Tag: Workers Comp

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin on Monday signed into law legislation that offers some public sector employees certain workplace protections regarding the use of medical marijuana.

The new law, which had been introduced as House Bill 149, prevents certain public sector employers from firing, disciplining or discriminating against employees’ lawful use of medical cannabis oil.

The law still allows employers to take disciplinary action against employees who are found to be impaired by marijuana while on the job.

According to the bill, law enforcement officers are not among those public sector workers offered these protections.

Employees who would be covered, however, are firefighters, emergency services providers and other civil servants, according to the Virginia chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana laws, which in a statement called the law’s passage a “long overdue victory.”

Virginia law already offers workplace medical marijuana protections for private sector employees, according to NORML. 

 

 

A Tennessee workers compensation court ruled Monday that a worker who alleged he was injured after contracting COVID-19 on the job was not entitled to benefits.

The Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims granted a motion to dismiss filed by Facility Installation Service in a case by Darold Swanson, who claims he contracted COVID-19 from a co-worker.

Mr. Swanson said he was hospitalized in the intensive care unit several times, and that he continues to suffer from atrial fibrillation and blood clots in his lungs and heart because of his injuries.

Mr. Swanson filed for workers comp benefits in July 2023, two years after he allegedly contracted the virus at work. The employer and insurer challenged the claim because it was filed too late, and because Mr. Swanson failed to cooperate in scheduling mediation and never produced medical records.  

In March, Mr. Swanson filed a motion seeking additional time to obtain medical evidence, but he failed to appear for an April 1 hearing, the ruling states.  

In dismissing the claim, the court wrote that Mr. Swanson lacked “specificity or any explanation as to what type of incapacity he alleges or how long it lasted,” and that he never explained what would have prevented him from filing his workers comp claim within one year of the date of injury.

The court dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Mr. Swanson is not permitted to refile the claim.   

 

 

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration said Friday that it cited a St. Louis-based roofing contractor for repeat violations after inspectors observed workers exposed to fall hazards at five residential work sites in November 2023.

OSHA cited HR Vasquez Construction LLC for 13 violations – nine repeat, three serious and one other-than-serious, and proposed $267,332 in penalties.

The agency said the company failed to provide employees with fall protection and failed to ensure workers using pneumatic nail guns wore proper eye and face protective equipment at the five work sites in Wentzville.

HR Vasquez has been cited seven times since 2021, according to OSHA.

The company has 15 business days to contest the latest citation and proposed penalties.

 

Lawmakers in California will be considering a bill that would require employers to stock anti-opioid overdose medication in their required first aid kits.

A.B. 1976, made public Thursday and sent to an appropriations committee, would require the standards board with the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, to draft a rulemaking proposal “to revise a regulation on first aid materials to require all first aid kits in a workplace to include nasal spray naloxone hydrochloride,” according to a legislative digest.

The bill would require the Cal/OSHA standards board to adopt the revised standard for first aid kits before Dec. 31, 2026.

The proposal is in line with nationwide efforts to reduce opioid overdoses at work. 

 

 

 

A New York appellate court said Thursday that the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board erred when it failed to consider the results of an audiogram during an independent medical examination in a case involving a worker’s alleged occupational hearing loss.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reversed a comp board’s decision in a 2017 occupational disease claim brought by Ryszard Cala, who says he sustained binaural hearing loss due to prolonged exposure to loud noises during his employment as an asbestos handler.

The employer, PAL Environmental Safety Corp., and its insurer controverted the claim. A workers comp judge later determined Mr. Cala sustained about a quarter of his hearing loss based on reports by the insurer’s physician, a ruling that was subsequently upheld by the workers comp board.

Mr. Cala’s treating physician, however, found that Mr. Cala sustained a greater percentage of hearing loss – nearly three-quarters – than was diagnosed by the insurer’s physician.

The appeals court said it previously found that the board failed to address an omission of a copy of the audiogram results during the independent medical exam process, but that the board, in 2022, failed to address that issue, instead focusing on the fact that Mr. Cala’s benefits application was apparently untimely filed.

On Thursday, the appeals court again remanded the case to the workers comp board to address why the audiogram’s results during the IME process were omitted from the record. 

 

 

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear on Thursday signed into law a bill that opens up the pool of providers permitted to handle claims involving injured workers.

The governor signed House Bill 401, which authorizes physicians licensed in any state to treat claimants in workers compensation claims.

Kentucky had limited workers comp treating physicians to doctors licensed in the state.

The Pennsylvania Insurance Department and Department of Labor & Industry on Thursday announced a 7.88% reduction in loss costs, which is expected to lead to lower workers compensation premiums for many state businesses.

Regulators said the latest filing is in line with other reductions over the past several years.

Regulators said workers comp insurance premium savings will vary based on an employer’s risk classification and other factors.   

A Pennsylvania appellate court on Thursday said a workers compensation judge erred in ruling that a worker injured in 2006 had the burden to show that his ongoing medical issues were connected to the workplace accident.  

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court partially reversed a workers comp judge’s decision denying a medical review petition by Norman Rickley, who injured his back while releasing a fifth wheel on a tractor-trailer in March 2006.

Mr. Rickley sought workers comp benefits for symptoms he said were connected to the original injury.   

His previous employer, Dandy Service Corp., challenged the petition, arguing that the symptoms may have been connected to work injuries that Mr. Rickley sustained on successive jobs.  

A comp judge in 2010 approved a settlement for indemnity benefits but left Dandy Service responsible for Mr. Rickley’s ongoing medical expenses.

Mr. Rickley filed a different claim in 2020 against Carrols Corp., operator of a Burger King franchise where Mr. Rickley later worked, based on a November 2017 back injury.

Mr. Rickley filed a medical review petition against Dandy Service in October 2020 for failing to pay for medical bills connected to the 2006 accident.

A judge denied the petition, finding medical treatment in 2020 was unrelated to the 2006 injury. A comp board agreed.

The appeals court said Dandy Service had to prove the future medical symptoms were unconnected to the original injury and failed to do so.

It remanded the case to the workers comp board.   

 

 

A Florida appellate court on Wednesday reversed a decision granting summary judgment to a contractor who was sued by a worker who alleges he was injured during a fall while he was securing a tarp to the roof of a two-story residence in preparation for an insurance inspection.

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal found that a trial court wrongly determined Claudio Navarro failed to establish he was working under the direction of Alfredo Borges when he was injured in October 2017.

Mr. Borges sent Mr. Navarro to Palmetto Bay to place a tarp on the roof of a home damaged during Hurricane Irma, the ruling states. Mr. Navarro installed the tarp without incident.

Days later, Mr. Navarro, on a different job site, overheard workers discussing problems with the tarp, after which Mr. Borges “had given the order” for Mr. Navarro to fix the issue prior to the insurance inspection, the ruling states.

Mr. Navarro fell while attempting to correct the tarp problem without safety equipment and was injured.  

Mr. Borges argued he had no duty to provide safety equipment on the day of the incident because he said he didn’t order Mr. Navarro to go to the job site. The trial judge agreed with Mr. Borges.

The appeals court said Mr. Navarro presented evidence that Mr. Borges may have engaged in “misfeasance” rather than “nonfeasance,” and it remanded the case to the trial judge for further proceedings.