• 01/01/2010 – 12/31/2010
• 01/01/2011 – 03/31/2011
|Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co. (Slip Opinion)||2008-0857||3/23/2010||3/23/2010||2010-Ohio-1027|
|Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)||2008-0972||3/23/2010||3/23/2010||2010-Ohio-1029|
"....If we are to fulfill the Department's goal of providing good jobs for everyone, we must make even more progress. Good jobs are safe jobs, and American workers still face unacceptable hazards. More than 5,000 workers are killed on the job in America each year, more than 4 million are injured, and thousands more will become ill in later years from present occupational exposures. Moreover, the workplaces of 2010 are not those of 1970: the law must change as our workplaces have changed. The vast majority of America's environmental and public health laws have undergone significant transformations since they were enacted in the 1960s and 70s, while the OSH Act has seen only minor amendments. As a British statesman once remarked, 'The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.'"
"Monetary penalties for violations of the OSH Act have been increased only once in 40 years despite inflation during that period. Unscrupulous employers often consider it more cost effective to pay the minimal OSHA penalty and continue to operate an unsafe workplace than to correct the underlying health and safety problem. The current penalties do not provide an adequate deterrent. This is apparent when compared to penalties that other agencies are allowed to assess."
"Criminal penalties in the OSH Act are also inadequate for deterring the most egregious employer wrongdoing. Under the OSH Act, criminal penalties are limited to those cases where a willful violation of an OSHA standard results in the death of a worker and to cases of false statements or misrepresentations. The maximum period of incarceration upon conviction for a violation that costs a worker's life is six months in jail, making these crimes a misdemeanor.....Nothing focuses attention like the possibility of going to jail. Unscrupulous employers who refuse to comply with safety and health standards as an economic calculus will think again if there is a chance that they will go to jail for ignoring their responsibilities to their workers...... A fresh look at the OSH Act and its relevance for the 21st century is indeed overdue."Click here to read more about OSHA and workers' compensation.
"EPA has also found that inhalation of asbestos can cause lung disease and cancer, and classified asbestos as a known human carcinogen. New York City has rules and regulations intended to reduce human exposure to asbestos fibers. Among other things, those rules and regulations require that, prior to the commencement of certain demolition and other projects, an inspection be performed by a New York City certified asbestos investigator to determine whether asbestos is present and, if so, how much and what kind, and whether the asbestos will be disturbed during the project. One purpose of the inspection is to determine whether or not the project is to be an "asbestos project" which requires the filing of a notice with the City and an abatement prior to commencement of the project. If the project is determined not to be an asbestos project, New York City rules and regulations require that a certified asbestos investigator complete, sign, and affix his or her asbestos investigator seal to a form captioned "Not an Asbestos Project," known generally as an ACP-5, and file that form with the City prior to issuance of a building permit and commencement of the project.
"Until approximately February 17, 2004, Todara was a New York City-certified asbestos investigator, which authorized Todaro to inspect buildings for asbestos and to prepare and file -3 ACP-5s. On or about February 17, 2004, however, the City of New York suspended Todaro's asbestos investigator certificate, after which Todaro was prohibited from performing building inspections for asbestos and from preparing and filing ACP-5s in the City of New York.
"However, despite the suspension of his asbestos investigator certificate, Todaro continued to prepare ACP-5s for filing with the City of New York regarding building projects taking place throughout the city. On numerous occasions, Todaro did so without actually performing an inspection of the premises identified in the ACP-5. In order to make it appear that inspections had actually been performed by a certified asbestos investigator, Todaro prepared backdated ACP-5s that falsely represented that he had performed an asbestos inspection and that he had done so prior to the suspension of his asbestos investigator certificate. Todaro submitted bogus ACP-5s, together with invoices describing the services provided as "Inspect/ACP5," to his customers, at least some of whom billed customers of their own for Todaro’s purported services. Certain kinds of demolition and renovation activities in buildings can result in the release of asbestos fibers from building components into the air and the contamination of building components with lead-containing dust. Asbestos fibers in the air can be detected through the taking of air samples and laboratory analysis of those samples ("air monitoring"). Lead contamination of building components can be detected through lead clearance testing.
"On hundreds of occasions, Todaro created and caused to be created false laboratory reports purporting to set forth the results of asbestos air monitoring and lead clearance testing performed at sites in which demolition and renovation activities were occurring or had occurred. Todaro then mailed these bogus reports, along with invoices for payment for his purported services, to customers. Those customers included, among others, management companies, landlords, and contractors. Some of Todaro's customers, in turn, billed customers of their own for Todaro's purported services. Moreover, some of the fraudulent invoices submitted by Tosaro were ultimately paid for under New York City government programs, administered by HPD, through which buildings in New York City were renovated, demolished, or demolished and re-built (the "HPD Programs"). One purpose of the -4 HPD Programs was to increase the stock of affordable housing in New York City.
A lawsuit was filed alleging that KRB, Inc. (NYSE KRB) endangered the health and safety of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan by exposing them to huge quantities of toxic dust, fumes and other air pollution by burning unsorted waste in vast open-air pits without any safety controls.
The lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court in New Jersey by the law firm of Jon L. Gelman LLC on behalf of two military veterans whose illnesses – which include respiratory disease, chronic cough, debilitating headaches, and neurological skin disorders – were allegedly caused by 24/7 hazardous emissions from burn pits.
KBR is accused of operating burn pits in such an unsafe manner that they permitted thick, noxious smoke emerging from the flames, sometimes colored blue or green by burning chemicals, to hang over US bases and camps across Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004.
According to the complaint, the burn pits are so large that tractors are used to push waste onto them and the flames shoot hundreds of feet into the sky. KBR allegedly burned waste such as biohazard materials including human corpses, medical supplies, paints, solvents, asbestos, items containing pesticides, animal carcasses, tires, lithium batteries, Styrofoam, wood, rubber, medical waste, large amounts of plastics, and even entire trucks.
Attorney Jon L. Gelman said, “it is alleged that KRB failed to follow prescribed safety protocols for the proper disposal of waste materials, and protect the health and safety of those soldiers serving in and about those areas. It was common knowledge that open-air incineration of toxic substances, including known carcinogens, endangered those individuals living in and about those areas. A company should not willfully disregard appropriate safety precautions and endanger US Solders heroically serving their country.
"We conclude that the District Court applied the appropriate standard for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and properly dismissed Donnelly's Amended Complaint for the reasons stated in its Opinion. Donnelly argues on appeal that no COM [Certificate of Merit] was required for his breach of contract and legal malpractice claims against the O'Malley defendants because these claims do not call for expert testimony to explain their lapses in judgment or failures in performance. He asserts that his allegations are easy for an ordinary person to understand. For instance, he asserts that the O'Malley defendants gave him employment advice, which is outside their realm of expertise. (Informal Br. at 5.) Regardless of how he chooses to characterize his claim, however, Donnelly's allegations pertain to the quality of the O'Malley defendants' professional representation of him, and thus a COM is required. See Gorski v. Smith, 812 A.2d 683, 694 (Pa.Super.Ct.2002) (stating that in cases where there is an attorney/client agreement for legal services, “there automatically arises a contractual duty on the part of the attorney to render those legal services in a manner that comports with the profession at large”); Pa. R. Civ. P. 1042.3 (a COM is required in “any action” against an attorney that calls into question whether counsel “deviated from an acceptable professional standard”). Involuntary dismissal under Rule 1042.3 is not a dismissal with prejudice, however. See Moore v. John A. Luchsinger, P.C., 862 A.2d 631, 634 n. 3 (Pa.Super.Ct.2004). Hence, we will affirm the District Court's order dismissing this claim as modified to be a dismissal without prejudice."
"We further hold that Chubb was not adequately represented in the proceedings that lead to the bankruptcy court's approval of the 1984 Insurance Settlement Agreement and the Manville Plan, and that it did not receive adequate notice of the 1986 Orders. Accordingly, both the bankruptcy court and the district court erred by rejecting Chubb's due process argument. Chubb is therefore not bound by the terms of the 1986 Orders. Consequently, it may attack the Orders collaterally as jurisdictionally void. And, as we held in Manville III, that attack is meritorious."
"Respondent's neuropsychiatric expert, L. Scott Eisenberg, M.D., examined petitioner on March 9, 2004. He noted petitioner's unrelated medical disorders as hypertension, diabetes, and a viral infection of the eye. He also noted that he had previously examined petitioner in December 2000. Dr. Eisenberg found "[a] degree of elaboration" by petitioner regarding his subjective complaints and concluded that there was no objective evidence of any increase in neurologic disability in 2004. He wrote: "Assuming the complaints and his presentation for the neuropsychiatric point of view are bona fide, I would estimate an additional disability in that regard of 2% of partial total related to his back condition."
"The judge of compensation was not bound to accept the conclusions of petitioner's doctors. See Perez v. Capitol Ornamental, Concrete Specialties, Inc., 288 N.J.Super. 359, 367-68 (App.Div.1996). On this record, he could reasonably accept the conclusions of respondent's doctors that they found no objective medical evidence in 2004 and 2006 demonstrating an increase in disability from that in 2000.JOSE MEDINA-SEGARRA v RUDL FENCING & DECKING,, DOCKET NO. A-3652-08T2, 2010 WL 1029948 (N.J.Super.A.D.).
"To constitute a Qualifying Injury, an alleged injury must satisfy all three of the following components of the Medical Proof Criteria: (i) it must be one of the “Qualifying Injuries” listed expressly in the tables immediately below; (ii) it must meet the “Diagnostic Criteria” applicable to the Disease Group in which the Qualifying Injury is listed in the tables immediately below; and (iii) it must satisfy the “Impairment Criteria” for the Disease Group in which the Qualifying Injury is listed in the tables..."The sources include:
"European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society COPD Guidelines – 2005; ATS/ERS Criteria for Diagnosis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Disease in Absence of Surgical Lung Biopsy; Global Initiative for Asthma/World Health Organization; American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Statement; British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines for the management of rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis. Scadding GK; Durham SR; Mirakian R; Jones NS; Drake-Lee AB; Ryan D; Dixon TA; Huber PA; Nasser SM - Clin Exp Allergy. 2008 Feb; 38(2):260-75. Epub 2007 Dec 20.
"Claimant slipped and fell at work in 2002, and his ensuing workers' compensation claim presently encompasses, among other things, injuries to his head, neck, back and knees. His morbid obesity has contributed to his knee and back problems and, in an effort to combat those problems and counter a broader threat to his survival, claimant sought authorization to undergo gastric bypass surgery. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge granted his request. Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, holding that the surgery was causally related to the compensable injuries.
"The employer is obliged to pay for claimant's medical care “for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require” (Workers' Compensation Law § 13[a]; see Matter of Spyhalsky v. Cross Constr., 294 A.D.2d 23, 25-26  ). There is evidence in the record that claimant has gained a substantial amount of weight since 2002 due to the sedentary lifestyle imposed by the compensable injuries. Claimant's treating orthopedic surgeon opined that claimant's back and knee pain was exacerbated by his obesity and that such could be alleviated by weight loss. An independent medical examiner agreed, opining that weight loss would “certainly” help those conditions. While material in the record before us could support a different result, substantial evidence exists for the Board's determination that claimant's weight gain was caused by his compensable injuries and that gastric bypass surgery “would assist in [his] recovery” ( Matter of Bolds v. Precision Health, Inc., 16 A.D.3d 1007, 1009 ; see Workers' Compensation Law § 13[a]; Matter of Spyhalsky v. Cross Constr., 294 A.D.2d at 25-26, 743 N.Y.S.2d 212).Laezzo v. New York State Thruway Authority, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2010 WL 812862, N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2010, March 11, 2010.
In 2005, the overall expectation of life at birth was 77.4 years, representing a decline of 0.1 years from life expectancy in 2004. From 2004 to 2005, life expectancy at birth remained the same for males (74.9), females (79.9), the white population (77.9), white males (75.4), white females (80.4), the black population (72.8), and black males (69.3). Life expectancy at birth increased for black females (from 76.0 to 76.1). Life expectancy estimates based on the revised meth odology are slightly lower than those based on the previous method ology. For 2005, life expectancy at birth based on the revised methodology was lower by 0.4 years for the total population.