 

Author Curtis H. Smith, Executive Vice President, joined Medcor in 1995. He helped develop Medcor’s injury triage system and holds several US and foreign patents on injury assessments methods.  Smith has taught and practiced in EMS as a paramedic and dispatcher.  He currently supports Medcor’s business development and marketing teams. . http://medcor.com. Contact: csmith@medcor.com

Professional Development Resource

Learn How to Reduce Workers Comp Costs 20% to 50%"Workers Compensation Management Program: Reduce Costs 20% to 50%"
Lower your workers compensation expense by using the
guidebook from Advisen and the Workers Comp Resource Center.
Perfect for promotional distribution by brokers and agents!
Learn More

Please don't print this Website

Unnecessary printing not only means unnecessary cost of paper and inks, but also avoidable environmental impact on producing and shipping these supplies. Reducing printing can make a small but a significant impact.

Instead use the PDF download option, provided on the page you tried to print.

Powered by "Unprintable Blog" for Wordpress - www.greencp.de