Tag: Workers Comp

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration Monday announced a new workplace safety citation against a framing contractor that is already in debt collection for $117,843 in previous penalties.

OSHA cited Justice, Illinois-based KW Framing Inc. for one “repeat” violation and two “willful” violations after inspectors in January and May found workers exposed to fall hazards.

On numerous occasions, safety inspectors working at separate residential construction sites found employees erecting exterior walls without required protective equipment, OSHA said.

KW Framing also failed to provide eye protection to workers, failed to have guardrails or stair rails in place on construction projects, and failed to ensure that workers wore proper head protection, the agency said.

OSHA said the company has thus far failed to respond to separate citations issued in 2022 and has not made an effort to pay the more than $100,000 in previous penalties, which caused OSHA to seek debt collection. 

KW Framing has 15 business days to contest the latest citation and proposed penalties.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration said Monday that it cited two Idaho companies following an airport hangar collapse in January that killed three workers and injured at least eight others.

The agency cited Meridian-based Big D Builders Inc. for one “willful” violation and three “serious” violations, and proposed $198,586 in penalties, after the incident near the Boise Airport.

OSHA also cited Boise-based Inland Crane Inc. for one “serious” violation in connection with the incident and proposed $10,163 in penalties for exposing workers to collapse hazards.

OSHA investigators said Big D erected the airport hangar without using sufficient bracing or tensioned guy wires. The agency also said the building contractor “ignored numerous indications that the structure was unstable.”

Big D also failed to train workers on properly constructing steel spans and allowed cranes and other equipment to operate in mud and standing water, which exposed workers to the risk of overturned machines.

Big D and Inland Crane have 15 business days to contest the citations and proposed penalties.  

 

Business Insurance on Monday named the 2024 winners of its annual Women to Watch awards program.

The program, which began in 2006, recognizes women leaders doing outstanding work in risk management and commercial insurance. From the beginning, the program has recognized winners working around the globe, and in 2017 the publication expanded the awards to include a separate program specifically for women executives in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Business Insurance readers nominated candidates for Women to Watch, and a panel of Business Insurance editors selected the honorees based on those nominations.

Below are this year’s 30 honorees for Women to Watch and 20 honorees for Women to Watch EMEA.

Profiles of the winners will appear in the December issue of Business Insurance. The awards will be presented during events in New York on Nov. 18-19 and London on Dec. 5.

Women to Watch

Stephanie Bolstridge, Travelers Cos. Inc.

Sally Borland, AssuredPartners Inc.

Margaret Bussiere, Risk Strategies Co.

Alicia Carter, Old Dominion Freight Line Inc.

Amber Carver, Burns & Wilcox

Ann Chai, Zurich North America

Jennifer Cogbill, Gallagher Bassett Services Inc.

Alison Erbig, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Michelle Faylo, Lockton Cos. LLC

Eileen Fongemie, The MEMIC Group

Kathy Guerville, Ryan Specialty Holdings Inc.

Maggie Hyland, Sompo International Holdings Ltd.

Judie Meszaros Kirkpatrick, TIAA

Dionne Lacey-Artis, Optum Inc.

Yelena La Forgia, Aspen U.S. and Aspen Insurance, units of Aspen Insurance Holdings Ltd.

Mary MacDonnell, Bridge Specialty, a division of Brown & Brown Inc.

Sarah Nichols, Crum & Forster

Alejandra Nolibos, Willis Towers Watson PLC

Lucy Pilko, Axa XL, a unit of Axa SA

Jennifer Pille, Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc.

Laura Quackenbush, American International Group Inc.

Laurel Rudnick, FM Affiliated

Julie Saunders, Argo Group International Holdings Ltd.

Deepika Srivastava, The Doctors Co.

Sarah Stephens, Marsh LLC

Caroline Thompson, Cowbell Cyber Inc.

Lauren Tredinnick, Munich Re Specialty, a unit of Munich Reinsurance Co.

Maria Treglia, Arc Excess & Surplus LLC

Christina Williams, Aon PLC

Jessica Xie, Hylant Group Inc.

Women to Watch EMEA

Kirsty Adam, Tokio Marine HCC, a unit of Tokio Marine Holdings Inc.

Funké Adeosun, Allianz Commercial, a unit of Allianz SE

Isabelle Clausner, Xceedance Consulting Ltd.

Ines Cloarec, Liberty Mutual Reinsurance

Anita Gabat, Zurich Insurance Group

Joanna Grant, Fenchurch Law

Lucinda Hodgkinson, Artex Risk Solutions, a unit of Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

Ellie Horner, Beazley PLC

Chantal Joosse, Willis Towers Watson PLC

Louise Kidd, Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Co.

Diane Maccury, Charles Taylor Ltd.

Cristina Martinez, Sacyr S.A.

Carly Matson, Altea Insurance

Hema Mistry, Marsh Ltd.

Tania Mouton, Ryan Specialty International, a unit of Ryan Specialty Holdings Inc.

Yvonne Palm, Africa Reinsurance Corp.

Jessica Reimers, Südvers GmbH

Azucena Roldan, Swiss Reinsurance Co. Ltd.

Daniella Smith, Euclid Transactional, a division of Euclid Insurance Services Inc.

Julijana Sumner, Axa XL, a unit of Axa SA

For more information on the New York event, click here. For more information on the London event, click here.

 

A trial judge wrongly found that litigation against Gannett Co. Inc. filed by three plaintiffs who claim they were sexually abused as children by a supervisor while newspaper carriers in the 1980s belonged before a workers compensation panel and not in civil court, a New York appeals court ruled Friday.

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, said the trial judge erred in granting a motion by Gannett to stay the litigation and refer the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board over questions about workers comp exclusive remedy.

The plaintiffs separately sued Gannett for negligence and the cases were consolidated.

Gannett sought to have the comp board determine whether the injuries occurred during the course of employment and were therefore subject to workers comp.

The appellate court said that while the workers comp board has jurisdiction over factual questions regarding the workers comp process, civil courts still retain jurisdiction over alleged violations of the state Child Victims Act that is the basis for the litigation.

The appellate court said that instead of referring the matter to the workers comp board, the trial judge should have determined whether the Child Victims Act “revives otherwise time-barred claims for workers’ compensation benefits, based on allegations of sexual abuse by a coworker,” the ruling states.

The appeals court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court. 

 

Global marine cargo services company Maersk Line Ltd. agreed to change its safety reporting policy as part of a settlement with the U.S. Department of Labor following the firing of a seaman who raised workplace safety concerns.

The settlement, which the DOL announced Friday, came after a three-day hearing in Boston in June during which Maersk contested the allegation that it illegally fired the seaman, who had reported safety concerns to the U.S. Coast Guard.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration had found Maersk’s policy forbidding employees from contacting the Coast Guard or regulatory agencies without first notifying the company violated the federal Seaman’s Protection Act.

The retaliatory firing came after the seaman alerted the Coast Guard to safety concerns aboard the Safmarine Mafadi container ship, including a failure to repair or replace lifeboat equipment, improper supervision of cadet seamen, and a failure to repair a bilge system to prevent cargo holds from flooding, the DOL said.

The settlement mandates Maersk end its requirement that workers first notify the company before contacting the Coast Guard or regulatory agencies, refrain from retaliating against whistleblowers, and provide enhanced supervisor training.

Maersk, which didn’t admit to violations of the Seaman’s Protection Act as part of the settlement, agreed to compensate the fired seaman for lost wages and damages.

 

Maryland occupational safety regulators are finalizing a proposed standard that would establish minimum requirements for employers to protect workers from heat. 

The Maryland Occupational Safety and Health standard, currently in draft form, would mandate that workers be given shade access, rest and water breaks and require employers to monitor new employees during a weather acclimatization period for signs of heat-related illness.

The proposed regulation is expected to be published in late July or early August.

Similar heat standards are being considered elsewhere. In California, new heat protection safety rules went into effect Wednesday.

 

 

 

A crane oiler seriously injured by an electric shock is barred from suing a cell tower owner because the company was his “statutory employer,” the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The appellate court said a trial judge correctly ruled that SAC Wireless LLC was Antonio Hall’s statutory employer under Georgia’s Workers’ Compensation Act and therefore immune from tort liability.

Mr. Hall, who was seriously injured when a crane that was being disassembled came into contact with power lines, received workers compensation benefits from his employer, Maxim Crane Works L.P.

Maxim had provided the crane to SAC Wireless for work on a cell tower. Mr. Hall sued SAC Wireless, the tower’s owner, for negligence and punitive damages.

The appeals court agreed with the trial judge that the lawsuit was barred by workers comp exclusivity, saying Mr. Hall was considered a statutory employee of SAC who was eligible for workers comp benefits.

Mr. Hall also argued that his job duties of disassembling the crane were not part of the contract between SAC and Maxim, but the 11th Circuit called that argument “illogical.” 

The case is Antonio Hall vs. SAC Wireless LLC.

 

(Reuters) — The California Supreme Court Thursday upheld a measure approved by voters allowing app-based services such as Uber and Lyft to consider drivers independent contractors rather than employees entitled to greater benefits.

The ruling is a major victory for the ride-hailing industry, which has said that many companies would end or limit service in the state if they were forced to treat thousands of drivers as their employees.

The court dismissed a lawsuit by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and four drivers who say the 2020 ballot measure known as Proposition 22, which preserves drivers’ contractor status while granting them some benefits, was unconstitutional.

Uber said in a statement that the ruling upheld “the will of the nearly 10 million Californians who voted to deliver historic benefits and protections to drivers, while protecting their independence.”

SEIU California Executive Director Tia Orr said the union was disappointed by the ruling but that ride-share drivers could continue to fight for their rights by seeking to unionize.

“Gig workers are determined to ensure fairness in the gig economy and won’t stop fighting to win greater workplace rights and protections on the job,” she said.

Whether gig workers should be treated as employees or contractors is a crucial issue for the ride-share industry. Employees are entitled to minimum wage, overtime pay, reimbursements for expenses and other protections that do not extend to independent contractors, who can cost companies up to 30% less, according to several studies.

Uber, Lyft and other app-based services spent more than $200 million on a campaign to pass Prop 22, which they say allows drivers to continue earning money while enjoying the flexibility of part-time gig work.

 

A Federal Express Corp. employee who says she suffered cumulative trauma from years of physically demanding work is not entitled to medical and disability workers compensation benefits because she never gave proper notice of her injuries to her employer, the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims ruled Wednesday.

The court denied the petition for workers comp benefits filed by Shalanda White, who said she suffered repetitive motion injuries to both of her knees.

Ms. White sought an initial diagnosis for her injuries in October 2020 and later underwent an imaging scan and sought additional treatment.

During a hearing, Ms. White testified that she informed her manager about the injuries but was told to wait for the results of an MRI before submitting a workers comp claim.

The court ruled that Ms. White had to give notice to her employer within 15 days of when she “knows or reasonably should have known” that she suffered a work injury.

Ms. White didn’t give notice until late December 2020.

The court wrote that while Ms. White informed her supervisor of the knee injuries, she failed to tell him that the injury was work-related.