Copyright

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

Friday, July 25, 2014

OSHA cites willful safety violation after workers expected to 'free climb' 195-foot tower without adequate fall protection

Two workers were free climbing, or climbing without safety lines, a 195-foot communication tower under construction without adequate fall protection in Coolville. As a result, Morlan Enterprises has been cited for one willful and eight serious safety violations by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA has proposed penalties of $52,500.
"Free climbing a communication tower is extremely dangerous, and it was this company's responsibility to ensure appropriate fall protection was provided and used," said Deborah Zubaty, OSHA's area director in Columbus. "Employers and cell tower owners and operators must do everything possible to stop senseless, preventable tragedies in the communication tower industry."
No more falling workers. Disturbing trend in communication towers-related worker deaths. 2011 = 6; 2012 = 2; 2013 = 13. Source: CY data from OSHA Integrated Management Information System.
In 2013, 13 workers were fatally injured at communication work sites. The majority of these deaths were a result of falls. OSHA requires employers to provide fall protection equipment, train employees how to use the safety equipment and ensure that they use it properly and consistently.
Morlan Enterprises was contracted by New Era Broadband Services of Coolville to perform tower construction and antenna installation services at 20 locations in the Meigs County area. The New Era Broadband construction project is being funded by a grant, administered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Rural Utilities Service, to bring broadband services to underserved communities in the area.
The willful violation cites the company for failing to ensure workers climbing the tower were using effective and adequate fall protection, including installing a climbing cable to the tower. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirement, or with plain indifference to employee safety and health.
Eight serious violations were cited for failing to provide workers with training on fall hazards, provide personal protective equipment, such as shock-absorbing lanyards and hard hats, and requiring workers to purchase their own fall arrest harnesses and other protective equipment. Other violations involved failing to make provisions for prompt medical attention* before starting work and having first aid kits available for emergencies.
An OSHA violation is serious if death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard an employer knew or should have known exists.
OSHA is concerned about the alarming increase in preventable injuries and fatalities at communication tower work sites. As a result, OSHA is collaborating with the National Association of Tower Erectors and other industry stakeholders to ensure that every communication tower employer understands how to protect workers performing this high-hazard work.
More fatalities occurred in this industry in 2013 than in the previous two years combined. This disturbing trend appears to be continuing, with seven worker deaths occurring so far in 2014. To prevent these tragic incidents, OSHA has sent a letter to communication tower employers urging compliance and strict adherence to safety standards and common-sense practices. OSHA has also created a new Web page targeting the issues surrounding communication tower work. This outreach follows a November 2013 memo to OSHA's compliance officers and regional administrators* mandating increased attention, education and data collection on the industry.
Morlan Enterprises, based in Parkersburg, West Virginia, 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.

Friday, August 29, 2014

Can Boomers Stop The Bullying At Work?

Today's post was shared by Trucker Lawyers and comes from www.forbes.com

If you saw a young child being pushed around on the playground, chances are you would intervene. But are you equally proactive when you see bullying at work?

While this may sound like a hypothetical question, it’s anything but. According to a 2014 survey conducted by the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI), 27% of Americans have been bullied at work, 21% have witnessed it and 72% of us are aware that workplace bullying happens.

Real bullying involves more than just bad management and obnoxious behavior.

How Bullying Can Harm A Victim’s Health

It also means health-harming behaviors that can include verbal abuse, offensive conduct and intentional sabotage. And workplace bullying doesn’t just harm the victim. It leads to poor morale, high turnover and low productivity, which impact the entire organization.

(MORE: What to Do When You Work for a Bully)

The problem is now so widespread that lawmakers in 15 states have introduced legislation aimed at prodding employers to take the matter seriously or face consequences. (Tennessee already has workplace bullying laws on the books, but they only apply to public sector employees.)

Why Boomers Can Be Effective

So what are you willing to do about it? I ask because many boomers are in management and as a result, some are in a good position to take action. Even if you’re not among your employer’s leadership team, you still might be able to make a difference.

If you’re well respected by colleagues, have good...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Saturday, February 13, 2010

US Department of Labor’s OSHA cites C.A. Franc $539,000 for willful fall hazard violations


The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has fined the C.A. Franc construction company $539,000 following the investigation of a roofing worker who fell 40 feet to his death at a Washington worksite. The Valencia, Pa.-based roof installer – whose owner is Christopher A. Franc – was cited for 10 per instance willful citations for failing to protect workers from falls.

“Mr. Franc knowingly and willfully failed to protect his workers from falling to their death,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “Despite repeated requests from workers that he provide fall protection, on this step roof, Mr. Franc refused to provide readily available protection. We will not tolerate this type of blatant and egregious disregard for the health and safety of workers.”

OSHA began its investigation immediately following the worker’s death on Aug. 15, 2009, and found the C.A. Franc company had failed to provide any fall protection to its employees working on a pitched roof 40 feet off the ground. In addition, Mr. Franc failed to train a newly hired college student in hazards and the necessary safety measures for roofing work. As a result of the investigation, the company has been cited for 10 alleged per-instance willful violations, one for each employee working unprotected on the roof, with a proposed penalty of $490,000, and one additional alleged willful violation for failing to train the new employee, with a penalty of $49,000.

General contractor Hospitality Builders Inc. also has been cited with one willful violation and a proposed penalty of $70,000 for failing to ensure that C.A. Franc workers had fall protection.

“This fall fatality was one of five that occurred during a 15-day span in the Pittsburgh area,” said John M. Hermanson, OSHA’s regional administrator in Philadelphia, Pa. “Falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry. Failure to provide employees with fall protection is unconscionable. We urge construction companies to take the necessary action to ensure their workers are protected.”

OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to employee safety and health. Detailed information about fall hazards and safeguards is available on OSHA’s Web site at
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/fallprotection/construction.html.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The investigation was conducted by OSHA’s Pittsburgh Area Office; telephone: 412-395-4903. To report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, call OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742.

In a related criminal charge, Christopher A. Franc today entered a guilty plea in federal court to a violation of 29 U. S. C. Section 666(e). Sentencing is scheduled for June 18.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach, education and assistance. For more information, visit 
http://www.osha.gov.


Monday, February 26, 2018

Preventing Occupational Disease: NJ Governor Murphy Supports a Fracking Ban

The State of New Jersey now supports a ban on fracking. NJ Governor Pat Murphy recognized the health and environmental consequences of using this process to explore and mine for natural gas.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

The Next Wave: N.H.L. Players Sue League Over Head Injuries

Occupational illness claims have been a traditional battleground in workers' compensation for larger and more significant lawsuits and dynamic changes in the safety of the workplace induced by economics.

From the lack of the incorporation of occupational claims in the 1911 model workers' compensation acts, in the 1950's, employers and their insurance companies sought refuge under the "exclusivity bar" of the. workers' compensation act to shield themselves from negligence actions for silicosis and asbestosis claims.

The creativity of claimant's lawyers, and the blatant intentional tort acts of unscrupulous asbestos companies, brought forth a sweeping change in the economic balance as claimants used the civil justice system to establish an avenue for adequate compensation for asbestos victims (lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma claims).

Asbestos litigation, "longest running tort, continues today and is the perfect example of the societal benefits of a working civil justice system.  In fact, the same dynamic existed in: tobacco litigation, lead paint litigation, latex litigation and has been repeated many times over.

The civil justice system, not the workers' compensation system, established an economic incentive establishing a safer workplace for workers and their families.

It is more than obvious that contact sports are seeing the next wave of litigation as the employers and their insurance companies accelerate the cycle, by barring professional athletic players from even seeking workers' compensation benefits, ie. California.

Since it appears that no safe helmet can be manufactured to protect the mayhem of some contact sports, the business of sports will be the next "industry" to experience economic incentives to make the workplace safer. The higher education system will just have to find another economic engine to fund colleges and university and stop luring students to play dangerous sports in hope of winning the professional sports lottery.

First football, now hockey, are emerging targets of the civil justice system as the economics of safety takes hold and the need for safety takes hold. Today's post is shared from the nytimes.com.

Ten former N.H.L. players sued the league Monday for negligence and fraud, saying the sport’s officials should have done more to address head injuries but instead celebrated a culture of speed and violence.

The players, who were in the league in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, filed their suit in federal court in Washington. One of the lead lawyers is Mel Owens, a former N.F.L. player who has represented scores of other retired players in workers’ compensation cases.
[Click here to see the rest of this post]


….

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.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy -- Football Injuries

Football players' disease, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), is again in the news as evidence mounts causally connection contact sport head trauma to the illnesses. 

The study included 35 former NFL (National Football League) players and revealed that 34 had CTE before their death. A class action lawsuit is pending by the NFL players for head trauma injuries.

"CTE is clinically associated with symptoms of irritability, impulsivity, aggression, depression, short-term memory loss and heightened suicidality that usually begin 8–10 years after experiencing repetitive mildtraumatic brain injury (McKee et al., 2009). With advancing disease, more severe neurological changes develop that include dementia, gait and speech abnormalities and parkinsonism. In late stages, CTE may be clinically mistaken for Alzheimer’s disease or frontotemporal dementia (Gavett et al., 2010, 2011). A subset of cases with CTE is associated with motor neuron disease (MND) (McKee et al., 2010)."

Read the complete research article: The spectrum of disease in chronic traumatic encephalopathy 10.1093/brain/aws307


Read more about "football player injuries"
Apr 19, 2010
Football, the sport of humans clashing heads together, is now subject to a growing wave of workers' compensation claims for dementia. Recent studies have shown that football players have suffered head injuries as a result of ...
Mar 07, 2011
A Maryland Court of Appeals has awarded workers' compensation benefits to Tom Tupa, a Washington Redskins football payer. He was injured while warming-up for a football game to be played at FedEx Field in Landover, ...
Nov 20, 2011
Wayne Hills varsity football coach Chris Olsen, proving that winning games is more important to him than teaching life lessons, defended nine players charged in the brutal beating of two Wayne Valley students. Actually, Olsen ...
Sep 23, 2011
Most people know that football is dangerous. We see reports of NFL players with every kind of gruesome injury imaginable. Even suicidal depression, it turns out, is a potential hazard of playing football. Of course playing in the ...

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Employee vs. Independent Contractor: Can You Tell the Difference?

Today's post is shared from businesslawnews.com
State and federal regulators are increasingly acting to combat worker misclassification. Before using independent contractors, it is imperative to verify that they are not actually employees. The issue is legal in nature so the legal principals must be thoroughly considered and applied. Mistakes, no matter how innocent, can result in costly lawsuits and significant legal penalties.
As we have previously discussed on Scarinci Hollenbeck’s Business Law News, worker misclassification occurs when a bona fide, common law employee is classified to be an “independent contractor.” In some cases, worker misclassification is intentional to avoid tax withholding, overtime pay and insurance requirements such as Workers Compensation and Unemployment Insurance. Sometimes it occurs simply because the employer did not properly understand the law.
To aid the analysis, the Department of Labor (DOL) recently published a revised factsheet on worker misclassification. As the DOL highlights, an employment agreement stating that a worker is an independent contractor hold very little weight, if any. Rather, the actual nature of the working relationship is determinative. Over 25 states also apply the “ABC” test which is even more difficult to overcome (as many prominent trucking companies have been learning in recent court cases).
Below are several key factors that are generally considered when determining whether an employment relationship exists:
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Monday, April 23, 2012

NJ Supreme Court To Rule on Several Critical Issues

The NJ Supreme Court has before it three issues of critical importance concerning workers' compensation including: the standard of proof in a fatal heart claim; remedy for the failure of an insurance company to provide medical care, and the "exclusivity rule." These decisions have the potential to be landmark decisions.


1. Standard of Proof in a Fatal Heart Claim: Does the record support this workers' compensation claim under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.2, which sets the standard of proof governing claims based on injury or death from cardiovascular causes?


Workers' Compensation benefits were awarded for a pulmonary embolism causally related to sedentary work activity. A NJ Appellate Court awarded benefits for the development of a pulmonary embolism precipitated by the inactivity of sitting long hours at a desk job.


Certification granted: 2/14/12
Posted: 2/14/12
A-71-11 James P. Renner v. AT&T (068744)

2.  Remedy for the Failure of the Insurance Company to Provide Medical Care:
May an employee who suffered a work-related injury pursue a common-law cause of action against a workers’ compensation carrier for willful failure to comply with court orders compelling it to provide medical treatment when the delay or denial of treatment causes the employee’s condition to worsen?

The NJ Supreme is going to review the procedure to bring bad faith claims against employers and insurance companies in workers' compensation actions. The Court accepted for review a case holding that workers' compensation bad faith claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the workers' compensation hearing official.

Certification granted 6/7/11
Posted 6/10/11
Argued: 3/26/12
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 of a “willful violation” of its regulations, did the employer’s action constitute an “intentional wrong” that would preclude immunity under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 of the workers’ compensation statute?

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' compensation action. 

Certification granted 1/27/11
Posted 1/28/11
Argued: 10/12/11
A-69-10 Kenneth Van Dunk, Sr. v. Reckson Associates Realty Corp. (066949)


Related articles

Monday, September 22, 2014

Former Senior Executive of ArthroCare Corp. PleadsGuilty in $400 Million Securities Fraud Scheme

Today's post is shared from justice.gov
A former senior executive of ArthroCare Corp., a publicly traded medical device company based in Austin, Texas, pleaded guilty for his role in a scheme to defraud the company’s shareholders and members of the investing public by falsely inflating ArthroCare’s earnings, announced Acting Assistant Attorney Mythili Raman of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas. The plea was taken under seal on June 24, 2013, and unsealed late yesterday.
John Raffle, 45, of Austin, pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Lane in Austin to conspiracy to commit securities, mail and wire fraud and two false statements violations.  Raffle was the senior vice president of Strategic Business Units at ArthroCare, overseeing all sales and marketing staff at the company.  Raffle admitted that he and other co-conspirators falsely inflated ArthroCare’s sales and revenue through a series of end-of-quarter transactions involving ArthroCare’s distributors and that he and other co-conspirators caused ArthroCare to file a Form 10-K for 2007 and Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2008 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that materially misrepresented ArthroCare’s quarterly and annual sales, revenues, expenses and earnings.  As part of his plea, Raffle agreed that his conduct and the conduct of his co-conspirators caused more than $400 million in losses to...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]