The death of a woman who was fatally injured while trying to retrieve a lost earbud from a conveyor belt while working at a golf cart manufacturing plant has raised concerns about increased workplace distractions.
The woman died March 9 after she was trapped in machinery at the Club Car LLC facility in Evans, Georgia. The incident is being investigated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Safety experts say the incident highlights the need for employers to introduce additional rules and training to address the increased use of earbuds and other technology that can impair hearing at work.
Industries affected include construction, food production, manufacturing, transportation, delivery, utility work or any other job where awareness of surroundings or the ability to quickly communicate, is important, experts say.
“You’re not going to have situational awareness when you’ve got music playing into your ears or if you’re talking on the phone with somebody,” said Don Enke, St. Louis-based vice president of risk services for Safety National Casualty Corp.
OSHA offers advice on earbud use in construction (see box) but does not have a specific earbuds regulation. Most citations for safety violations related to the use of distracting technologies would be under its general duty clause, Mr. Enke said.
Edwin Palmer, an attorney with Pittsburgh-based Burns White LLC, who represents employers in OSHA matters, said he is aware of more cases in which workers were injured due to their use of earbuds or other personal items that distracted them from job tasks requiring focus.
Companies should ensure workers are not placed in a “potentially dangerous or hazardous situation” by engaging in distractions at work sites that “have a lot of activity,” Mr. Palmer said.
While employees may be at fault for engaging in distracting activity including earbud use, injuries arising out of such situations will likely be compensable (see related story below).
The Georgia incident also highlights the issue of lockout/tagout procedures in industries such as manufacturing.
“You shouldn’t be interfacing with moving equipment, conveyors, without shutting it down and isolating energy sources,” Mr. Palmer said.
A Risk & Insurance Management Society Inc. spokesman said that in food production and manufacturing it’s “common practice for organizations to have policies in place that prohibit workers … from using earphones and cellphones.”
Prevention is key when trying to cut down on incidents involving distractions, such as workers using earbuds, because enforcement of safety policies can be more difficult, said John Geaney, co-chair of the workers compensation practice at Mt. Laurel, New Jersey-based law firm Capehart Scatchard PA.
“You’ve got to have a safety program. You have to pursue it aggressively,” he said.
John Lastella, Hauppauge, New York-based vice president of claims for third-party administrator Broadspire, a subsidiary of Crawford & Co., said many of his clients are updating employee manuals to prohibit distractions such as earbud use and offering training on the inherent dangers of these types of distractions.
For example, the U.S. Postal Service has a policy permitting workers to use earbuds, but only in certain situations, a spokesman said.
Letter carriers, who cross streets and may deal with pets, aren’t permitted to use headphones while driving or on foot, and their use is prohibited near moving machinery, during oral business communications or while in contact with the public, he said.
Earbuds are permitted for USPS employees whose duties are performed while seated or stationary but only when it doesn’t interfere with work or create a safety hazard, the spokesman said.
Managers tasked with enforcement are required to perform “work practice observations on every employee,” he said, and USPS provides ongoing safety talks highlighting the importance of employee compliance.
Enforcement of certain employer policies can be difficult, and in some cases distracted employees who violate policies would likely be compensated in the event of an injury claim, experts say.
Organizations should emphasize that workplace safety policies are for the benefit of workers and should not be viewed as a means of control, said Jeff Adelson, a partner with Irvine, California-based Bober, Peterson & Koby LLP, who represents employers in workers compensation cases.
“It’s the right thing to do,” Mr. Adelson said. “You have a duty to keep your employees safe in the workplace.”
Claim validity depends on misconduct
A workplace death arising from an employee’s contributory negligence is still likely to be considered a compensable injury in workers compensation, experts say.
In a Georgia case involving the death of a worker who became caught in a conveyor while trying to locate a dropped earbud, the employee broke company policy prohibiting personal earbuds at work, according to several media reports, but this type of violation is unlikely to prevent a workers comp claim, said John Geaney, co-chair of the workers compensation practice at Mt. Laurel, New Jersey-based law firm Capehart Scatchard PA.
The employer — Club Car LLC — did not respond to requests for comment.
“There’s no deliberate misconduct there, and it’s not reckless disregard either,” he said. “That was a freak accident.”
One way a claim may be found noncompensable in some states is if an employee engages in “deliberate misconduct” that leads to an injury, Mr. Geaney said.
An example of deliberate misconduct would be if a worker who is angry with his or her boss punched a wall and broke a hand. In such a case, the claim could be denied because the employee’s own deliberate action led to the injury.
In California, employers could challenge a comp claim if an employee engages in “serious and willful misconduct,” said Jeff Adelson, a partner with Irvine-based Bober, Peterson & Koby LLP.
In such cases, claims can be reduced by one-half of the total workers comp benefits, Mr. Adelson said. This wouldn’t apply, however, in cases where the injury creates disability of 70% or more, he said.
“The employer has to have a clearly stated prohibition,” Mr. Adelson said of these cases. “The employer has to take some action to stop it if they see it.”