Archive for March 2016

OSHA Settles with Anheuser-Busch of New Jersey - Warehouse Violations

US Labor Department settlement: Anheuser-Busch of New Jersey agreesto enhance safety for workers at its Jersey City, Bronx distributorships

Background: The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited the company in December 2014 for numerous safety violations at its Jersey City distribution warehouse. Hazards included untrained forklift operators, obstructed exit routes, damaged storage racks and inadequate chemical hazard communication training. The company contested its citations on Dec. 23, 2015.

Resolution: The department and Anheuser-Busch Sales of New Jersey have reached a settlement in which the company will implement and maintain enhanced safety measures for employees at its distributorships in Jersey City at 101 Linden Avenue E and in Bronx, New York at 550 Food Center Drive.

These enhancements require Anheuser-Busch to:
Conduct comprehensive safety and health self-audits focusing on hazards involving powered industrial trucks, safety and training, material handling, hazard communication and means of egress.
Establish safety and health committees made up of management, employees, unions and individuals responsible for safety at the distributorships.
Make management responsible for implementing the committees’ recommended changes.
Make the committees’ findings, recommendations and analyses available to OSHA upon request.
Ensure the adequate training of all leased, temporary and/or subcontractors’ employees.
Consent to interim monitoring inspections by OSHA.

As part of the settlement, Anheuser-Busch has already corrected the cited hazards at its Jersey City location and paid a fine of $150,000. The settlement can be viewed here*.

Quotes: “This settlement commits Anheuser-Busch to making safety a priority for workers at its New Jersey and New York distributorships,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York. “Successfully implemented, this agreement will result in safer working conditions for numerous workers at multiple company locations.”

“Proactively addressing conditions at more than the cited location makes sense and pays dividends for workers and employers alike. This course of action can reduce hazards and injuries and increase a company’s productivity,” said Jeffrey Rogoff, regional solicitor for the department in New York.

The original investigation was conducted by OSHA’s Parsippany Area Office. The department’s regional Office of the Solicitor in New York negotiated the settlement for OSHA.

Date of action: Jan. 11, 2016
Type of action: Stipulated Settlement

Names of defendants: Anheuser-Busch Sales of New Jersey LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Anheuser-Busch Inbev SA/NV.

New safety warnings also added to all prescription opioid medications

Hyakkimaro 13:42 Add Comment

Hyakkimaro

FDA
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

FDA announces enhanced warnings for immediate-release opioid pain medications related to risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, overdose and death. New safety warnings also added to all prescription opioid medications to inform prescribers and patients of additional risks related to opioid use.

In a continuing effort to educate prescribers and patients about the potential risks related to opioid use, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced required class-wide safety labeling changes for immediate-release (IR) opioid pain medications. Among the changes, the FDA is requiring a new boxed warning about the serious risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, overdose and death. Today’s actions are among a number of steps the agency recently outlined in a plan to reassess its approach to opioid medications. The plan is focused on policies aimed at reversing the epidemic, while still providing patients in pain access to effective relief.

The FDA is also requiring several additional safety labeling changes across all prescription opioid products to include additional information on the risk of these medications. This is part of the agency’s overall effort to help inform prescribers about the importance of balancing the serious risks of opioids with their role in managing pain.

“Opioid addiction and overdose have reached epidemic levels over the past decade, and the FDA remains steadfast in our commitment to do our part to help reverse the devastating impact of the misuse and abuse of prescription opioids,” said Robert Califf, M.D., FDA commissioner. “Today’s actions are one of the largest undertakings for informing prescribers of risks across opioid products, and one of many steps the FDA intends to take this year as part of our comprehensive action plan to reverse this epidemic.”

Opioid analgesics are powerful pain-reducing medications that include prescription oxycodone, hydrocodone and morphine, among others. Prescription opioids are divided into two main categories – IR products, usually intended for use every four to six hours; and extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) products, which are primarily intended to be taken once or twice a day, depending on the individual product and patient. Certain opioids, such as methadone and buprenorphine, are also used as a form of treatment for opioid addiction, and in combination with behavioral therapy and counseling, are known as medication-assisted treatment, or MAT.

The updated indication clarifies that because of these risks, IR opioids should be reserved for pain severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options (e.g., non-opioid analgesics or opioid combination products, as appropriate) are inadequate or not tolerated. The dosing information also provides clearer instructions regarding patient monitoring and drug administration, including initial dosage, dosage changes during therapy and a warning not to abruptly stop treatment in a physically dependent patient.

As part of the boxed warning on IR opioid analgesics, the FDA now requires a precaution that chronic maternal use of opioids during pregnancy can result in neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS), which may be life-threatening if not recognized and treated using protocols developed by neonatology experts. NOWS may occur in a newborn exposed to opioid drugs for a prolonged period while in utero.

In 2013, the FDA required class-wide labeling changes for ER/LA opioid analgesics that included modifications to the products’ indications, limitations of use, and warnings, including boxed warnings to more effectively communicate to prescribers the serious risks associated with these drugs. Today, the FDA is requiring similar changes to the labeling of IR opioid analgesics.

“We know that there is persistent abuse, addiction, overdose mortality and risk of NOWS associated with IR opioid products,” said Douglas Throckmorton, M.D., deputy center director of regulatory programs, FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today, we have taken an important next step in clarifying and making more prominent the known risks of IR opioid medications.”

Additionally, the FDA is requiring updated labeling for all opioids (both ER/LA and IR products) to include safety information about potentially harmful drug interactions with other medicines that can result in a serious central nervous system condition called serotonin syndrome. Updated labeling will also include information about opioid effects on the endocrine system, including a rare but serious disorder of the adrenal glands (called adrenal insufficiency) and decreased sex hormone levels (androgen deficiency). These labeling changes will also make it clear that these negative outcomes can occur whether a patient is taking an opioid to treat pain or if the product is being used for MAT. Today, the FDA issued a Drug Safety Communication outlining these risks.

“The broad set of actions announced today is reflective of the FDA’s efforts to improve informed prescribing of opioids across the board,” said Janet Woodcock, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “We have been and will continue to evaluate all new data to ensure that labels of opioid drugs contain appropriate prescribing information about the benefits and risks of prescription opioids.”

The FDA is also aware of, and carefully reviewing, available scientific information about potentially serious outcomes related to interactions between benzodiazepines and opioids. Once a review of all available scientific information is completed, the FDA will take necessary actions to ensure prescribers and the public are informed of the risks involved with the use of these medications.

These actions are the latest examples of the agency’s commitment to combat this public health crisis and its profound impact on individuals, families and communities across our country. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell has made addressing opioid misuse, addiction and overdose a priority. Other work on this important issue is underway within HHS. The evidence-based HHS-wide opioid initiative focuses on three priority areas: informing opioid prescribing practices, increasing the use of naloxone (a rescue medication that can prevent death from overdose) and expanding access to and the use of MAT to treat opioid use disorder.

Vehicle Safety: Automatic Braking Standard to be Adopted by 20 Auto Manfacturers

Hyakkimaro 07:00 Add Comment

Hyakkimaro

Transportation injuries contribute to a large percentage of work related accidents. Thank maybe changing soon. The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced today a historic commitment by 20 automakers representing more than 99 percent of the U.S. auto market to make automatic emergency braking a standard feature on virtually all new cars no later than NHTSA's 2022 reporting year, which begins Sept. 1, 2022.

Automakers making the commitment are Audi, BMW, FCA US LLC, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Kia, Maserati, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Tesla Motors Inc., Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo Car USA. The unprecedented commitment means that this important safety technology will be available to more consumers more quickly than would be possible through the regulatory process.

AEB systems help prevent crashes or reduce their severity by applying the brakes for the driver. The systems use on-vehicle sensors such as radar, cameras or lasers to detect an imminent crash, warn the driver and apply the brakes if the driver does not take sufficient action quickly enough.

NHTSA estimates that the agreement will make AEB standard on new cars three years faster than could be achieved through the formal regulatory process. During those three years, according to IIHS estimates, the commitment will prevent 28,000 crashes and 12,000 injuries.

"It's an exciting time for vehicle safety. By making automatic emergency braking systems standard equipment on their vehicles, these 20 automakers will help prevent crashes and save lives," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "It's a win for safety and a win for consumers."

Based on mounting evidence that AEB effectively reduced crashes and injuries in the United States and around the world, NHTSA and IIHS issued a challenge to the industry in September 2015 to encourage automakers to voluntarily make AEB a standard feature. A series of meetings followed to establish details of the commitment.

"IIHS member companies strongly support the adoption of effective safety technologies," said IIHS Board Chairman and CEO of American Family Insurance, Jack Salzwedel. "Deploying AEB on a wide scale will allow us to further evaluate the technology's effectiveness and its impact on insurance losses, so that more insurers can explore offering discounts or lower premiums to consumers who choose AEB-equipped vehicles."

"We're getting these safety systems into vehicles much faster than what would have been otherwise possible," said NHTSA Administrator, Dr. Mark Rosekind. "A commitment of this magnitude is unprecedented, and it will bring more safety to more Americans sooner."

"The benefits of this commitment are far reaching, from injuries and deaths averted to the recovery of productivity that would otherwise be lost in traffic jams caused by the crashes prevented," said IIHS Executive Vice President and Chief Research Officer David Zuby. "It also assures that all Americans will benefit from this technology."

"With roadway fatalities on the rise, the commitment made today has the potential to save more lives than almost anything else we can accomplish in the next six years," said Deborah A.P. Hersman, president and CEO of the National Safety Council, who attended today's announcement. "Including all models in the agreement ensures that safety isn't for just those who can afford it."

NHTSA and IIHS also announced that Consumer Reports will assist in monitoring automaker progress toward meeting the AEB commitment. Jake Fisher, Director of Auto Testing for Consumer Reports, said, "We have been calling on automakers to make automatic emergency braking standard in all new vehicles, and today is an important step toward reaching that goal. This proven technology is among the most promising safety advances we've seen since electronic stability control almost two decades ago. We look forward to working with NHTSA and IIHS to help put this plan into action and hold automakers accountable for their commitments."

Today's commitment will make AEB standard on virtually all light-duty cars and trucks with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less beginning no later than Sept. 1, 2022. AEB will be standard on virtually all trucks with a gross vehicle weight between 8,501 pounds and 10,000 pounds beginning no later than Sept. 1, 2025.

As NHTSA continues its regulatory work in this area, NHTSA will track the progress industry is making towards its commitment.

The commitment takes into account the evolution of AEB technology. It requires a level of functionality that is in line with research and crash data demonstrating that such systems are substantially reducing crashes, but does not stand in the way of improved capabilities that are just beginning to emerge. The performance measures are based on real world data showing that vehicles with this level of capability are avoiding crashes.

To encourage further development of AEB technology, NHTSA will accelerate its research on more advanced AEB applications, including systems that reduce the risk of collisions with pedestrians. In December, NHTSA announced plans to rate AEB systems and other advanced technologies under its 5-Star Safety Ratings beginning in model year 2018.

FACT SHEET:
Auto Industry Commitment to IIHS and NHTSA on Automatic Emergency Braking

Participating manufacturers: Audi, BMW, FCA US LLC, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Kia, Maserati, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Tesla Motors Inc., Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo Car USA — representing more than 99 percent of the U.S. new-car market.

Details of the commitment: Participating automakers commit to make AEB standard on virtually all light-duty cars and trucks with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less no later than Sept. 1, 2022, and on virtually all trucks with a gross vehicle weight between 8,501 pounds and 10,000 pounds no later than Sept. 1, 2025.

What is AEB? Automatic emergency braking helps prevent crashes or reduce their severity by applying a vehicle's brakes automatically. The systems use on-board sensors such as radar, cameras or lasers to detect an imminent crash, warn the driver, and apply the brakes or increase braking effort if the driver does not take sufficient action.

Performance requirements: Participating manufacturers will ensure vehicles have both a forward collision warning system that meets a subset of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's current 5-Star Safety Ratings program requirements on the timing of driver alerts and an automatic braking system that earns at least an advanced rating in the current Insurance Institute for Highway Safety front crash prevention track tests. The baseline performance measures are a speed reduction of at least 10 mph in either the IIHS 12 or 25 mph tests, or a speed reduction of 5 mph in both of the tests.

Safety benefits: IIHS research shows that AEB systems meeting the commitment would reduce rear-end crashes by 40 percent. IIHS estimates that by 2025 — the earliest NHTSA believes it could realistically implement a regulatory requirement for AEB — the commitment will prevent 28,000 crashes and 12,000 injuries.

Monitoring progress: IIHS and NHTSA will monitor automakers' progress toward the commitment and provide annual updates on that progress. Commitment letters from each of the manufacturers, along with annual submissions on their progress, will be posted atwww.regulations.gov under docket number NHTSA-2015-0101.

Pleural mesothelioma reported in a school teacher: asbestos exposure due to DAS paste

Hyakkimaro 04:28 Add Comment

Hyakkimaro

The hazardous legacy exposures of school children and art teachers to materials containing asbestos fiber, ie. Fibro Clay, and its causal relationship to mesothelioma, has been reported in a recent medical journal. Today's post is partially shared from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

BACKGROUND:

Malignant mesothelioma cases among primary school teachers are usually linked with asbestos exposure due to the mineral contained in the building structure. Among the approximately 12,000 cases of mesothelioma described in the fourth report of the National Mesothelioma Register, 11 cases of primary school teachers are reported, in spite of the fact that the "catalogue of asbestos use" does not describe circumstances of asbestos exposure other than or different to that due to asbestos contained in the buildings. Four cases in the Brescia Provincial Mesothelioma Register are identified as teachers, without this circumstance of exposure.

OBJECTIVES:

To characterize the asbestos concentration and fibre type retained in the lungs of a teacher reported as a new mesothelioma case and preliminarily classified as of unknown asbestos exposure.

METHODS:

The mesothelioma case presented here was diagnosed at age 78 and malignant mesothelioma was confirmed at autopsy; the patient was interviewed directly for occupational history. Samples of lung parenchyma from necropsies were collected, stored and analyzed by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and samples of DAS paste were analyzed by SEM to detect asbestos fibre content.

RESULTS:

It was possible to confirm past exposure to DAS paste in forming and finishing dry items and toys during school recreational activity almost every day from the mid-60s to about the mid-70s. Subsequent SEM analysis showed: i) chrysotile fibres were found in an old and unused pack of DAS paste; ii) a lung burden of 1,400 asbestos bodies, 310.000 total asbestos fibres (33% chrysotile, 67% amphibole) and 210.000 talc fibre per gr/dry lung tissue was detected from necropsies performed on the subject. These results seem to be in agreement with an occupational exposure to asbestos due to past use of DAS paste. After the investigation, this case was reclassified from "unknowun" to " sure" occupational asbestos exposure. The occupational origin of the tumour was recognized by the Italian Workers' Compensation Authority (INAIL).

CONCLUSION:

This case suggests i) the need to carry out any possible detailed studies of the circumstances and exposure sources whenever any mesothelioma case is classified as "asbestos exposure unknown", according to the guidelines of the National Mesothelioma Register, ii) handling of DAS paste can be considered as sure asbestos exposure and iii) it should be borne in mind that mesothelioma cases can occur even after cumulative low, occupational exposure, even only to chrysotile.

PMID: 27015029 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Med Lav. 2016 Mar 24;107(2):141-147.

[Article in Italian]

Barbieri PG1, Somigliana A, Girelli R, Lombardi S, Sarnico M, Silvestri S.

Author information

…..

Silca: New US DOL Rule to Protect Workers

Hyakkimaro 14:35 Add Comment

Hyakkimaro

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration today announced a final rule to improve protections for workers exposed to respirable silica dust. The rule will curb lung cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney disease in America's workers by limiting their exposure to respirable crystalline silica.

"More than 80 years ago, Labor Secretary Frances Perkins identified silica dust as a deadly hazard and called on employers to fully protect workers," said U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. "This rule will save lives. It will enable workers to earn a living without sacrificing their health. It builds upon decades of research and a lengthy stakeholder engagement process - including the consideration of thousands of public comments - to finally give workers the kind of protection they deserve and that Frances Perkins had hoped for them."

OSHA estimates that when the final rule on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica becomes fully effective, it will save more than 600 lives annually and prevent more than 900 new cases of silicosis - an incurable and progressive disease - each year. The agency also estimates the final rule will provide net benefits of about $7.7 billion per year.

"The previous exposure limits were outdated and did not adequately protect workers," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. "Limiting exposure to silica dust is essential. Every year, many exposed workers not only lose their ability to work, but also to breathe. Today, we are taking action to bring worker protections into the 21st century in ways that are feasible and economical for employers to implement."

About 2.3 million men and women face exposure to respirable crystalline silica in their workplaces, including two million construction workers who drill and cut silica-containing materials such as concrete and stone, and 300,000 workers in operations such as brick manufacturing, foundries and hydraulic fracturing. Most employers can limit harmful dust exposure by using equipment that is widely available - generally using water to keep dust from getting into the air or a ventilation system to capture dust where it is created.

The final rule will improve worker protection by:

Reducing the permissible exposure limit for crystalline silica to 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air, averaged over an eight-hour shift.
Requiring employers to use engineering controls (such as water or ventilation) and work practices to limit worker exposure; provide respiratory protection when controls are not able to limit exposures to the permissible level; limit access to high exposure areas; train workers; and provide medical exams to highly exposed workers.
Providing greater certainty and ease of compliance to construction employers - including many small employers - by including a table of specified controls they can follow to be in compliance, without having to monitor exposures.
Staggering compliance dates to ensure employers have sufficient time to meet the requirements, e.g., extra time for the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) industry to install new engineering controls and for all general industry employers to offer medical surveillance to employees exposed between the PEL and 50 micrograms per cubic meter and the action level of 25 micrograms per cubic meter.

The final rule is written as two standards, one for construction and one for general industry and maritime. Employers covered by the construction standard have until June 23, 2017 to comply with most requirements. Employers covered by the general industry and maritime standard have until June 23, 2018 to comply with most requirements; additional time is provided to offer medical exams to some workers and for hydraulic fracturing employers to install dust controls to meet the new exposure limit.

More information is available at https://www.osha.gov/silica/

US Supreme Court Reviews In The Course of Employment Issue

Hyakkimaro 11:00 Add Comment

Hyakkimaro

The US Supreme Court ruling in a recent wage and hour case solidified the principle that the time spent by workers to put on and remove safety equipment should be consider time "on the clock" and in the course of employment. This concept reaffirms basic workers' compensation case law that such activities are within the course of employment. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court verdict awarding damages to the workers of $5.8 Million dollars for overtime wages.

Anthony Kennedy,
Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the
United States
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"In their complaint, respondents alleged that donning and doffing protective gear were integral and indispensable to their hazardous work and that petitioner’s policy not to pay for those activities denied them overtime compensation required by the FLSA. Respondents also raised a claim under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law. This statute provides for recovery under state law when an employer fails to pay its employees “all wages due,” which includes FLSA-mandated overtime. Iowa Code §91A.3 (2013); cf. Anthony v. State, 632 N. W. 2d 897, 901–902 (Iowa 2001)."

"The case proceeded to trial before a jury. The parties stipulated that the employees were entitled to be paid for donning and doffing of certain equipment worn to protect from knife cuts. The jury was left to determine whether the time spent donning and doffing other protective equipment was compensable; whether Tyson was required to pay for donning and doffing during meal breaks; and the total amount of time spent on work that was not compensated under Tyson’s gang-time system."

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined as to Part II. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined.

Tyson Foods, Inc., Petitioner v.Peg Bouaphakeo, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, No. 14-1146 Decided, March 20, 2015

US Supreme Court Docket

Opting Out Creates Savings Reports Stanford Study

Hyakkimaro 06:30 Add Comment

Hyakkimaro

Today's post is shared from ssrn.com

The “grand bargain” of workers’ compensation, whereby workers relinquished the right to sue their employers in exchange for no-fault occupational injury insurance, was one of the great tort reforms of the Twentieth Century. However, there is one U.S. state that has always permitted employers to decline workers’ compensation coverage, and in which many firms (“nonsubscribers”) have chosen to do so: Texas.

Alison D Morants
Stanford Law School

This study examines the impact of Texas nonsubscription on fifteen large, multistate nonsubscribers that provided their Texas employees with customized occupational injury insurance benefits (“private plans”) in lieu of workers’ compensation coverage between 1998 and 2010. As economic theory would lead one to expect, nonsubscription generated considerable cost savings. My preferred estimates suggest that costs per worker hour fell by about 44 percent.

These savings were driven by a drop in the frequency of more serious claims involving replacement of lost wages, and by a decline in costs per claim. Both medical and wage-replacement costs fell substantially. Although the decline in wage-replacement costs was larger in percentage terms than the drop in medical costs, the latter was equally financially consequential since medical costs comprise a larger share of total costs.

The second stage, which compares the effect of nonsubscription across different types of injuries, finds that non-traumatic injury claims were more responsive to nonsubscription than traumatic ones. In part, this disparity reflects the fact that private plans categorically exclude some non-traumatic injuries from the scope of coverage. Yet even those non-traumatic injuries that were not excluded from coverage declined more than traumatic injuries, consistent with aggressive claim screening by employers and/or a decline in over-claiming and over-utilization by employees in the nonsubscription environment.

The third stage examines the effect of nonsubscription on severe, traumatic injuries, which are generally the least susceptible to reporting bias and moral hazard. The sizable and significant decline in such injuries is consistent with an improvement in real safety, although it could also be explained by aggressive claim screening.

The final stage of the study probes whether four ubiquitous features of private plans – non-coverage of permanent partial disabilities, categorical exclusion of many diseases and some non-traumatic injuries, capped benefits, and lack of chiropractic care – explain the observed trends. Surprisingly, these features account for little of the estimated cost savings.

Although many study participants describe limited provider choice and 24-hour reporting windows as major cost drivers, data limitations preclude me from identifying their respective impacts.

Overall, my findings suggest an urgent need for policymakers to examine the economic and distributional effects of converting workers’ compensation from a cornerstone of the social welfare state into an optional program that exists alongside privately-provided forms of occupational injury insurance.

Morantz, Alison D., Rejecting the Grand Bargain: What Happens When Large Companies Opt Out of Workers’ Compensation? (March 18, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2750134

Expectations Must Adapt to Change

Hyakkimaro 09:43 Add Comment

Hyakkimaro

In the "old days" the US workers' compensation system, meet or "exceeded exceptions." Looking backward we recognize an aggressive and dedicated work ethic, that the government, private industry and labor," managed to embrace into a "Grand Bargain" called Workers' Compensation.

Times have changed. In the past the corporate and executive workplace was a formal "tie and jacket" environment. Seasoned member always gripe how things have changed for the worse and long for a return to the comforting and familiar "good old times."

Expectations and habits make it difficult to even recognize that that while things appear to change they actually are just somewhat different. I hear the cry daily from colleagues, that the US is becoming a Third World country because of the dramatic changes that are occurring in our society.

Original Logo
Apple will be celebrating
40 years in April 2016

In the decades ahead, the majority of youngsters of today will be working in jobs that don't even exit in today's economy, shared or otherwise.

Apple, celebrating its 40th year, did a presentation on Monday on NEW technology and a changing world. Dressed in their relaxed business uniforms of a dark color blue/black shirt/blouse and jeans or a dark color dress, the executives of the richest company in the world, presented a peak into the future, ie. targeted at moving millions of old PC users into the an iPad-Pro world without a mouse; changing how we view "television," and provided insight into a new dedication to "health," "environment," and "privacy."

Yes, workers' compensation will be different going forward. It doesn't necessarily mean that change is bad, it is just different.

Today's guest post is authored from David DePaolo* (daviddepaolo.blogspot.com).

Exceeding the Expectation

My new MacBook Air arrived yesterday to my surprise.

David DePaolo

It wasn't supposed to be here until this afternoon.

Recall that on Thursday I decided to speed up my old computer with some coffee. Seeing that afternoon that recovery was futile I ordered up a "new" refurbished MacBook Air. Free delivery was estimated to occur March 22, but I could pay an extra $22 for "next day" delivery on 3/21.

I was already upset about frying the old box and having to purchase a replacement (let alone the hassle in moving all of my data over), and spending the extra money to guarantee a delivery date didn't sit well.

And it wasn't necessary: Apple made a reasonable promise and then exceeded my expectations based on that promise.

Getting the new MacBook Air yesterday meant I wasn't quite ready to set it up - I left my back up drive at home, our senior IT guy was working from home and meetings all day would not allow me to get up and running that day.

I just KNEW that moving to the new computer would be a long, painful process.

I opened up the machine, turned it on, went through a couple of steps to set up language and location, then used Apple's Migration Assistant to move from the old computer to the new one in about an hour and a half, without the necessity of monitoring...

All that anxiety wasn't necessary: Apple made a reasonable promise and then exceeded my expectations based on that promise.

And the new computer is noticeably faster than the old one. The old box had a battery that was dying, using up valuable system resources to try and monitor the warn down lithium-ion. In addition the new machine has a slightly faster processor and more memory - I'm sure that contributes as well to the noticeable performance increase.

But not THAT much: Apple made a reasonable promise and then exceeded my expectations based on that promise.

In case you haven't noticed, there's a theme this morning: exceeding expectations.

How often can you look at workers' compensation and say we, as an industry (or even a company) exceed the expectations of employers and their covered workers?

We defend workers' compensation as a sacrosanct institution because its been around over 100 years and is a linchpin to a modern economy: spreading the risk of financial disaster and providing medical care to those in need.

But the industry is routinely chided, particularly of late, for failing to meet those basic expectations.

And, hypocritically enough, when alternatives are proposed the industry uses the same arguments that critics throw at work comp against those alternatives: non-covered injury types, exclusion of pre-existing conditions, limitations on physician choice, restrictions on medical care, inadequate indemnity, etc.

Indeed, if you ask nearly anyone that hasn't yet gone through the work comp gauntlet you'll find that expectations are exceedingly low. Mistrust, pervasive fraud, denied benefits - those are, unfortunately, the expectations that we've come to understand.

Expectations are actually easy to establish because the ones providing the service or product get to define what they are from the outset.

For instance, Apple told me to expect the computer on Tuesday, and I felt that was reasonable so I accepted it. Heck, if they told me I would get the box on Thursday I would have been happy.

In workers' compensation we don't often enough do a good job of setting expectations. Some of those expectations are dictated by law such as waiting periods, or timeliness of indemnity checks, or types of conditions covered.

Other expectations are of our own doing: initial contact, communications, delivery of service; we have control over setting those expectations.

And we have control over meeting or exceeding them too.

It's easy to pontificate about setting and exceeding expectations, but it's another thing to actually performing to those standards, and that takes discipline.

In the computing industry, discipline is dictated by competition. The Digital Age bar of expectation is now set so high because of competition that the customers of these products and services expect nearly instant gratification, even with hardware. In my case, Apple was able to do it by delivering a machine ahead of time and making the transition unbelievably simple and quick.

Stanford law professor Alison Morantz has studied Texas non-subscription for years. She just released a new paper, still undergoing the editorial process, which shows that, at least with her cohort, companies save a significant amount of money over Texas subscribers (and Texas is already a reasonably priced work comp state), and that these company workers seem to be better off (though she admits that more study is needed on outcomes).

The study is divisive of course. The old guard hasn't yet attacked the study per se - it's too fresh - but the same old arguments are used to deride opt-out in general. And opt-out proponents say, "I told you so."

Maybe it's all about expectations. Maybe those that participate in work comp have been so lax, so lacking in discipline, for so long, that work comp has deteriorated to meet those low levels of expectation, and when something comes along that exceeds that low bar we can't help but be critical and attack it.

Because someone else is doing something fresh, exciting, and perhaps way better than the stalwart.

Before you think I'm an opt-out proponent, I'm not. I frankly don't care how benefits are delivered, what mechanism is used for work injury protection, or why.

I only care that there is some system in place that is a reasonable cost to business, and provides some adequate measure of protection to workers.

It can't be all things to all people all the time. But a good work injury protection scheme can be most things to most people most of the time. It's a low expectation bar.

We just need to exceed it, whether by traditional comp, or an alternative protection system.

*David DePaolo is a former practicing Workers' Compensation attorney. He founded and grew WorkCompCentral into the most respected news and education service in the workers' compensation industry. He is a regular public speaker on workers' compensation to industry trade shows, educational seminars, radio and television.

Water is Work - World Water Day March 22, 2016

Hyakkimaro 04:00 Add Comment

Hyakkimaro

Today's post is shared from .unwater.org and from cdc.gov Water is critical to work, health and safety.

World Water Day 2016, sponsored by the United Nations, is focused on water and jobs. Approximately half of workers around the world (1.5 billion persons) have jobs in water-related industries. Many industries rely on water to perform jobs, such as fishing, agriculture, manufacturing, and food service. Societies and economies depend on the men and women who work to keep the world’s drinking water safe.

Climate change affects the economies and infrastructure that provide access to safe drinking water around the world. The World Health Organization estimates that during 2030–2050, an additional 250,000 persons will die each year as a result of climate change. Diarrheal diseases from contaminated water and lack of adequate sanitation and hygiene will be a major cause of these additional deaths. Now is the time to address these challenges and commit to the responsible management of water resources to ensure sustainable development in the present and for generations to come.

The power of water and jobs

On World Water Day, people everywhere show that they care and that they have the power to make a difference. They get inspired by information and use it to take action and change things. This year many will focus on the power that water and jobs have to transform people’s lives. Nearly all jobs are related to water and those that ensure its safe delivery. But today, millions of people who work in water are often not recognized or even protected by basic labour rights. This needs to change. Read More

#UN_Water

….

OSHA: 50% of Employers Not Reporting Serious Injuries

Hyakkimaro 05:30 Add Comment

Hyakkimaro

Some employers are not reporting severe work-related injuries according to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Over 50% or more are not being reported.

OSHA bases this conclusion on several factors, including injury claim numbers provided to us by state workers’ compensation programs. Because the majority of first year reports were filed by large employers, we believe that many small and mid-sized employers are unaware of the new requirements.

For those employers not reporting, OSHA is developing outreach strategies, including working through insurers, first responders, and business organizations. In other cases, employers are choosing not to report because they perceive the cost of not reporting to be low.

Employers should know that, now that the requirement is in its second year, OSHA is more likely to cite for non-reporting. In addition, the agency recently increased the unadjusted penalty for not reporting a severe injury from $1,000 to as much as $7,000. And that amount will increase even more when higher penalty levels recently approved by Congress take effect.

If OSHA learns that an employer knew about the requirement but chose not to report it promptly, the fine can be much higher. Already, one employer has been assessed enhanced penalties of $70,000 for willfully failing to report.

Results from the first year of severe injury reporting demonstrate the program’s success in both helping OSHA focus its resources where most needed, and engaging employers to identify and eliminate serious hazards at their workplaces. The report was authored by By David Michaels, PhD, MPH Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

OSHA will continue to evaluate the program and make changes to improve its effectiveness. For example, OSHA is refining guidance to the field about when a Rapid Response Investigation is appropriate and when an inspection should be called.

The agency is seeking new ways to make sure that small employers know about their reporting obligations and the resources available to them. Beyond the numbers and the success stories, OSHA knows that each case reported to us under this new requirement involved a human being who went to work one day and suffered an unexpected trauma.

Some, along with their co-workers and families, were changed forever. To help bring meaning to their suffering, OSHA hopes at least ensure that all severe workrelated injuries are reported to OSHA, and that they lead to safer working conditions for others.

….

Garlock reaches $480 Million settlement on asbestos claims

Hyakkimaro 04:00 Add Comment

Hyakkimaro

Garlock plans to emerge from bankruptcy and establish a trust in the amount of $480 Million to pay asbestos claimants and their families. Garlock a member of the EnPro Industries consortium had made asbestos gaskets.Asbestos is a known carcinogen and causally connected with lung cancer, mesothelioma and other malignancies as well as asbestosis.

Today's post is shared from reuters.com

"EnPro Industries Inc said it has agreed to a $480 million settlement to resolve current and future personal injury claims related to its asbestos-lined gaskets used in pipes, valves and other industrial applications.

"The settlement was between EnPro, its now bankrupt unit Garlock Sealing Technologies, Garlock's direct parent Coltec Industries Inc and court-appointed representative for current and future asbestos claimants.

Click here to read the entire article.

….

EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO) today announced that it has reached a comprehensive settlement to resolve current and future asbestos claims. The settlement was reached with the court-appointed committee representing current asbestos claimants (the GST Committee) and the court-appointed legal representative of future asbestos claimants (the GST FCR) in the Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC (GST) asbestos claims resolution process (ACRP) pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Representatives for current and future asbestos claimants against Coltec Industries Inc (EnPro’s direct subsidiary and GST’s direct parent) also joined in the settlement. The agreement, which is subject to approval by claimants, the Bankruptcy Court, and the U.S. District Court, would permanently resolve all current and future asbestos claims against GST and Coltec and would protect all of EnPro from those claims.

The GST Committee, the GST FCR and the representatives of Coltec claimants have agreed to join GST and Coltec in proposing a plan of reorganization that incorporates the settlement and to ask asbestos claimants and the Court to approve the plan, which would provide permanent protection from asbestos claims under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The agreement contemplates the establishment of a $480 million trust (the Trust) to be fully funded within a year of consummation of the proposed plan. A cash contribution of $400 million would be made upon consummation of the plan, and a contribution valued at $80 million would be made no later than the first anniversary of consummation.

EnPro estimates the present value, after tax, of these contributions to the Trust to be $284 million. The Trust would assume responsibility for all present and future asbestos claims arising from the operations or products of GST or Coltec, thereby covering all EnPro businesses ever to have received asbestos claims in the United States.

Barring unexpected objections to the plan and assuming a vote of at least 75% of asbestos claimants in favor of the plan, EnPro anticipates the plan could be approved and become final during the summer of 2017.

In addition to funds required for the Trust, EnPro has committed up to an additional approximately U.S. $17 million, before tax, for the resolution of all current and future Canadian asbestos claims. These funds would be available primarily to Canadian provincial authorities who seek recovery of amounts they have paid or will ever pay in the future under Canadian asbestos-injury recovery statutes for claims allegedly relating in whole or in part to exposure to GST or Coltec asbestos-containing products. Negotiations with legal representatives for the provinces are underway. The company has the option to continue and conclude the comprehensive settlement without a separate Canadian deal; however, if the Canadian negotiations are unsuccessful, it also has the option to terminate them and renegotiate the comprehensive settlement.

While no current EnPro subsidiary other than GST (and Anchor Packing, also a debtor in the GST ACRP) has ever made indemnity payments to asbestos claimants, thousands of claims have been made in the past against Coltec and its present and former businesses based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing gaskets and other components in equipment sold by those businesses. Coltec and its insurers have spent several million dollars defending those claims, and several thousand cases currently pending have been stayed during the pendency of the GST case. The proposed settlement would resolve all of those claims and would provide complete and final relief from them and any future claims like them.

If the proposed plan of reorganization is approved by asbestos claimants, Coltec will, subject to the receipt of necessary consents, undergo a corporate restructuring to facilitate the plan. All of its significant operating assets and subsidiaries, which include each of EnPro’s major business units, would be transferred into a new direct EnPro subsidiary. The transferred businesses would continue to operate in the normal course without interruption. The restructured company (OldCo) would retain responsibility for all asbestos claims and rights to certain insurance assets.

Upon completion of the restructuring, OldCo will file a pre-packaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, which EnPro expects will be administered with GST’s Chapter 11 case. The settlement agreement provides that OldCo and representatives of all of its current and future asbestos claimants will join GST, the GST Committee, and the GST FCR in seeking court approval of the joint plan of reorganization. Upon final approval by the court, GST and OldCo would receive an injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code protecting them and all other EnPro affiliates from all current and future GST and Coltec asbestos claims, including claims based on the products or operations of any of their current or past businesses and any claims related to or derivative of those claims. Under the proposed plan of reorganization, all non-asbestos creditors will be paid in full and EnPro will retain ownership of OldCo and GST.

The settlement also contemplates the dismissal and exchange of broad mutual releases in GST’s adversary proceedings pending against several asbestos plaintiff law firms alleging violations related to the concealment of evidence by those firms, which dismissal and releases would become effective upon entry of a final order confirming the plan of reorganization. Those proceedings will be stayed pending confirmation of the plan of reorganization, but may be re-commenced in the event the plan is ultimately not confirmed.

Assuming agreement on the terms of a comprehensive set of plan documents and a favorable vote by claimants, EnPro expects the OldCo bankruptcy filing to occur in late 2016 or early 2017. Assuming final court approval and satisfaction of other conditions, including receipt of a favorable private letter ruling from the IRS or the satisfactory opinion of tax counsel, EnPro expects both OldCo and GST to emerge from Chapter 11 in 2017. The financial results of GST and its subsidiaries will continue to be deconsolidated from EnPro’s results until GST emerges from bankruptcy. Until that time, EnPro intends to continue to include pro forma financial information in its quarterly and annual earnings announcements to illustrate its results as if GST were consolidated.

“This comprehensive, consensual settlement will bring us full, complete and permanent relief from asbestos litigation and will achieve complete and total peace with the asbestos plaintiff’s bar,” said Steve Macadam, president and chief executive officer of EnPro. “It will also eliminate ongoing expenses associated with the ACRP, which were approximately $25 million in 2015. Once consummated, this agreement will bring to a close our history of managing asbestos claims, which began well before EnPro became an independent company 14 years ago, and it will allow us to proceed into a future unimpeded by the costs and distractions of managing asbestos lawsuits.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 1983
Release # 83-012

Related articles

Related articles

FACT SHEET:Auto Industry Commitment to IIHS and NHTSA on Automatic Emergency Braking

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Exceeding the Expectation

Related articles

Today's post is shared from reuters.com

Related articles

FACT SHEET:
Auto Industry Commitment to IIHS and NHTSA on Automatic Emergency Braking