Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts sorted by date for query exclusivity. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query exclusivity. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, September 27, 2013

OSHA cites Nebraska Cold Storage for 14 safety violations including ammonia exposure

Proposed fines total $132,800; company placed in Severe Violator Enforcement Program

Nebraska Cold Storage Inc. has been cited for 14 safety violations and fined $132,800 by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration for exposing workers to anhydrous ammonia at its Hastings facility. The company has been placed in OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

"Ammonia is considered a high health hazard because it can be corrosive to the skin, eyes and lungs. It is flammable at varying concentrations," said Bonita Winingham, OSHA's area director in Omaha. "Businesses that handle hazardous materials must take precautions to protect workers from exposure to chemicals, explosions and fire hazards."

The March inspection was initially conducted under OSHA's high-hazard local emphasis program. It expanded to include all items within the agency's national emphasis program for process safety management for covered chemical facilities. The company provides basic storage and shipping services for the frozen, refrigerated and perishable food industries.

Four willful violations were cited. Some involve PSM violations, including the failure to develop and implement written, safe operating and mechanical integrity procedures and measures to take for physical contact or airborne exposure to anhydrous ammonia. The remaining violations involve failing to correct deficiencies in equipment and to document responses to 2010 compliance audit findings, including 12 of 22 deficient audit items that remained uncorrected. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for, or plain indifference to, employee safety and health.

A total of 10 serious safety violations include lack of emergency action planning; failing to maintain the original ammonia refrigeration systems process hazard analysis; exposing workers to crushing hazards by failing to remove and/or repair damaged storage racks; and failing to evaluate the performance of a powered industrial truck operator every three years. The other violations include failing to prevent electrocution from ice buildup encasing electrical junction boxes; operating equipment within 30 inches of a fork truck charging station; and install fixed wiring and provide strain relief for power cords. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. The current citations may be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/Nebraska_Cold_Storage.pdf*

OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations. Under the program, OSHA may inspect any of the employer's facilities if it has reasonable grounds to believe there are similar violations.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and notice of proposed penalties to contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. If a company does not file or contest within that period, it must abate the cited conditions within the period ordered in the citations and pay the proposed penalties.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Exclusivity Rule: Court Holds Risk of Death Contemplated by Legislature

A NJ Appellate Court has ruled that the Exclusivity Bar prohibits the estate of a fatally injured trash truck driver from proceeding with an intentional tort claim against his employer. Even though the employer may have defeated the neutral safety switch and was cited for violations by OSHA, the Court ruled that the industry risk of being fatally injured was contemplated by the Legislature when promulgating the NJ Workers' Compensation Act.

Sellino v Pinto Brothers Disposal, Docket No. A-2064-12T1, 2013 WL 5300076 (Decided: September 23, 2013)

….

Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.



Tuesday, June 11, 2013

OSHA fines two companies $130,500 for trenching hazards at Kearny, NJ, site

Many workers' compensation accidents occur while working in trenches. The employer in NJ is insulated under the exclusivity doctrine from a claim for negligence. An employee's only remedy in many instances is only the NJ Workers' Compensation benefits.

VM Construction Inc., based in Miami, and Concrete Systems Inc., based in Sterling, were cited by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration for willful and repeat trenching hazards found at a Kearny work site. OSHA's November 2012 investigation was prompted by an imminent danger complaint that alleged workers 
English: Logo for the United States Occupation...
English: Logo for the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
operated in an unprotected excavation 8 feet deep.

One willful violation, carrying a $28,000 penalty, was cited against VM Construction Inc. for those workers operating in an unprotected excavation. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health. The construction company was also cited for one serious violation, with a $2,400 penalty, for failing to ensure a competent person inspected the excavation prior to allowing workers to enter. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Concrete Systems Inc., a concrete and masonry contractor, faces $100,100 in penalties for two repeat violations involving workers operating in an unprotected excavation and entering an excavation that was not inspected beforehand by a competent person. A repeat violation is issued when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. Similar violations were cited in 2008.

Because of the nature of the hazards and the violations cited, Concrete Systems has been placed in OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which mandates targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with the law. OSHA's SVEP focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations. Under the program, OSHA may inspect any of the employer's facilities if it has reasonable grounds to believe there are similar violations.

"Improperly protected trenches can collapse suddenly and with great force," said Kris Hoffman, director of OSHA's Parsippany Area Office. "OSHA implemented a trenching and excavation special emphasis program in the 1980s, so the industry is well aware of the safety regulations for trenching operations."

Detailed information on safeguards for excavation and trenching is available at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/trenchingexcavation/index.html.


 ......
For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.  Click here now to submit a case inquiry.

Read more about trenches and workers' compensation benefits.
Oct 20, 2011
Recently NJ Courts have held that trench accidents were not a mere fact of industrial life and were beyond intent of Act's immunity provision. A claim was permitted directly against the employer in addition to the workers' ...
Jun 27, 2012
The issuance of a willful OSHA violation against employer (trench collapse injury) was insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment, so the Court examined the totality of the circumstances of the accident and applies ...

Saturday, March 23, 2013

The Going and Coming Rule: Parking Lot Injury Held Not Compensable

English: Symbol of interchange parking. Italia...

A NJ appellate court ruled that an employee who was severely injured in a parking lot as a result of a slip and fall was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits since the injury occurred “off the premises” and the employer did not control the employee’s parking.

The Court also ruled, that even though a separate corporation that owned the parking lot, the corporate veil could not be pierced in absence of the proof of fraud by the employer. The employer merely rented the store premises and not the parking lot. 

Cottone v Medical Supply Corp. and NJ Manufacturers (Intervener) 
2013 WL 1136114 (N.J.Super.A.D.) Decided March 20, 2013

Thursday, February 28, 2013

California, Workers' Compensation and The Nuclear Option


There has been a call among eminent commentators in California to invoke “The Nuclear Option,” abolishment of the Workers’ Compensation Act entirely.  The suggestion was aired in response to proposed legislation (AB 1309) that would implement a statutory limitation on extraterritorial coverage for professional athletes and reflects a trend to emasculate the benefit program by incremental “take backs.”  

An analysis demonstrates that the law, proposed by California Insurance Committee Chairman Henry Peres (D-Fresno), may indeed be the triggering mechanism to implode the entire system both in California and in the Nation. It may very well be the sentinel event.

California has had a logarithmically problematic workers’ compensation program for at least the past 3 decades. It has been literally a political football. The promise to provide a simple, economically conservative and expeditious administrative system of benefits has turned into an outright nightmare. Both labor and Industry have tried, to no avail, to meet those noble goals against a tide of crippling economic downturn, new and costly medical modalities, waves of emerging occupational diseases, and an onslaught of outside vendors who are “eating the lunch” of the system.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

The Missouri Compromise - 2013

It looks like Missouri is not going to ditch their Second Injury Fund (SIF) after all. The Missouri Senate did a turn around and passed legislation to fund the insolvent SIF.

Part of the compromise was to limit liability of occupational disease claims against employers and re-establish the exclusivity bar. Albiet, the SIF would provide additional monetary benefits to those exposed at work.

While it sounds nice on paper, the problem, of using a band-aide to permanently correct the overall concerns of both Industry and Labor, will not work in the long-run. Actually this has been tried before and already failed. Employers notoriously dodge the bullet and delay and deny occupational claims even though they are difficult to defend against.

When the going gets tough, down the road, Industry will end up further restricting the benefit flow to injured workers, and medical delivery will then remain non-existent. Consequentially, the end result is that the general taxpayer and not the consumer, ends up paying for the continued unsafe work practices of Industry.

The Missouri Compromise 2013 is only a first step in recognizing a problem exists. It demonstrates that legislators from different parties can reach a compromise. The real fix would be even greater OSHA enforcement of safety procedures, new Federal regulation and, a universal health care system.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Football Concussions – An Epidemic Failure of Safety


Story after story is now emerging of the tragedy of head concussions incurred during the sport of football. While the a battle is brewing over jurisdictional issues involving filing Workers’ Compensation claims in the State of California, a larger epidemic of product liability claims is now emerging against Riddell, the major manufacturer of football helmets.

The Sacramento Bee reported a sad story about Dan the Morann, the former San Francisco 49ers first draft pick, who suffered from tragic dementia.

One would think that workers’ compensation had some economic incentive to provide a safer workplace. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

The workers’ compensation system was crafted  as a social insurance program to provide benefits to workers who were injured in the course of their employment, and a summary and expeditious fashion.  The cost of safety was never placed into the economic equation for workers’ compensation. 

The cost of workers’ compensation is theoretically to be passed upon the consumer as a cost of doing business. It is not a tool to encourage a safe workplace.

On the other hand, the civil justice system affords injured workers and their families another avenue to seek benefits by assessing punitive damages against the manufacturer suppliers and distributors of unsafe products. Unfortunately, very few jurisdictions permit claims against employers to circumvent the exclusive bar incorporated into most state workers’ compensation acts.

Perhaps, it is time to rethink the Worker’s Compensation program entirely and place it into a medical care delivery system that  really works and utilize the civil litigation system as a tool to enhance safety in the workplace to prevent future accidents from happening.
....
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ, helping injured workers and their families for over 4 decades, is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). 

Read more about the “exclusivity bar” and Worker’s Compensation

Jul 11, 2012
In a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case pending in New York, a Federal Court ruled that the New Jersey law governing exclusivity of claims barred an employee from proceeding with an intentional tort claim against the ...
Jun 13, 2012
Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule. English: Motor vehicle accident following a ve... A NJ appeals court ruled that a motor vehicle accident cause by a co-worker in the emplyers' parking lot, before work had ...
Apr 09, 2010
A Federal Judge, who is managing the Multi-District Asbestos Litigation, has ruled that the exclusivity doctrine defeats the application of the dual capacity doctrine where the manufacturer's corporation was merged into the ...
Jun 27, 2012
Willful OSHA Violation Alone Not Enough Alone to Circumvent the Exclusivity Doctrine. "New Jersey's Workers' Compensation Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -128.5, provides a prompt and efficient remedy for an employee's ...

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Dedicated Bike Lanes Can Prevent On-The-Job Injuries

Traffic accidents are major factors in the death of workers on the job. A recent report from the American Public Health Association reports that separate cycling lanes will prevent accidents.

Objectives. We compared cycling injury risks of 14 route types and other route infrastructure features.

Methods. We recruited 690 city residents injured while cycling in Toronto or Vancouver, Canada. A case-crossover design compared route infrastructure at each injury site to that of a randomly selected control site from the same trip.

Results. Of 14 route types, cycle tracks had the lowest risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.02, 0.54), about one ninth the risk of the reference: major streets with parked cars and no bike infrastructure. Risks on major streets were lower without parked cars (adjusted OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.41, 0.96) and with bike lanes (adjusted OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.29, 1.01). Local streets also had lower risks (adjusted OR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.31, 0.84). Other infrastructure characteristics were associated with increased risks: streetcar or train tracks (adjusted OR = 3.0; 95% CI = 1.8, 5.1), downhill grades (adjusted OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.7, 3.1), and construction (adjusted OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.3, 2.9).

Conclusions. The lower risks on quiet streets and with bike-specific infrastructure along busy streets support the route-design approach used in many northern European countries. Transportation infrastructure with lower bicycling injury risks merits public health support to reduce injuries and promote cycling.

Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300762?journalCode=ajph&&


Read more about motor vehicle accidents and workers' compensation

Jul 25, 2012
Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule. English: Motor vehicle accident following a ve... A NJ appeals court ruled that a motor vehicle accident cause by a co-worker in the emplyers' parking lot, before work had.
May 23, 2011
In 2009, motor vehicle crashes resulted in approximately 23,000 deaths to passenger vehicle occupants (excluding motorcyclists), and 2.6 million occupants were treated for injuries in emergency departments in the United ...
Nov 29, 2011
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) proposes to restrict the use of hand-held mobile telephones, including hand-held cell phones, by drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) while operating in ...
Apr 18, 2011
OSHA will investigate motor vehicle accidents, including cell phone records, and will issue citations and fine employers where an accident involved texting while driving. While OSHA has juridiction over employers, and not ...


Saturday, August 4, 2012

OSHA Sanctions Chicago Company With $325,700 in Fines for Safety Violations


OSHA cites A. Finkl & Sons in Chicago for 26 safety violations, including failing to maintain cranes and places the company into the Severe Violator Enforcement Program.


The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited specialty metal forgings producer A. Finkl & Sons Co. with 26 safety violations at the company's Chicago facility, including two willful violations that involve failing to provide fall protection around open pits and rectify multiple hazards found in crane inspections. Proposed penalties total $352,700.

OSHA initiated an inspection in February after receiving a complaint alleging that cranes used in the facility were in disrepair, including having malfunctioning hoisting brakes, and that powered industrial trucks were being operated by untrained workers.

Specifically, the willful violations are failing to ensure that open pits are guarded by standard railings and/or covers to protect employees from falling in, and failing to correct deficiencies identified by crane inspections such as missing bolts, inoperable radio controls, and problems with bridges, trolleys and main hoist brakes. A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health.

Twenty-two serious violations involve failing to install hoist guards on industrial cranes, ensure that independent hoisting units on all cranes that handle hot metal have at least two holding brakes, ensure that all crane trolleys and bridges are equipped with brakes that have ample thermal capacity for the equipment's frequency of operation and which prevent the impairment of functions due to overheating, ensure that a thorough inspection of all crane ropes is completed, ensure that loads are lifted in a manner to prevent swinging on cranes and have a responsible person on-site with knowledge of cranes. Other violations include failing to ensure that ladders are placed in a manner that provides secure footing for workers, store liquefied petroleum gas containers away from stairways or other exit areas, adequately outline the rules for lockout/tagout procedures, guard live electrical parts over 50 volts, protect electrical conductors entering boxes from abrasion, and visually inspect portable plug- and cord-connected equipment for defects. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

One repeat violation involves failing to ensure that powered industrial trucks are examined prior to being placed into service as well as keep the trucks in a clean condition, free from lint, excess oil and grease. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. A similar violation was cited in 2006 at the same facility.

One other-than-serious violation is failing to create, certify and post the OSHA 300A summary log of injuries and illnesses or an equivalent form for the year 2011 by Feb. 1, 2012. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

"A. Finkl & Sons Co. has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the safety of its employees. When employers fail in their responsibility to provide a safe workplace, OSHA will take all necessary action to protect workers on the job," said Nick Walters, OSHA's regional administrator in Chicago.

Due to the willful and repeat violations and the nature of the hazards, OSHA has placed A. Finkl & Sons Co. in the agency's Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which mandates targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with the law. The program focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations. For more information about the program, visit http://s.dol.gov/J3.

The company previously has been inspected by OSHA 24 times since 1970, with 17 inspections resulting in citations for various violations. The two most recent previous inspections, in 2006 and 2007, resulted in citations for willful and repeat violations related to fire and fall hazards.

The citations can be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/AFinklandSons_191122.pdf.

A. Finkl & Sons Co. employs 398 workers at its Chicago plant. The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

More articles about OSHA
Jul 21, 2012
"What we found at this work site were hazards unacceptably similar to those cited during prior inspections at the employer's other sites," said Diana Cortez, OSHA's area director in Tarrytown. "It's clear that this employer must...
Jun 27, 2012
A finding of a willful OSHA violation is not conclusive in determining whether the employer committed an intentional wrong for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act. Instead, it is one factor among the totality of ...
Jun 13, 2012
"This employer knowingly put workers at risk of injury or death by failing to implement well-recognized measures that would protect employees from physical assaults by inmates," said Clyde Payne, OSHA's area director in ...
Jul 07, 2012
"Regarding the importance and effectiveness of OSHA's enforcement programs, recent studies confirm the effectiveness of enforcement in ensuring the safety and health of workers. We were very heartened by research from ...


Thursday, August 2, 2012

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 ...