Copyright

(c) 2010-2026 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Flavoring Workers At Higher Risk for Alzheimers

English: for microwave ovens, popped state.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A new study raises concern about chronic exposure of workers in industry to a food flavoring ingredient used to produce the distinctive buttery flavor and aroma of microwave popcorn, margarines, snack foods, candy, baked goods, pet foods and other products. It found evidence that the ingredient, diacetyl (DA), intensifies the damaging effects of an abnormal brain protein linked to Alzheimer’s disease. The study appears in ACS’ journal Chemical Research in Toxicology.


Robert Vince and colleagues Swati More and Ashish Vartak explain that DA has been the focus of much research recently because it is linked to respiratory and other problems in workers at microwave popcorn and food-flavoring factories. DA gives microwave popcorn its distinctive buttery taste and aroma. DA also forms naturally in fermented beverages such as beer, and gives some chardonnay wines a buttery taste. Vince’s team realized that DA has an architecture similar to a substance that makes beta-amyloid proteins clump together in the brain — clumping being a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. So they tested whether DA also could clump those proteins.


DA did increase the level of beta-amyloid clumping. At real-world occupational exposure levels, DA also enhanced beta-amyloid’s toxic effects on nerve cells growing in the laboratory. Other lab experiments showed that DA easily penetrated the so-called “blood-brain barrier,” which keeps many harmful substances from entering the brain. DA also stopped a protective protein called glyoxalase I from safeguarding nerve cells. “In light of the chronic exposure of industry workers to DA, this study raises the troubling possibility of long-term neurological toxicity mediated by DA,” say the researchers.


The authors acknowledge funding from the Center for Drug Design (CDD) research endowment funds at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
....
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 work related accident and injuries.


Read  more about diacetyl


Jun 21, 2012
However, it is important to consider the possibility of flavoring-related lung disease in workers who have been exposed to diacetyl or similar flavoring chemicals and have respiratory symptoms. About Symptoms Symptoms are ...
Aug 18, 2011
For public review and comment, the draft document summarizes current scientific knowledge about the occupational safety and health implications of the food flavorings diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione, and recommends ...
Dec 22, 2010
Diacetyl is a substance widely used in food and beverage flavorings. Diacetyl is used in a wide variety of food flavorings, although flavor manufacturers have begun to reduce or eliminate the amount of diacetyl in some kinds ...
Dec 04, 2010
Cal/OSHA continues to be a national leader in worker safety by implementing a new standard today to protect employees who work with diacetyl, a chemical commonly used to give food flavorings a buttery taste. Cal/OSHA, a...


Friday, August 3, 2012

Coordinating Workers Compensation & Social Security: The Inequity Among States Continues

Source: National Academy of Social Insurance



A recently published report by the National Academy of Social Insurance reflects that a "reverse offset" (coordination of benefits) still continues in 15 states. In reverse offset states, the insurance carrier gains the financial benefit of the coordination of benefits and NOT the Federal Social Security system. 

"If a worker becomes eligible for both workers’ compensation and Social Security disability insurance benefits, one or both of the programs will limit benefits to avoid making excessive payments relative to the worker’s past earnings. The Social Security amendments of 1965 require that Social Security disability benefits be reduced
15 (or “offset”) so that the combined totals of workers’ compensation and Social Security disability benefits do not exceed 80 percent of the workers’ prior earnings. 16 Some states, however, had established reverse offset laws prior to the 1965 legislation, whereby workers’ compensation payments are reduced if the worker receives Social Security disability benefits. Legislation in 1981 eliminated the states’ option to adopt reverse offset laws, but the 15 states that already had such laws in place were exempted. 17
__
15 The portion of workers’ compensation benefits that offset (reduce) SSDI benefits are subject to federal income tax (IRC section 86(d)(3)).

16 The cap remains at 80 percent of the worker’s average earnings before disability, except that, in the relatively few cases when Social Security disability benefits for the worker and dependents exceed 80 percent of prior earnings, the benefits are not reduced below the Social Security amount. This cap also applies to coordination between Social Security disability insurance and other public disability benefits (PDB) derived from jobs not covered by Social Security, such as state or local government jobs where the governmental employer has chosen not to cover its employees under Social Security.

17 States with reverse offset laws are: Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin.

More Articles About The Offset
Feb 26, 2011
A NJ Court of Appeals has ruled that the reverse-offset permitted under Federal law was allowed to be asserted by an insurance carrier years after an original workers' compensation judgment was entered. Even though the ...
Dec 01, 2009
Social Security (SSA) has been subsidizing a select group of States since 1981. The workers' compensation insurance carriers in only those select States are permitted to take a credit against SSA payments. The US Congress ...
Mar 23, 2008
In 1984 Congress amended The Social Security Amendments of 1956 and required that workers' compensation benefits were to be offset against the federal Social Security disability insurance benefit. In 1985 the offset was ...


Signs of an Aging Workforce: Trend to Increased Federal Payments


"The aging of the U.S. population, the increasing share of females in the workforce, and, in recent years, the high unemployment rate are the primary factors explaining the rising costs of Social Security Disability Insurance."


Related Blog Posts
Jul 07, 2012
Safety in the workplace is now a growing concern as US aging workforce expands. It has been frequently reported that the expansion of this dimension of the labor sector has generated an increase in serious accidents and .
Dec 05, 2009
Safety in the workplace is now a growing concern as US aging workforce expands. It has been frequently reported that the expansion of this dimension of the labor sector has generated an increase in serious accidents and ...
Jul 26, 2012
Related Blogs on the Aging Workforce and Retirement. Workers' Compensation: Aging Population Requires More Attention. Jul 07, 2012. As some jurisdictions cut off workers' compensation benefits based on age, the burden ...
Oct 31, 2011
Statistics also reveal that the aging workforce is continuing to fall apart physically and file for Social Security Disability Insurance in lieu of workers' compensation at a greater rate than ever.. Even though more attention is now ...


Thursday, August 2, 2012

Probable Link Sustains Claim for Renal Cancer & Pulmonary Disability

A NJ appellate court upheld a trial court's decision holding an employer liable for workers compensation benefits for renal cancer and pulmonary disability where a probable link could be demonstrated as a result on a worker's occupational exposure to known carcinogens including asbestos.

Johnson v Exxon-Mobile Chemical Co. (2012 WL 3064003 (N.J. Super. A.D.) Decided July 30, 2012

Related Blogs About Asbestos

Aug 01, 2012
Duane “Butch” O'Malley, 59, of Bourbonnais, Ill., who was convicted by a federal jury on September 26, 2011, for the illegal removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from a Kankakee building in August 2009, was ...
Jun 22, 2012
NJ Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa announced that two men and the demolition company they operated have been indicted by a state grand jury on charges that they unlawfully removed asbestos from the former Zurbrugg...
Mar 19, 2012
Whereas the United States has substantially reduced its consumption of asbestos, yet continues to consume almost 1100 metric tons of the fibrous mineral for use in certain products throughout the United States;. Whereas ...
Apr 06, 2012
"Objectives Asbestos is an inflammatory agent, and there is evidence that inflammatory processes are involved in the development of cardiovascular disease. Whether asbestos is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease has ...

NJ Supreme Court Bars Expansion of Injured Workers Remedies

Additional tort claim disallowed against insurance companies for intentional failure to comply with court of compensation's, an administrative agency, order to provide provide benefits.

Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (067640)
Argued 3/26/12 Decided 8/1/12 see http://tinyurl.com/d4pycqw


SYLLABUS 

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court.  It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the 

convenience of the reader.  It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court.  Please note that, in the 
interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.) 

Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (A-112-10) (067640) 
Argued March 26, 2012 -- Decided August 1, 2012

HOENS, J., writing for a majority of the Court.
The Court considers whether an injured employee may sue his employer’s compensation carrier for pain and suffering caused by the carrier’s delay in paying for medical treatment, prescriptions, and other services. Plaintiff Wade Stancil was injured in 1995 while employed by Orient Originals.  He received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer’s compensation carrier, defendant ACE USA (ACE).  In 2006, following a  trial, the court of compensation determined that Stancil was totally disabled.  In 2007, Stancil filed a motion in the compensation court seeking an order compelling ACE to pay outstanding medical bills.  

During a hearing on the motion, the compensation judge commented that ACE had a history of failing to make payments when ordered to do so.  On September 12, 2007, the compensation judge granted Stancil’s motion, warned ACE against any further violation of the order to pay, and awarded Stancil counsel fees.  On October 29, 2007, the parties returned to the compensation court for a further proceeding relating to the disputed bills.  After finding that the bills identified in the September 12 order remained unpaid and that ACE’s failure to make payment was a willful and intentional violation of the order, the court issued another order compelling ACE to make immediate payment and again awarding counsel fees.  

The court commented on its limited ability to ensure that carriers would comply with orders, noted that it lacked the authority to enforce orders through contempt proceedings, found that Stancil had exhausted his administrative remedies, and suggested that he seek further relief in the Superior Court.  In 2008, Stancil underwent additional surgery and psychiatric treatment.  Stancil’s physician attributed the need for additional treatment to an earlier treatment delay caused by the carrier’s delay in paying medical providers.  

On April 15, 2009, Stancil filed this lawsuit in the Superior Court.  In his complaint, Stancil claimed that ACE required him to undergo medical examinations by physicians of its own choosing and then rejected the recommendations of those physicians and refused to authorize the recommended medical care.  The complaint stated further that Stancil obtained orders from the compensation court, but ACE failed to comply.  Stancil contended that ACE’s failure to authorize needed treatment caused him unnecessary pain and suffering, a worsening of his medical condition, and expenses that should have been paid by ACE.  ACE responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint.  ACE argued that the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -142 (the Act), is the exclusive remedy for the claims pled in the complaint and therefore no damages could be awarded.  The trial court granted ACE’s motion.  The court analyzed the impact of then-recently adopted amendments to the Act and found that the Legislature had foreclosed resort to the Superior Court for the kind of tort-based relief demanded by Stancil.

The Appellate Division affirmed.  418 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 2011).  The panel agreed with the trial court that The Legislature’s amendments to the Act foreclosed Stancil’s claims.  The panel also rejected Stancil’s argument that ACE’s willful disregard of compensation court orders met the Act’s intentional wrong exception to the litigation bar. The Supreme Court granted certification limited to determining whether an employee who suffered a work-related injury has a common-law cause of action for damages against a workers’ compensation carrier for its willful failure to comply with court orders compelling it to provide medical treatment when the delay or denial of treatment causes a worsening of the employee’s medical condition and/or pain and suffering.  207 N.J. 66 (2011).  

HELD:  An injured employee does not have a common law right of action against a workers’ compensation carrier for pain and suffering caused by the carrier’s delay in paying for or authorizing treatment because 1) the workers’ compensation system was designed to provide injured workers with a remedy outside of the ordinary tort or contract remedies cognizable in the Superior Court; 2) in amending the Workers’ Compensation Act in 2008, the Legislature rejected a provision that would have given the compensation courts broader permission to authorize a resort to the Superior Court and adopted a remedy that permits compensation courts to act through a contempt power; and 3) 2allowing a direct common-law cause of action against a carrier would undermine the workers’ compensation system by substituting a cause of action that would become the preferred manner of securing relief.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER, JUSTICE LaVECCHIA, and JUDGE WEFING (temporarily assigned) join  in JUSTICE HOENS’s opinion. JUSTICE ALBIN filed a separate, dissenting opinion. JUSTICE  PATTERSON did not participate.

Related Blog Articles

Aug 05, 2011
The lower court had rejected the case and dismissed it holding that the jurisdiction for bad faith is exclusively within the purview of the Division of Workers' Compensation. Stancil v. ACE USA, 418 N.J. Super. 79, 12 A. 3rd 223...
Apr 23, 2012
A-112-10 Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (067640). 3. The Exclusivity Rule: Under the circumstances of this case, which include a finding by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration that the accident was the result ...

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Illinois Man Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for Clean Air Act Violations Involving Asbestos

The EPA was directed to set standards for radi...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Duane “Butch” O’Malley, 59, of Bourbonnais, Ill., who was convicted by a federal jury on September 26, 2011, for the illegal removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from a Kankakee building in August 2009, was sentenced to 10 years in prison by Federal District Court Judge Michael McCuskey. O’Malley was also ordered to pay restitution of $47,086 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to the clean-up of illegally disposed asbestos and ordered to pay a fine of $15,000. Asbestos is a mineral fiber that has been used commonly in a variety of building construction materials. When asbestos-containing materials are damaged or disturbed by repair, remodeling or demolition activities, microscopic fibers become airborne and can be inhaled into the lungs, where they can cause serious health problems, including lung cancer and mesothelioma.

“Asbestos must be removed in a safe and legal way in order to protect people's health and reduce the risk of exposure,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “The defendant’s actions endangered the health of his workers and the surrounding community and the sentence shows that those who violate critical environmental safeguards will be prosecuted.”

“To increase his profits, a jury found that O’Malley knowingly disregarded federal environmental laws that require asbestos-containing materials be safely removed and properly disposed,” said U.S. Attorney Jim Lewis, Central District of Illinois. “This sentence is a consequence of the defendant’s flagrant disregard for his workers, the public, and the environment in exposing them to dangerous airborne asbestos fibers.”
During O’Malley’s trial, the government presented evidence that O’Malley, owner and operator of Origin Fire Protection, was hired by Michael J. Pinski in August 2009 to remove asbestos-containing insulation from pipes in a five-story building in Kankakee, Ill. that was owned by Pinski through his company, Dearborn Management, Inc. Evidence was presented that neither O’Malley nor his company was trained to perform the asbestos removal work and that O’Malley agreed to remove the asbestos insulation for an amount that was substantially less than a trained asbestos abatement contractor would have charged to perform the work. Further, O’Malley arranged for James A. Mikrut to recruit and oversee workers to remove the asbestos.

The government’s evidence showed that various provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA regulations were violated, including, failure to properly notify the EPA, failure to have trained on-site representatives present, failure to ensure the asbestos insulation was adequately wetted while it was being stripped and removed, failure to mark vehicles used to transport the asbestos containing waste material and failure to deposit the asbestos in a waste disposal site for asbestos. Instead, the asbestos insulation was stripped from the pipes while dry, and then placed in more than 100 large, unlabeled plastic garbage bags. The bags were then dumped in an open field in Hopkins Park, resulting in soil contamination and exposing the workers hired by O’Malley to dangerous asbestos-laden dust.

Under the CAA there are requirements to control the removal, handling and disposal of asbestos, a hazardous air pollutant. Any owner or operator of a renovation or demolition activity which involves removal of specified amounts of asbestos-containing material must comply with the EPA regulations.

O’Malley was charged in June 2010 with five felony violations of the CAA, along with Michael J. Pinski, 42, of Kankakee, Ill., and James A. Mikrut, 49, of Manteno, Ill. Pinski entered a plea of guilty on Aug. 19, 2011, to one count of violation of the Clean Air Act. Mikrut pleaded guilty on Aug. 24, 2011, to five counts of violation of the CAA. The sentencing hearings for Pinski and Mikrut will be scheduled at a future date.

The charges were investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, with assistance from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund Division. Assistant United States Attorney Eugene L. Miller and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney James Cha are prosecuting the case.

More information about EPA’s criminal enforcement program: http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/criminal/index.html


....
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 work related accident and injuries.


More articles about asbestos
Jun 22, 2012
NJ Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa announced that two men and the demolition company they operated have been indicted by a state grand jury on charges that they unlawfully removed asbestos from the former Zurbrugg...
Mar 19, 2012
Whereas the United States has substantially reduced its consumption of asbestos, yet continues to consume almost 1100 metric tons of the fibrous mineral for use in certain products throughout the United States;. Whereas ...
Apr 06, 2012
"Objectives Asbestos is an inflammatory agent, and there is evidence that inflammatory processes are involved in the development of cardiovascular disease. Whether asbestos is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease has ...
Apr 04, 2012
Anti-asbestos campaigners have urged more criminal prosecutions against the global directors of asbestos corporations following the recent conviction of European industrialists Stephen Schmidheiny and Baron Cartier de ...

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Why Cases Don't Settle in Washington State


Guest Blog
By Kit Case of Causey Law, Washington


The Size of the Check Points the Way
In Washington State, the majority of workers’ compensation claims are “State Fund” claims managed by the Department of Labor and Industries (Department), with perhaps a third are comprised of “self-insured” claims managed by third-party administration companies under the oversight of the Department. In “State Fund” claims, managed by State employees, benefits are paid from monies received from both workers and employers – - Washington is the only state where workers and employers each pay half of the medical insurance premiums. When a dispute arises in a claim, the aggrieved party can file an appeal to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board), another State agency. When an appeal is filed with the Board, the Department is represented by the Office of the Attorney General, yet another State agency.


Since the economic crisis hit Washington, as it has in every other state in the union, the Department of Labor and Industries has become very cautious concerning any expenditures.


Since the economic crisis hit Washington, as it has in every other state in the union, the Department of Labor and Industries has become very cautious concerning any expenditures. After all, audits have found mis-spent money — nothing worthy of headlines, but the media loves a good fraud story as much as they love a government waste story. Fraud investigations and video surveillance have increased dramatically in recent years at great expense to the Department with minimal economic benefit. The Department was recently found to have spent a significant sum on no-show fees to independent medical examination companies without recouping those charges from the claimants who failed to attend the examinations or, in some of the cases, without properly notifying those companies to avoid the charges when a cancellation was known to have occurred. The end result of the Department’s caution is that benefits clearly payable to a claimant are being delayed or denied simply based on the amount of money at stake.


Payments of minor amounts can be made by Department claims managers at their discretion, based on the records on file. Amounts over a few thousand dollars, however, trigger the need for supervisor review and approval before payment can be made. Consequently, we are working much harder to obtain payment administratively because the Department increasingly requires proof of entitlement to benefits “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than simply based upon the opinion of a treating physician. One doctor’s opinion of a worker’s inability to work seems no longer enough to establish entitlement to benefits. We increasingly face roadblocks to payment in cases where the Department concocts an issue over whether the inability to work is related to the covered injury or condition or is instead due to some pre- or post-existing condition, even if the disabling condition is clearly shown to be related to the original injury or the treatment procedures for that injury. If payment or authorization for treatment for a condition is denied, we are forced to demand an order be issued. We then file an appeal, and off to litigation we go.


In the current economic climate simply the amount of money involved increasingly drives the decision-making process at every administrative level.


The paralegals and attorneys at our firm work diligently to document the benefits we are seeking and the medical support for the claims we are making. In some cases, the monetary benefit at issue is a fairly significant amount. In the current economic climate simply the amount of money involved increasingly drives the decision-making process at every administrative level. Denials are much more common when a significant sum is at stake, regardless of the validity of the claim. We encounter a “make them prove it” attitude, forcing cases to go through time-consuming and expensive litigation rather than being resolved through mediation discussions or agreement between the parties.


Yesterday, I received phone call apology after a denial order had been issued, expressing condolences but the hope that we will be able to prevail on appeal. Today, I was told by an Assistant Attorney General that she would likely not be able to get authority from her client – the Department — to accept our settlement offer due to the amount of money at issue – “the case will just have to be litigated.”


I can accept these denials when there is a genuine dispute over the facts, over whether a claimant is entitled to the benefits or not. I cannot accept it when the answer is simply “it’s too much money.” I would prefer the other side tell me why my argument lacks merit, tell me that I am wrong in my belief that the claimant is entitled to the benefits at issue, tell me where the hole in my case is – anything – but, please, don’t just say that it’s too much money. That is not a reason for a State Agency which, unlike an insurance company, has no inherent profit motive, to deny benefits.


Consider the relatively low values in workers’ compensation claims: 60 – 72% of pre-injury wages as wage-replacement compensation; surprisingly small awards for permanent impairment, with no consideration given to the impact on lifestyle or earnings ability. If there is a significant sum at stake, it is because of YEARS of delay, or years of benefits at issue, not because the claimant is lucky or greedy. The claimant didn’t win the lottery; he or she was simply injured on the job and denied benefits when they were most needed. That required hiring an attorney, and in many cases expended large sums of money in efforts to support their case. The significant sums often at issue in these cases do not make claimants RICH, nor do they make them WHOLE. They only provide the limited measure of compensation that our workers’ compensation system allows.


Don’t add insult to injury.
My message to our State: Don’t add insult to injury. Show claimants the respect they deserve and promptly make decisions in their claims based on the merits of their arguments and the evidence presented, without being influenced simply by the amount of the check that may be issued.


More articles about "delay"

Oct 21, 2011
Its weaknesses have allowed chemical companies to exploit the act by thwarting the EPA's attempts to finalize health assessments and delaying regulation of chemicals -- sometimes for decades. The chemical industry's ...
Jul 01, 2010
Delay To Reinstate For Tactical Reasons Not Excuseable. The NJ Court of Appeals did not permit reinstatement of a dismissed claim where the claimant's attorney waited more than one year following the entry of a dismissal ...
Sep 27, 2008
Delay has always been a problem when injured workers need medical treatment. Traditionally, insurance companies, especially in hard economic times, have sought to hold onto their money and not distribute benefits.

Aug 08, 2010
A US District Court Judge held that a valid cause of action existed directly against an insurance company for the delay treatment to an injured worker. The court, in denying a motion for summary judgment, held that when an ...
May 27, 2010
The claim of an injured who brought a Federal Court action pro se for “unwarranted delays” of his NJ workers' compensation claim was dismissed by a Federal Court. The action was based on a violation of: The Americans ...