Tag: Workers Comp

Minnesota lawmakers on Wednesday introduced two bills that would address workplace safety issues for warehouse and meatpacking industry workers.

H.B. 36 addresses quotas for those working in warehouses for merchandise and mail-order houses, requiring employers to provide any work expectations, such as work-speed requirements, in writing to employees and that restroom breaks shall be considered when crafting such quotas.

The bill states that if a particular work site or employer is found to have an​ employee incidence rate 30% or more higher than that year’s average​ incidence rate for similar nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses​ in that industry, the state would open an investigation of violations.

H.B. 23 addresses work safety for those working in the meatpacking industry, calling on the state labor commissioner to appoint a meatpacking industry worker rights coordinator​ in the Department of Labor and Industry and provide the coordinator with necessary office​ space, furniture, equipment, supplies and assistance.​

The bill also states that “a meat-processing worker has a right to refuse to work under conditions that the​ worker reasonably believes would expose the worker, other workers, or the public… (to) unreasonable risk of illness or injury, or exposure to illness or injury, including the infectious​ disease known as COVID-19.​”

The bill also prohibits employers from retaliating against such employees, who would be eligible for unemployment.

 

 

 

Missouri lawmakers will be considering legislation that would provide workers compensation presumptions for first responders for heart disease, certain cancers, hypertension and various infectious diseases.

COVID-19 would be included under the “severe acute respiratory syndrome” category of infectious diseases.

H.B. 568, read for the first time Wednesday, states that diseases “shall be presumed to be an occupational disease if there is reasonable medical evidence” that the first responder “was free of such disease at the beginning of his or her employment” and states that “it shall be the duty of the employer … to provide such reasonable medical evidence.”

If the employer fails to produce such evidence, this first responder “shall have the benefit of the presumption regardless of the absence of reasonable medical evidence,” the bill states. 

The bill would also amend existing state law regarding peace officers and “psychological stress” as an occupational illness, expanding the definition to “mental disorders” and adding paid, volunteer and retired firefighters and emergency medical technicians to the list of qualified occupations.

The bill also contains provisions on timing, including that the first responder must have been working in their occupation for at least five years. As for retirees, it would only apply to those who have been retired less than 20 years.

The Florida Division of Workers’ Compensation on Wednesday made public a notice of a proposed change to its rules on post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by first responders who witness “grievous bodily harm of a nature that shocks the conscience” to include correctional officers.

Existing law currently identifies eight separate injuries that qualify as “grievous bodily harm of a nature that shocks the conscience for first responders to receive workers compensation benefits for PTSD under certain circumstances.” Such injuries include decapitations and exposures to various internal organs.

The proposed change circumvents legislature “based on the statement of estimated regulatory costs,” the notice states, including that the division “has determined that this will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule.”

If requested within 21 days of the date of the notice, a hearing can be scheduled and announced in the Florida Administrative Register, the notice states. 

 

Mississippi lawmakers are looking to increase the maximum total recovery time in workers compensation cases by 16 months.

Legislators on Wednesday filed House Bill 200, which would increase maximum total recovery to 520 weeks, from the current 450 weeks.

Compensation for cases involving worker disability or death still cannot exceed two-thirds of the average weekly wage.

The proposed change to 520 weeks of maximum total recovery time would apply to cases of permanent total disability and temporary total disability.

The measure was referred to the House Insurance Committee. 

 

(Reuters) — Drugstore chain Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. reported a net quarterly loss Thursday as it took a $6.5 billion opioid litigation charge, sending its shares down nearly 2% in premarket trade.

Walgreens and rivals CVS Health Corp. and Walmart Inc. agreed in November to pay about $13.8 billion to resolve thousands of state and local lawsuits accusing the pharmacy chains of mishandling opioid pain drugs.

CVS took a pre-tax charge of $5.2 billion in its third quarter related to the settlement.

Walgreens, one of the largest U.S. pharmacies, had been relying on gains from administering COVID-19 vaccines to tide over losses from low prescription volumes due to the pandemic but has seen demand for the shots fall from the peak last year.

The drugstore chain has been looking to expand beyond its core business and spent $5.5 billion in 2021 to take majority stakes in health care providers VillageMD and CareCentrix.

In November, Walgreens said it was acquiring urgent care provider Summit Health through its VillageMD unit in a deal valued at $9 billion to expand its health care footprint.

Net loss attributable to Walgreens was $3.72 billion, or $4.31 per share, for the quarter ended Nov. 30, compared with a profit of $3.58 billion, or $4.13 per share, in the year-earlier period.

Excluding items, the company earned $1.16 per share in its first quarter, above Refinitiv IBES estimates of $1.14 a share.

 

Attention employers everywhere, especially in Texas, in the mushroom business, or in Florida, in toilet paper production: there’s a new tool that gathers data on where the Occupational Safety and Health Administration may be going next.

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart P.C. in late December launched its interactive “OSHA Tracker,” giving users anywhere the ability to search and filter Occupational Safety and Health Administration data to identify emerging issues and enforcement trends.

The firm says the tool compiles comprehensive OSHA inspection, citation and penalty data and allows employers to create custom searches and filter by OSHA region, state, industry or date.

And, according to a recent law firm blog post, there are “surprising and valuable OSHA statistics for the sunshine states of Florida, Texas, and California.”

“When imagining scandalous workplace safety issues, mushroom production may not be the first industry that comes to mind,” the firm says. “However, mushroom production is the top industry by average OSHA penalty in Texas. Florida’s top industry with OSHA penalties is ‘toilet preparation’ production.”

The tool also found that California’s top industry with OSHA penalties is office supplies manufacturing, which does not include paper. 

 

New York construction companies that are found criminally liable for worker injuries or deaths will face a fine of up to $1 million, under legislation recently signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul.

The governor also signed a bill declaring no finding or decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, judge or arbiter will have collateral estoppel effect in any other action or proceeding arising from the same occurrence, other than the determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

Gov. Hochul on Dec. 23 signed S. 621 and A. 4947, both named “Carlos’ Law” after a 22-year-old worker who died at a construction site that was repeatedly cited for safety violations.

Under this bill a corporation convicted of a felony leading to the death or injury of a worker can be fined $500,000 to $1 million. A corporation convicted of a misdemeanor involving the death or injury of a worker can be fined $300,000 to $500,000.

Gov. Hochul on Dec. 31 signed S. 9149 and A. 10349, limiting the preclusive effect of Workers’ Compensation Board decisions in trials involving a worker injured through negligence or wrongful conduct of third parties. The measure declares that WCB decisions in such cases would not be granted collateral estoppel effect in subsequent related actions, with the exception of board determinations on the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, prevents relitigating issues of fact or law already decided by a court.

WorkCompCentral is a sister publication of Business Insurance. More stories here.

 

 

Researchers have discovered a link between exposures to workplace inhalants and rheumatoid arthritis and are calling on employers to better protect workers.

A study published in the “Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases” says workers exposed to fumes from gases, vapors and solvents are at a heightened risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, an auto-immune disease characterized by severe joint pain and inflammation.

The researchers behind the study also found exposure to such inhalants appeared to boost the risk in smokers and those with a genetic predisposition to the disease.

The findings, compiled by researchers with the Division of Rheumatology, Inflammation and Immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, showed fumes from materials such as asbestos, diesel fuel, gasoline and fungicide were associated with an increased risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis.

The researchers stressed the importance of occupational respiratory protections, especially for workers with a genetic predisposition to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Obviously, you can’t change your genetics,” said Dr. Jeffrey Sparks, one of the researchers. “Certainly, anything you can do to mitigate that risk by limiting exposure,” is beneficial.

Dr. Sparks said the findings show employers should take seriously the health threats posed by exposure to dangerous inhalants.

“The companies are going to have to figure out how to get the jobs done,” Dr. Sparks said. “The actual individual will have to think about their comfort and functionality. If there’s a cleaner way to do the job, that would also be helpful.”

The study, which involved 4,033 people of various ages, looked at the general population. The data was not limited to specific types of jobs or industries, but researchers measured a total of 47 unique exposures, Dr. Sparks said.

The immediate impact on workers compensation cases is not clear, but Alan Gurvey, a Sherman Oaks, California-based workers comp applicants attorney with Rowen, Gurvey & Win said legal precedent permits workers comp claims in cases in which medical research ties a workplace inhalant to a resulting condition.

“Because the workers compensation appeals boards look at medical research that will substantiate and justify the claim with respect to the condition that has been claimed, it becomes pretty straightforward that any evidence that comes out will certainly be compelling,” Mr. Gurvey said.

Mr. Gurvey said he has worked cases involving scant evidence connecting workplace inhalant exposure and a resulting diagnosis, and judges still ruled in workers’ favor.

Mr. Gurvey cited a win in a case in which a client died from colon cancer that was believed to be tied to radiation exposure from his 27-year career in cable repair.

“It was a big victory to know that we had shown enough without strong research tying the two together,” Mr. Gurvey said.

Jenifer Kaufman, an Abington, Pennsylvania-based attorney cautioned that the study’s findings are preliminary.

“This is certainly an interesting and novel study,” Ms. Kaufman, who runs Kaufman Workers’ Compensation Law, wrote in an email. “I have handled plenty of occupational disease claims for breathing issues caused by inhalants/irritants at work.”

She said the research “is limited by its reliance on self-reporting of exposures and does not control for smoking.”

“I don’t think this is a game-changer for workers comp practitioners now, but if further and more scientific studies are completed it could be down the line,” she said.

 

Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

The Wyoming Supreme Court has upheld a determination by the state’s Medical Commission that an injured construction laborer was not entitled to permanent total disability benefits because of scant evidence supporting the man’s claim.

In Friday’s ruling, the high court sided with the Wyoming Medical Commission, which had affirmed a decision of the Department of Workforce Services, Workers’ Compensation Division, that denied an application for permanent total disability benefits filed by Fernando Rodriguez.

Mr. Rodriguez injured his wrist after falling out of a truck bed while working a construction job in 2007.

He received temporary partial disability and temporary total disability benefits between November 2007 and April 2008, but years later sought permanent benefits after complaining that chronic pain and related injuries stemming from the workplace incident prevented him from working in the construction field. 

Mr. Rodriguez, 53, is a Mexican immigrant who said his limited education and job experience only qualified him to work as a laborer.

The Wyoming Supreme Court agreed with the Medical Commission, which found Mr. Rodriguez was not a credible claimant because experts found he manipulated testing, exaggerated symptoms and displayed behavior at hearings that was inconsistent with his complaints.

The court ruled the commission did not act “arbitrarily and capriciously,” and that substantial evidence existed to support the body’s decision to deny Mr. Rodriguez’s application for permanent disability benefits.