Bio-Tech Worker Awarded $1.37 Million in Suit Against Pfizer

A former bio-technical scientist of Pfizer was awarded $1.37 Million dollars as a result of being infected by an experimental virus in the company's laboratories. After a 3 week trial, the award was entered in what is  considered to be the first successful employee claims in the biotech and nanotech industry.

While the intentional tort claim was dismissed by the Judge  and injured worker proceeded under the theory that the company, Pfizer, violated whistleblower laws. The plaintiff also alleged that The Occupational Safety and Health Administration failed to thoroughly investigate the matter and take action.

Click here for  a detailed analysis of the case "Prescription for Bioterrorism by Steve Zeltzer.


Click here to read more about nanotechnology and workers compensation.

Revised CMS Implementation Timetable - Mandatory Reporting

Revised March 29, 2010

Liability Insurance (including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance and Workers’ Compensation (Non-GHP or NGHP):

Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting Provisions in Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (See 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(7)&(b)(8))

Revised Implementation Timeline

Note: “RRE” stands for “responsible reporting entity.” “COBSW” stands for “Coordination of Benefits Secure Web site.” “COBC” stands for CMS’ Medicare “Coordination of Benefits Contractor.”

• 05/01/2009

Electronic registration via the Section 111 COBSW began for all liability insurance (including self- insurance), no-fault insurance and workers’ compensation RREs (NGHP RREs) excluding foreign RREs.

• 07/01/2009

Test and production Query Input Files accepted for NGHP RREs that completed registration and are in a testing status (the RRE’s signed Profile Report has been received by the COBC).

• 01/01/2010 – 12/31/2010

Claim Input File testing period for all NGHP RREs.  

• 04/05/2010

Electronic registration commences via the Section 111 COBSW for foreign NGHP RREs (those that are based in countries outside the United States and have no Internal Revenue Service-assigned tax identification number and/or US mailing address).

• 01/01/2011 – 03/31/2011

All NGHP RREs must submit initial Section 111 Claim Input production files to the COBC according to assigned file submission timeframes for their RRE IDs.

• 04/01/2011

All NGHP RREs must be reporting production Claim Input Files on a quarterly basis by this date.

Click here to rad more about CMS and mandatory reporting and workers' compensation.

At Home Injury Held Compensable

A truck driver who did maintenance on his vehicle at home on Sunday was allowed to recover benefits. The Court held that the injury occurred "within the course of the employment" even though the accident occurred off premises and not during normal work hours.


GUILLERMO CHAVERRI - v. CACE TRUCKING INCORPORATED -Respondent  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3619-07T23619-07T2 Decided March 30, 2010


Click here to read more about premises and off-premises claims under workers' compensation.

Ohio Upholds New Limits on Liability Actions Against Employers

The Ohio Supreme Court has upheld a 2005 statute that restricts an employee's direct liability actions against employers. The statute requires a showing that the employer deliberately intended to injury an employee. Employees remain restricted to the the Ohio workers' compensation remedy for recovery of benefits.

"As this court has often recognized, workers' compensation laws are the result of a unique mutual compromise between employees and employers, in which employees give up their common-law remedy and accept possibly lower monetary recovery, but with greater assurance that they will receive reasonable compensation for their injury," Justice Robert Cupp wrote in one of the two opinions he authored. "Employers in turn give up common-law defenses but are protected from unlimited liability."

The issue was decided when the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio certified constitutional questions to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co. (Slip Opinion)

2008-0857

3/23/2010

3/23/2010

2010-Ohio-1027

Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)

2008-0972

3/23/2010

3/23/2010

2010-Ohio-1029

Click here to read more about intentional actions and workers' compensation.

Putting a Value on Occupational Cancer Claims

Giving the sick the benefit of the doubt was the mantra the US District Court Judge charged with overseeing the settlement of 911 of the claims of the first responders. The Judge rejected the settlement of $575 several days ago as being inadequate.

The original settlement was crafted by the parties to cover the nearly 10,000 parties to the lawsuit. The Judge recognizes the difficulties in proving cancer claims and the unpredictability of the disease. The original cap offered was $100,000. The Judge said that was inadequate and suggested to the parties to find some method of increasing the benefits.

The 911 first responders were exposed to asbestos and petroleum products that could result in many types of future malignancies, including, lung cancer, mesothelioma and leukemia.

Click here to read more 911 claims.

David Michaels Testifies That OSHA Needs An Update-Enhance Penalties

In testimony before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protection of US Congress, David Michaels, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, reported that the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) needs to be strengthened and enhanced. He encouraged that both civil monetary fines and criminal penalties should be increased.

"....If we are to fulfill the Department's goal of providing good jobs for everyone, we must make even more progress. Good jobs are safe jobs, and American workers still face unacceptable hazards. More than 5,000 workers are killed on the job in America each year, more than 4 million are injured, and thousands more will become ill in later years from present occupational exposures. Moreover, the workplaces of 2010 are not those of 1970: the law must change as our workplaces have changed. The vast majority of America's environmental and public health laws have undergone significant transformations since they were enacted in the 1960s and 70s, while the OSH Act has seen only minor amendments. As a British statesman once remarked, 'The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.'"

"Monetary penalties for violations of the OSH Act have been increased only once in 40 years despite inflation during that period. Unscrupulous employers often consider it more cost effective to pay the minimal OSHA penalty and continue to operate an unsafe workplace than to correct the underlying health and safety problem. The current penalties do not provide an adequate deterrent. This is apparent when compared to penalties that other agencies are allowed to assess."

"Criminal penalties in the OSH Act are also inadequate for deterring the most egregious employer wrongdoing. Under the OSH Act, criminal penalties are limited to those cases where a willful violation of an OSHA standard results in the death of a worker and to cases of false statements or misrepresentations. The maximum period of incarceration upon conviction for a violation that costs a worker's life is six months in jail, making these crimes a misdemeanor.....Nothing focuses attention like the possibility of going to jail. Unscrupulous employers who refuse to comply with safety and health standards as an economic calculus will think again if there is a chance that they will go to jail for ignoring their responsibilities to their workers...... A fresh look at the OSH Act and its relevance for the 21st century is indeed overdue."

Click here to read more about OSHA and workers' compensation.

Asbestos Inspector in NY Admits Faking Tests

In the first criminal prosecution for violating the Toxic Substances Act, a NY inspector admitted in court that he made up hundreds of asbestos and lead tests between 2001 and 2009 and never actually inspected the buildings that he was charged to evaluate.

"EPA has also found that inhalation of asbestos can cause lung disease and cancer, and classified asbestos as a known human carcinogen. New York City has rules and regulations intended to reduce human exposure to asbestos fibers. Among other things, those rules and regulations require that, prior to the commencement of certain demolition and other projects, an inspection be performed by a New York City certified asbestos investigator to determine whether asbestos is present and, if so, how much and what kind, and whether the asbestos will be disturbed during the project. One purpose of the inspection is to determine whether or not the project is to be an "asbestos project" which requires the filing of a notice with the City and an abatement prior to commencement of the project. If the project is determined not to be an asbestos project, New York City rules and regulations require that a certified asbestos investigator complete, sign, and affix his or her asbestos investigator seal to a form captioned "Not an Asbestos Project," known generally as an ACP-5, and file that form with the City prior to issuance of a building permit and commencement of the project. 

"Until approximately February 17, 2004, Todara was a New York City-certified asbestos investigator, which authorized Todaro to inspect buildings for asbestos and to prepare and file -3 ACP-5s. On or about February 17, 2004, however, the City of New York suspended Todaro's asbestos investigator certificate, after which Todaro was prohibited from performing building inspections for asbestos and from preparing and filing ACP-5s in the City of New York. 

"However, despite the suspension of his asbestos investigator certificate, Todaro continued to prepare ACP-5s for filing with the City of New York regarding building projects taking place throughout the city. On numerous occasions, Todaro did so without actually performing an inspection of the premises identified in the ACP-5. In order to make it appear that inspections had actually been performed by a certified asbestos investigator, Todaro prepared backdated ACP-5s that falsely represented that he had performed an asbestos inspection and that he had done so prior to the suspension of his asbestos investigator certificate. Todaro submitted bogus ACP-5s, together with invoices describing the services provided as "Inspect/ACP5," to his customers, at least some of whom billed customers of their own for Todaro’s purported services.  Certain kinds of demolition and renovation activities in buildings can result in the release of asbestos fibers from building components into the air and the contamination of building components with lead-containing dust. Asbestos fibers in the air can be detected through the taking of air samples and laboratory analysis of those samples ("air monitoring"). Lead contamination of building components can be detected through lead clearance testing. 

"On hundreds of occasions, Todaro created and caused to be created false laboratory reports purporting to set forth the results of asbestos air monitoring and lead clearance testing performed at sites in which demolition and renovation activities were occurring or had occurred. Todaro then mailed these bogus reports, along with invoices for payment for his purported services, to customers. Those customers included, among others, management companies, landlords, and contractors. Some of Todaro's customers, in turn, billed customers of their own for Todaro's purported services. Moreover, some of the fraudulent invoices submitted by Tosaro were ultimately paid for under New York City government programs, administered by HPD, through which buildings in New York City were renovated, demolished, or demolished and re-built (the "HPD Programs"). One purpose of the -4 HPD Programs was to increase the stock of affordable housing in New York City.

Special Agent-in-Charge Majorie Franzman stated: "The egregious and reprehensible actions of Mr. Todaro exhibited a complete disregard for the health of unsuspecting residents in New York City. Mr. Todaro also placed at risk those workers who perform demolition and renovation work by exposing them to potentially unsafe levels of lead and asbestos. My office will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners to hold accountable those who violate OSHA safety regulations and worker safety laws."

Click here to read more about asbestos and occupational exposures.

Click here to read more about asbestos claims and lawsuits.