Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

NJ Judge Dismisses Claim of Oil Spill Worker

A New Jersey Workers' Compensation Judge has dismissed the claim of a maintenance worker who was employed by The Port Authority of NY & NJ (Port Authority) to clean up oil spills. The longterm employee, testified that for 7 years during his employment, he was assigned to Newark Airport as part of en emergency response team to clean up "jet fuel spills, aircraft hydraulic leaks, emergency landings and car accidents." The employee claimed that his exposure to petroleum products occurred also as a buildings and grounds attendant at Port Newark and Lincoln Tunnel while performing spill cleanup work for the Port Authority. The worker testified to benzene exposure  as well as asbestos fiber.


Despite the fact that the employee, a non-smoker, testified that he experienced headaches, a sore throat, was tired and suffered from dry mouth, the Judge did not hold the case compensable. The worker explained to the Court that he operated a mechanical sweeper that scrubbed the soiled surfaces with a product known as "Speedy Dry" as part of the spill clean up procedure.


The Court rejected the workers' medical expert who had found him 40% disabled on a pulmonary basis for chronic bronchitis, obstructive lung disease and restrictive pulmonary disease with pleural scarring. The Court relied upon the respondent's medical expert who found that the worker  was 3% disabled for pulmonary disability unrelated to the occupational exposure that the defense expert diagnosed as  a cough and sinus condition, and "mild bronchitis." In its analysis the Court indicated that no scientific literature was presented attributing causal relationship of the exposure to an occupational condition. 


The decision was silent as to any allegation or need for medical monitoring.


Melo v. The Port Authority on NY & NJ., CP No. : 2006-25707 (Decided May 19, 2010).   


To read more about petroleum exposure and workers' compensation.

Benzene Exposure Near the U.S. Permissible Limit Is Associated with Sperm Aneuploidy

Benzene appeared to increase the frequencies of aneuploid sperm for chromosomes associated with chromosomal abnormality syndromes in human offspring, even in men whose air benzene exposure was at or below the U.S. permissible exposure limit.

Benzene is a widespread environmental pollutant that has been associated with leukemia and various blood disorders. Prior reports have indicated an association between high-concentration benzene exposure and increased frequencies of sperm with chromosomal disomy, as well as sperm with chromosomal aberrations. Xing et al. (p. 833) investigated whether 33 men that were occupationally exposed to benzene had higher frequencies of sperm aneuploidy than 33 unexposed men and whether the relationship was dose-related. Sperm aneuploidy increased across low- and high-exposed groups for disomy X and overall hyperhaploidy for the three chromosomes investigated. There was also increased disomy X and hyperhaploidy in men exposed to ≤ 1 ppm benzene. The authors conclude that benzene appeared to increase the frequencies of aneuploid sperm for chromosomes associated with chromosomal abnormality syndromes, even in men whose air benzene exposure was at concentrations at or below the permissible exposure limit.

Xing C, Marchetti F, Li G, Weldon RH, Kurtovich E, Young S, et al. 2010. Benzene Exposure Near the U.S. Permissible Limit Is Associated with Sperm Aneuploidy. Environ Health Perspect 118:833-839. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901531

Monday, June 14, 2010

Designing a BP Oil Spill Compensation Fund



As the Obama Administration debates the format for an Gulf Oil Spill Compensation the critical factors of funding, administration and longevity of the program remain unresolved. Tonight The PBS News Hour provided only a limited insight into the major issues involved in such a program.

Essential to the program is the adequacy and efficiency of the delivery of benefits to injured and exposed workers. While comparisons continue to be drawn to the the longest tort in American history, asbestos, and the Victims Compensation Fund of 911, sight continues to be lost of the injured and exposed workers who have been faced with a basic workers' compensation system that for the most part, failed to adequately miss their needs.

Daniel Farber, Director of the environmental law program at the University of California, Berkeley's Law School highlighted some of the design failures of the past in Federal programs when he stated, "Well, I don't know if we need a custom-built scheme for BP, but I think that this has shown a genuine problem, both here, but also with other kinds of environmental disasters, with public health disasters, which is that we have a very long litigation process, and people may need help right away."

Missing from the discussion, yet again, are the injured workers, the employers, the workers' compensation insurance carriers and their advocacy groups discussing the essential issue of compensating oil spill workers. History teaches us that in the past Federal programs have missed the mark in creating adequate programs to meet the needs of compensating injured workers. Hopefully, the opportunity will not be lost this time to create a viable, fair and exemplary program.

To read more about petroleum exposure and workers' compensation.

Click here for more information on how Jon L Gelman can assist you in a claim for workers' Compensation claim benefits. You may e-mail Jon  Gelman or call 1-973-696-7900.

Federalizing Workers Compensation for Oil Spill Workers

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest environmental disaster in US history, creates a massive challenge to the nations' workers' compensation system. The system, already stressed to its limits, must now attempt to compensate injured workers and volunteers who are working to clean up the huge oil spill.


In the past, when disasters of this magnitude confronted the nation's workforce, the Federal government has established a separate compensation system to provide benefits. Based upon the new Federal national health care legislation, and the provisions enacted under the Libby Health Care Plan, it appears logical that this health disaster would be more than suitable for incorporation into a Federalized workers' compensation program. 


The government has recently identified numerous hazardous chemicals and adverse health effects that may confront oil spill workers. Those include: drowning, occupational exposures exposures to dispersants, heat and cold, fatigue, confined spaces, ergonomic stress, noise, biohazards, ergonomic stresses, confined spaces, and many other conditions. 


The civil liability claims are targeted to the potential ultimate wrongdoers: British Petroleum-energy company; Transocean Ltd., rig owner; Halliburton Energy Services, cement contractor; or Cameron International, blowout preventer manufacturer, under civil liability or statutory authority of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). The emergent issue that remains is how to deliver benefits to injured or exposed workers and volunteers. That remains in limbo. Even if the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund were allowed to be tapped for compensation benefits, years of delay over litigation would exist before payments were actually made to victims.


A declaration of a health emergency from the Secretary of Health and Human Services at this time would appear to be more than appropriate so that the health needs of the workers and volunteers could be immediately addressed. To delay action will only adds insult to injury. Invoking, at once, of the Libby Health Care program provisions would provide a first start to much needed relief to the Gulf spill workers and volunteers.


To read more about petroleum exposure and workers' compensation.


Click here for more information on how Jon L Gelman can assist you in a claim for workers' Compensation claim benefits. You may e-mail Jon  Gelman or call 1-973-696-7900.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Quebec to Resuscitate Its Asbestos Industry

Despite a public outcry and world wide outrage, the Quebec government is now poised to infuse the Province's idle asbestos mining industry with financial support to bring it back to life.  The Montreal Gazette reports that the cabinet of Quebec Premiere Jean Charest's cabinet is about to approve a $58 Million loan to activate the Jeffry Mine in Asbestos, Quebec. The mine has been idle since 2002. Asbestos is a known carcinogen that has been causally linked to lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare and fatal malignancy. Hundreds of thousands of claims have been filed against the asbestos industry for direct liability. Verdicts continue to be reported in record number in cases filed by asbestos victims and their families. While asbestos use has been banned in many countries, Canada and the United States have yet to ban is use.  Click here to read more about asbestos related disease and claims for benefits. For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com  has been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered asbestos related illnesses.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Asbestos Manufacture Garlock Files for Bankruptcy Protection



Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, a former manufacturer of asbestos products (The Anchor Packing Company), announced that it has taken a step toward a permanent resolution of asbestos-related personal injury claims against the company. Today, Garlock filed a voluntary petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.


Asbestos has been used for insulation properties. It is a known cancer causing agent and responsible for causing asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.


For the past 35 years Garlock has defended its liability in asbestos claims. Garlock has processed more than 900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments, settlements and dismissals) and, together with its insurers, has paid over $1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and over $400 million in fees and expenses.


Garlock manufactured asbestos containing gaskets, pipe joints, values and other equipment.


Garlock will operate in the ordinary course under court protection from asbestos claimants while in the claims resolution process available under Chapter 11. All pending litigation against Garlock will be stayed as the company seeks to develop and implement a court-approved plan to permanently resolve all asbestos-related claims. Garlock plans to negotiate with representatives of asbestos claimants to establish a trust to pay all valid claims. Absent a negotiated resolution, Garlock intends to ask the court to determine the amount necessary to fund the trust.


Click here to read more about asbestos related disease and claims for benefits. For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered asbestos related illnesses.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Oil Spill Workers Exposed to Hazards

The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued safety precautions to be taken by workers who are responding to the British Petroleum oil spill.

The original workers' compensation acts of 1911 did not consider occupational illnesses and diseases compensable events. Through the years that has changed and those conditions are now compensable in most jurisdictions. The American legal system, which was based upon British common law, rapidly developed a need to adopt a mechanism for the delivery of benefits to injured workers during the early 20th century. The initial workers' compensation statutes adopted by numerous states were based upon the British statute which provided for compensation benefits in cases in which traumatic accidents had occurred but not in cases in which occupational disease was involved. While the British statute was amended by 1906 to include occupational disease, none of the American statutes reflected this modification at the time of their enactment.

"Marine oil spill responders face a variety of health and safety hazards, including fire and explosion, oxygen deficiency, exposure to carcinogens and other chemical hazards, heat and cold stress, and safety hazards associated with working around heavy equipment in a marine environment. A full discussion of these hazards is beyond the scope of this training booklet, but a brief list of hazards and their known health consequences is shown in Table 1 [see below]. Your workers should be trained to anticipate and control exposure to the hazards associated with their assigned duties.

"To determine acceptable levels of exposure and train your workers about them, consult OSHA's exposure limits in Subparts G and Z. If OSHA does not regulate an exposure of concern, consult the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs) and Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) levels. If neither OSHA nor NIOSH has established a limit, consult the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs) for chemical, physical, and biological agents. You may use a more protective limit than OSHA's if one has been established and plan your controls accordingly. Material Safety Data Sheets from the product manufacturer may provide useful information for worker training.

"Additional Hazards Marine oil spill responders need training to work safely around these and other potential hazards. You should decide which hazards apply to your operations.

  • Biological (e.g., plants, animals, insects, remediation materials)
  • Drowning
  • Noise
  • Electricity
  • Slips and Trips
  • Biohazardous debris (e.g., syringes on shoreline)
  • Ergonomic Stresses (e.g., repetitive strain, low back pain)
  • Sunburn
  • Confined Spaces
  • Underwater Diving
  • Falls
  • Unguarded Equipment
  • Cranes
  • Fatigue
  • Vehicles (e.g., aircraft, boats, cars, trucks)
  • Cutting and Welding
  • Fire and Explosion
  • Degreasers
  • Heat or Cold Stress
  • Dispersants
  • In-Situ Burning Particles
Hazards of exposure include the following: