Privacy: Court Mandates Protective Order for Workers' Compensation Discovery

Plaintiff in mesothelioma case sought production of defendant's (Union Carbide Corp) employees' workers' compensation claim records. The corporate defendant, Union Carbide Corp) sought to restrict access and limit dissemination of the records of the workers' compensation matters sought through discovery.

Confidentiality is a two sided sword. Historically asbestos litigation had its genesis in workers' compensation claims. In this instance the Corporate Defendant sought the utilization of privacy restrictions as a defense.


Case reversed & remanded by Appellate Division so that Trial Judge could craft a Protective Order to embrace statutory "privacy requirements" of workers' compensation records. This decision restricts dissemination and use of discovery of workers’ compensation records obtained in this case for use in other matters.

"A participant in a workers' compensation hearing who agrees to the disclosure of medical records does so for the limited purpose of establishing a right to benefits, and does not intend or anticipate the release of that information for use in unrelated litigation."

Appellate Division ordered the trial judge to include the following restrictions:
"(1) the type of record requested; (2) the information it does or might contain; (3) the potential for harm in any subsequent nonconsensual disclosure; (4) the injury from disclosure to the relationship in which the record was generated; (5) the adequacy of safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure; (6) the degree of need for access; and (7) whether there is an express statutory mandate, articulated public policy, or other recognized public interest militating toward access."

The Court reasoned that both the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the statutory restrictions of confidentiality N.J.S.A. 34:15-128(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 34:15-128(3) required that a strict Protective Order be entered.

Seymoure v. A.O. Smith Water Products Company, et al 2016 WL 1589917 Decided 4/20/16
Limited time access at: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a3967-14.pdf

Fatal Occupational Injuries - 2014

Related articles

• NJ Judge Orders Psychotherapy Sessions In Conjunction With Pain Management (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Expectations Must Adapt to Change (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Opting Out Creates Savings Reports Stanford Study (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• OSHA: 50% of Employers Not Reporting Serious Injuries (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Garlock reaches $480 Million settlement on asbestos claims (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• NJ Company Fined $52,000 by OSHA for Unprotected Trench (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)

22 million U.S. workers are exposed to hazardous occupational noise

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released new data regarding injuries, deaths, and illness faced by millions every year in the workplace. This week’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) issue is devoted to occupational health concerns, in acknowledgment of Workers Memorial Day (April 28th).


Work-related fatal injuries remain a serious concern in U.S. workplaces. According to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2014 a total of 4679 U.S. workers died from work-related injuries. Unlike injuries, most deaths from work-related illness are not captured by national surveillance systems.

This year’s Workers’ Memorial Day issue reports new estimates of worker hearing impairment from the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Occupational Hearing Loss Surveillance Project. About 22 million U.S. workers are exposed to hazardous occupational noise, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Occupational hearing loss, primarily caused by high noise exposure, is the most common U.S. work-related illness. NIOSH works to identify existing health data, such as the audiometric data analyzed in this report that can be used for occupational health surveillance.

This MMWR issue also announces the third Fall Safety Stand-Down campaign.The NIOSH Construction Program, along with partners, will be participating in the Safety Stand Down, which encourages companies across the nation to “stand down” by pausing work on their construction sites and dedicating time toward activities that promote the prevention of injuries and fatalities from falls. According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, falls are the leading cause of death on the nearly 9.4 million construction sites in the U.S.

This year’s issue will also include a Notes from the Field report from NIOSH’s Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) program, which investigated an exposure of hospital environmental services staff members to a cleaning product that likely led to respiratory symptoms in thirty employees. The NIOSH HHE team provided the employer and employees with recommendations for preventing future harmful exposures.

For more information about the CDC-NIOSH HHE program see http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe.

Workers’ Memorial Day is observed annually on April 28; it recognizes workers who died or suffered injury due to exposures to hazards at work. As we pay homage to those who have been hurt or killed at work, CDC-NIOSH continues its focus on the future of the workplace and seek solutions vital to reducing risks of injury and illness among the America’s workforce.

Related articles

• Workplace Exposures and the National Action Plan for Infertility (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Proposed 2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• World TB Day - March 24, 2015 (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• A Superbug Nightmare Is Playing Out at an LA Hospital (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• US officials expected to announce Ebola screening at airports (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)

Illegal and Excessive PACER Fees Subject of Class Action

Alliance for Justice, along with the National Veterans Legal Services Program and the National Consumer Law Center, has today filed a class action lawsuit in federal court accusing the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts of illegally charging excessive fees to access court records through its online Public Access to Court Electronic Records system (PACER).

The lawsuit charges that the Administrative Office is in violation of the E-Government Act of 2002, which mandated that the fees to access court records online cannot exceed the amount needed to maintain the system itself. Instead, the lawsuit argues, fees have been improperly increased in order to cover other costs, such as courtroom audio systems or flat-screen televisions in jury boxes. The plaintiffs believe that improperly assessed fees may serve to inhibit public access to vital court records. The Administrative Office has also employed a practice of discouraging waivers of the fees for pro se litigants, journalists, researchers, and nonprofit organizations, and has even hired private collection agencies to sue people who cannot afford to pay the fees. Put together, those actions and policies run counter to the statutory mandate that court records be “freely available to the greatest extent possible.”

Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron explained her organization’s participation in the lawsuit, saying, “Faith in our judicial system depends on transparency and uninhibited access to court documents for all Americans, regardless of the ability to pay.  It’s particularly disturbing that the courts themselves are violating a plainly written law, especially one designed specifically to promote public confidence in the judicial system.”

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. v. US

Florida Appeallate Court Rules Attorney Fee Statute Unconstitutional

The Florida First District Court of Appeals has held counsel fee provisions in the Workers' Compensation Act to be unconstitutional, ,"We hold that the challenged provisions violate Claimant’s First Amendment guarantees of free speech, freedom of association, and right to petition for redress." Miles v City of Edgewater, Decided April 20, 2016, setting the stage for review by the Florida Supreme Court.

Today's guest post is authored by the Hon. David Langham, Deputy Chief Judge of Compensation Claims for the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims and Division of Administrative Hearings and is shared from http://flojcc.blogspot.com. 


For over two years, the people of Florida workers' compensation have been watching The Florida

David Langham is the Deputy Chief 
Judge of Compensation Claims for the Florida Office
 of Judges of Compensation Claims
 and Division of Administrative Hearings

Supreme Court waiting for a decision in Castellanos v. Next Door Company. Then, the Florida First District Court of Appeal issued a panel decision on April 20, 2016. Judge Bradford Thomas authored the 26 page opinion in Miles v. City of Edgewater Police, joined by Chief Judge Roberts and Judge Wolf. The court has declared Fla. Stat. 440.34 and  Fla. Stat. 440.105(3)(c) unconstitutional. 

The facts include a police officer, Martha Miles, who sought to prosecute an occupational exposure case in Tampa. She first appeared with the assistance of counsel and asked the Judge "to approve two attorney’s fee retainer agreements." One agreement sought approval of "a $1,500 retainer by Claimant’s union," and the other "provided that Claimant would pay her attorney an hourly fee once the $1,500 is exhausted." These were both denied; counsel then withdrew.

Claimant proceeded to trial pro-se (representing herself) and failed to prove her entitlement to benefits under the workers' compensation act. That is, that she suffered a "compensable" accident or injury. The term "compensable" "is a concept used to convey that the Florida Workers' Compensation Law applies." See Esad Babahmetovic v. Scan Design Florida Inc., discussed recently on this blog.

Claimant alleged that she was pro se at the time of trial because no attorney would represent her. She offered multiple affidavits from attorneys attesting that they could (or would) not take on trial of a case like this under the constraints of the statutory fee parameters of Fla. Stat. 440.34. In withdrawing from the case, her original attorney, for whose fee retainer she had been denied approval stated “it would not be economically feasible for the undersigned to continue on a purely contingent basis with fee restrictions as contained in Florida Statute § 440.34.” Counsel asserted that the requirements of the statute would "ask an attorney to basically work for free.” 

The trial judge concluded "I find that the law as it currently exists does not allow for non-contingent, claimant-paid hourly fees for prosecution of a claim on the merits." The court concluded that the restrictions of Fla. Stat. 440.34 violate the injured workers' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The First provides protections for freedom of speech and freedom of association. The Fourteenth provides due process and equal protection.  
Claimant alleged two occupational exposures. She "testified regarding what occurred on the two dates." She further "testified that she became ill after each incident and lost time from work, but was eventually released to return to work." Claimant was "diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease" before she had these work exposures, and she may have been a smoker. Her argument in favor of causation was that "losing a significant amount of work and requiring medical treatment for a short time after each event 'would lead anyone to believe that there was something that occurred that was out of the ordinary from the individual normal health responses.'” The trial judge denied the claims concluding there was no "evidence as to what the specific substance or substances were to which she was exposed," nor of "the levels to which she was exposed," nor the causation of the "disease she complains of." (sic).

The court's analysis takes the reader through several points. First, the court reminds us that Judges of Compensation Claims are not a court and cannot decide issues of constitutionality, unlike the admininstrative officials in Oklahoma. Therefore, the constitutional challenges can be raised by Claimant in the appellate court without necessarily preserving that error in proceedings before the JCC. 

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and association. With little explanation, the Court describes Claimant's "speech" in seeking benefits (through an attorney) as "content-based speech," and states that the standard of review is "strict scrutiny;" this means the statute fails "unless the government can show that the regulation promotes a compelling government interest and that it chooses the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest.” The court cites to its previous decision regarding an injured worker being allowed to pay an attorney outside the statute when defending a claim for costs. Jacobson v. Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc., 113 So.3d 1042, 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Though not stated specifically, some will argue that the court found Jacobson to be controlling authority in this analysis.

The court concluded that the Constitution protects "the right to hire attorneys on a salary basis to assist . . . in the assertion of their legal rights.” Claimant argued Fla. Stat. 440.34 violates her right to free speech, because the evidence established that no attorney would take her case if counsel’s compensation was limited to a 'guideline' fee." This remains true, according to the court, despite the fact that there is no evidence of what that fee might be if a claim were deemed "compensable." Despite not knowing what the statutory fee might be, the court concluded that the record in this case supported that "no reasonable attorney would accept the risk of investing their labor into representing Claimant where the likelihood of receiving any compensation was uncertain." 

As an aside, the court does not explain the multitude of civil cases filed every day in Florida in which the fee is wholly contingent upon success, and in some population of which no recovery or fee ever occurs. That is a point that has been raised often in the past. There may be argument that the court might have prevented future litigation with such an explanation. 

The Court concluded that "because section 440.105(3)(c), Florida Statutes, makes it a crime for an attorney to accept a fee that is not approved by a JCC, and section 440.34, Florida Statutes, prohibits a JCC from approving a fee that is not tied to the amount of benefits secured, the two statutes operated as an unconstitutional infringement on the claimant’s right to hire an attorney." The court also concluded that the state failed to prove that asserted governmental interests were sufficient to uphold the statute. 

The Court held that “[laypersons] cannot be expected to know how to protect their rights when dealing with practiced and carefully counseled adversaries.” Thus, it appears that in any case in which the employer/carrier employs an attorney, the claimant will have the right to do the same. Some may argue that the court has essentially held that injured workers cannot prevail against attorneys. 

The court also concluded that Fla. Stat. 440.34 "violated the claimant’s right to contract for legal services." It noted that “the right to make contracts of any kind, so long as no fraud or deception is practiced and the contracts are legal in all respects, is an element of civil liberty possessed by all persons." Further, this is both a "liberty and property right" protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Some will argue that the Fifth is not involved, but the Fourteenth Amendment has been deemed to "incorporate" other protections, including those in the Fifth. As a point of clarity, each is therefore arguably involved in any due process analysis. 

The court reminded that that Fla. Stat. 440.34 “does not offend the right to freely contract," regarding fees paid by the Employer/Carrier. Lundy v. Four Seasons OceanGrand Palm Beach, 932 So.2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). But where someone other than the Employer/Carrier (the worker or her union) is to pay the fee, the issue is "whether sections 440.105 and 440.34 are constitutionally permissible restrictions on claimant-paid fees based on the State’s police power." The court concluded they are not. 

Furthermore, the court held that the "application of the statutes to this scenario is arbitrary and capricious, because only the attorney’s fees paid to claimants’ attorneys are regulated, and E/Cs are free to contract for legal services without limitation."

The court conceded that "the Legislature could intend to prevent the public harm caused when injured workers might quixotically seek benefits the worker is highly unlikely to obtain. In addition, the Legislature could rationally seek to disincentivize meritless litigation which disrupts the workplace and causes unnecessary hostility between employers and employees." However, these interests are secondary, according to the court, to the right in "a free society" for individuals "the intellectual prerogative to personally weigh the benefits and risk of exercising their statutory right to obtain redress for their injury." Essentially, the decision about whether to enter into some agreement with counsel is up to the injured worker. 

In a nutshell, "the public harm to be prevented – undue depletion of workers’ financial resources and undue disruption of the workplace – does not prevail against the individual’s right to contract for legal representation." The legislature and the state have no interest, essentially, in attempting to protect someone from entering into a contract of her or his own choosing. 
Finally, the court held that "Florida case law has long recognized that an individual can waive his or her personal constitutional rights." Therefore, "if a person can waive constitutional rights, a person can also waive statutory rights such as those in section 440.34." The court found "no reason why a workers’ compensation claimant should not be able to waive a limitation on claimant attorney’s fees and agree to pay her attorney with her own (or someone else’s) funds."

The court reminded that "any fee agreement 'must nonetheless, like all fees for Florida attorneys, comport with the factors set forth in Lee Engineering & Construction Co. v. Fellows, 209 So.2d 454, 458 (Fla. 1968), and codified in the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar at rule 4– 1.5(b)."

The court held that such a Claimant-paid fee is somehow "subject to a JCC’s finding that the fee is reasonable," but cited no authority for the conclusion that a JCC has such authority. The Legislature specifically removed the word "reasonable" from Fla. Stat. 440.34 in 2009 following the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Murray v. Mariner. There are already those who question what authority exists for the exercise of JCC review or the constraint of "reasonable."

So, the "restrictions in sections 440.105 and 440.34, when applied to a claimant’s ability to retain counsel under a contract that calls for the payment of a reasonable fee by a claimant (or someone on his or her behalf), are unconstitutional violations of a claimant’s rights to free speech, free association, and petition . . . and also represent unconstitutional violations of a claimant’s right to form contracts." Thus, the "criminal penalties of section 440.105(3)(c) are unenforceable against an attorney representing a workers’ compensation client seeking to obtain benefits under chapter 440, as limited by other provisions discussed above." 

The court also says that the "proper remedy (to the constitutional infirmity) is to allow an injured worker and an attorney to enter into a fee agreement approved by the JCC." But again, the court cites no authority which affords the JCC authority for prospective approval of fee agreements.
All this time spent watching The Florida Supreme Court for a ruling on the constitutionality of restrictions on employer/carrier paid fees, and on an otherwise quiet Wednesday in April the First District renders this decision which provides ample food for thought. 

It is important to remember, as previously discussed on this blog, that if a District Court, such as the First District "declares invalid a state statute," then the case "shall" be reviewed "by appeal" by the Florida Supreme Court, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(1)(a). So, so a rehearing is possible, as is a rehearing en banc (the whole court), and it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court as the case now stands. 

$1 Billion Settlement Affirmed - NFL Retired Players Concussion Class Action

"It is the nature of a settlement that some will be dissatisfied with the ultimate result. Our case is no different, and we do not doubt that objectors are well-intentioned in making thoughtful arguments against certification of the class and approval of this settlement. They aim to ensure that the claims of retired players are not given up in exchange for anything less than a generous settlement agreement negotiated by very able representatives. But they risk making the perfect the enemy of the good. This settlement will provide nearly $1 billion in value to the class of retired players. It is a testament to the players, researchers, and advocates who have worked to expose the true human costs of a sport so many love. Though not perfect, it is fair."

IN RE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION 2016 WL 1552205 (3rd CA 2016) Decided April 18, 2016

"The National Football League (“NFL”) has agreed to resolve lawsuits brought by former players who alleged that the NFL failed to inform them of and protect them from the risks of concussions in football. The District Court approved a class action settlement that covered over 20,000 retired players and released all concussion-related claims against the NFL. "

Qualifying Diagnosis / Maximum Award

• Level 1.5 Neurocognitive Impairment / $1.5 Million
• Level 2 Neurocognitive Impairment Parkinson's Disease / $3 Million
• Alzheimer's Disease / $3.5 Million
• Death with CTE / $4 Million
• ALS /$5 Million

Related articles

• Roughly 30 percent of former NFL player may develop Alzheimer's, other brain conditions (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Football and brain trauma: a workplace health issue (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Few Retired N.F.L. Players Opt Out of Proposed Concussion Settlement (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Sweeping Lawsuit Targets Soccer Concussions (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)

Creating a Competitive Economy: The Verizon Strike

President Barack ObamaPhoto credit: Wikipedia

On Friday President Obama issued an Executive Order to increase competition in the markets including healthcare and broadband. Most obviously directed to the issues raised by the Verizon strike over low wages, monopolistic activity, stifling technological
expansion and holding the public economic hostages.

"Certain business practices such as unlawful collusion, illegal bid rigging, price fixing, and wage setting, as well as anticompetitive exclusionary conduct and mergers stifle competition and erode the foundation of America's economic vitality. The immediate results of such conduct -- higher prices and poorer service for customers, less innovation, fewer new businesses being launched, and reduced opportunities for workers -- can impact Americans in every walk of life."

Executive Order -- Steps to Increase Competition and Better Inform Consumers and Workers to Support Continued Growth of the American Economy 4/15/16

As commentator Paul Krugman points out in today's NY Times article competition in industry is a component to high wages and resulting increased benefits to workers:

"When Verizon workers went on strike last week, they were mainly protesting efforts to outsource work to low-wage, non-union contractors. But they were also angry about the company’s unwillingness to invest in its own business. In particular, Verizon has shown a remarkable lack of interest in expanding its Fios high-speed Internet network, despite strong demand. 

"But why doesn’t Verizon want to invest? Probably because it doesn’t have to: many customers have no place else to go, so the company can treat its broadband business as a cash cow, with no need to spend money on providing better service (or, speaking from personal experience, on maintaining existing service). 

Robber Baron Recessions NY Times 4/18/16

Workers' compensation benefits are directly and proportionally linked to wages and medical costs. Time will tell when the action taken by President Obama last week will have bearing on the system, especially in light of the the upcoming Presidential election cycle and the threat of the candidates to rule by executive action. Meanwhile the deeply rooted issues of the Verizon strike will grow more attention as the process goes forward.

….

Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters). 

Related articles

• Senate Narrowly Approves Obama's Choice For Surgeon General Despite NRA Opposition (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• New Obama order to lead midterm equal pay push (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Budget Changes To Medicare, HHS Programs Would Garner $399 Billion In 10 Years (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Obama to Sign Actions Aimed at Boosting Contractor Pay Fairness (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Obama seeks billions for Ebola battle as cases keep piling up (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Obama signs executive orders on pay transparency for federal contractors (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• House GOP Hires Jonathan Turley To Sue Obama (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)

The Security of Metadata in Workers' Compensation Claims

Metadata Ethics Opinions Around the U.S.
Source: aba.org

Confidentiality is a crucial element in workers' compensation matters and the removal of metadata in electronically transmitted documents are a critical factor in the process of maintaining the level of security embraced by the system. Metadata is all hidden data in a PDF file, including text, metadata, annotations, form fields, attachments, and bookmarks.


"....Metadata is loosely defined as "data about data." More specifically, the term refers to the embedded stratum of data in electronics file that may include such information as who authored a document, when it was created, what software was used, any comments embedded within the content, and even a record of changes made to the document.

"While metadata is often harmless, it can potentially include sensitive, confidential, or privileged information. As such, it presents a serious concern for attorneys charged with maintaining confidentiality -- both their own and their clients. Professional responsibility committees at several bar associations around the country have weighed in on attorneys' ethical responsibilities regarding metadata, but the opinions vary significantly. Source: The American Bar Association
The NJ Supreme Court announced yesterday, in an Administrative Determination,  that all documents in electronic format should be "scrubbed" of metadata.

"The Court addressed an important ethical question raised by New Jersey practitioners in the context of their contemporary practice: whether a lawyer who receives an electronic document may, consistent with the rules governing attorney ethics, review metadata in that document. “Metadata” is embedded information in electronic documents that is generally hidden from view in a printed document. Metadata may reflect such information as the author of a document, date(s) on which the document was revised, tracked revisions, and comments inserted in the margins, among other things. This embedded electronic information may include privileged information or other potentially objectionable, private or proprietary information. Following a careful review, the Court adopts the recommendations of the Working Group on Ethical Issues Involving Metadata in Electronic Documents, and makes a number of amendments to the Court Rules regarding electronic documents and metadata. The measures are designed to protect sensitive client data, clarify attorneys’ professional obligations, and foster education programs so that the legal community may be better equipped to meet the unique challenges inherent in exchanging documents electronically -- a modern reality that is ubiquitous in the contemporary practice of law.

“Metadata” is embedded information in electronic documents that is generally hidden from view in a printed copy of a document. It is generated when documents are created or revised on a computer. Metadata may reflect such information as the author of a document, the date or dates on which the document was revised, tracked revisions to the document, and comments inserted in the margins. It may also reflect information necessary to access, understand, search, and display the contents of documents created in spreadsheet, database, and similar applications. This embedded electronic information may include privileged information, information subject to the work product privilege, information that has not been requested in discovery, information that has been requested in discovery but is subject to an objection on which a court has not yet ruled, non-discoverable information, and private or proprietary information. Some metadata is of little or no use to a party or counsel in a litigated dispute or transactional matter. Other metadata is directly material to a factual or legal issue. If the sender has not affirmatively minimized (“scrubbed” or “stripped”) metadata in the document, some information may be revealed by simple computer keystrokes, while other metadata may be “mined” by the use of sophisticated computer software.

Professional programs are available to remove Metadata from electronic documents. See,
Sanitization—Remove hidden data from PDF files with Adobe® Acrobat® XI

Follow us by e-mail or RSS feed

Workers' Compensation

syndicated content powered by FeedBurner

Subscribe Now!

...with web-based news readers. Click your choice below:

...with other readers:

(Choose Your Reader)FeedDemonNetNewsWireNewsFireNewsGator Outlook EditionRSSOwlShrookUniversal Subscription Mechanism (USM)

Get Workers' Compensation delivered by email

 View Feed XML

National Asbestos Awareness Week - US Surgeon General

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek H. Murthy on National Asbestos Awareness Week 

Dr. Vivek Murthy
US Surgeon General

National Asbestos Awareness Week is April 1-7 – a good time to remind Americans about the health dangers of asbestos exposure. Asbestos, a natural mineral fiber that is found in rock and soil, was widely used as insulation and fireproofing material in homes, commercial buildings, ships and other products, such as paints and car brakes. In recent years, asbestos use has decreased dramatically after it was linked to illnesses, including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis.

Because of its use in so many products, asbestos is still of special concern for anyone who works in construction – or who might be in a position to disturb asbestos found in older homes, buildings or equipment. The danger comes from inhaling the tiny fibers or dust released into the air once asbestos has been disturbed or damaged.

Workers who may be exposed to asbestos – including first responders and those involved in home repair or demolition projects – should protect themselves from asbestos exposure.

If you think you have been exposed to asbestos, I encourage you to speak to your health care professional.

For more information on asbestos – including sources on safe removal – please check out these resources:

• National Cancer Institute’s (NCI)  Asbestos Exposure and Cancer Risk
• Learn About Asbestos from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Asbestos Information from Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Workplace Safety & Health Topics:  Asbestos
• Consumer Product Safety Commission’s Asbestos in the Home

The Difficult Task of the Florida Supreme Court

The Florida Supreme has before it a constitutional challenge once again concerning workers’ compensation. The scope of the controversy remains undefined and the ultimate impact equally uncertain. I have found over the years that one cannot predict the outcome of a case by merely watching an oral argument.

After hearing the argument this week in Stahl v Hialeah Hospital one comes away with ambiguity over the issues before the Court. Complicating the controversy is a shallow record below, which, of itself, maybe not be so important. Landmark cases have been decided on limited trial court records before.

The constitutional challenge to the century old exclusive remedy for the injured worker was bolstered by both objective and philosophical concerns. They involve many present day social/economic issues facing the United States. Over one-hundred years ago, the enactment of the European based compensation system  of workers' compensation, established an administrative system of benefits for occupational accidents. Incidentally, the Europeans have already adopted universal health care. 

On the objective side of the argument the worker presented is concern on how to adapt a changing medical delivery scheme and benefit structure, i.e.. co-pays, scheduled impairment benefits and age payment limitations, to the needs of a changing employment market, ie. the shared economy. In the shared economy employment status has becomes elusive.

The employer argues that the record below lacked the constitutional challenges and supporting evidence. Also, the philosophical challenges are ill placed.  Even so, one cannot turn back the clock to an age when horseless wagons were emerging as a mode of transportation, and anesthesia and antiseptic were just ideas. 

Legislative intent alters to meet changing times.  Legislatures modify laws over time to meet the new demands of society.  Courts universally struggle to interpret laws in the continually changing arena of life. It is an awesome task.

Arguments before a Supreme Court usually seem academic and theoretical. Courts attempt to rationally approach an issue in an effort to resolve a controversy that most likely will have wide application. Justices handle these matters in an organized and structured framework so that an issue can be crystallized, researched and  reviewed. That process is defined by the record below, the briefs presented by the parties and discussion at oral argument.

The Florida Supreme Court will now be reviewing those elements as it weighs the arguments and issues. It is indeed a difficult task. The impact of which may have far reaching implications on a national scale.

Florida Supreme Court DocketCase Number: SC15-725 - Active DANIEL STAHL vs. HIALEAH HOSPITAL, ET AL.Lower Tribunal Case(s): 1D14-3077, 04-022489

NJ: The Lead Paint Poisoning Crisis Continues

Lead Paint
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Lead paint for decades has been a problem in New Jersey decaying housing for decades. The consequences have been the lead poisoning of children. Children are particularly vulnerable to the health hazard that results in neurological disorders. Recent attention is again focussed on the issue. Today's post is shared from northjersey.com.

"The state will nearly double its spending to $22 million on lead safety programs for children this year, Governor Christie said Tuesday, amid sustained calls for attention and money to an issue that has for years been largely hidden from public view.

"The $10 million the administration found in the general fund will not address lead in water, though. Instead, the money will go to what Christie said is the primary concern in New Jersey: outdated, lead-based paint in old housing. The state Department of Community Affairs will work through non-profit organizations to “support an improved lead remediation and containment” program for low- and moderate-income households. 

"Exposure to lead has been linked to problems with learning, behavior and memory, and children are especially vulnerable. Much of the recent attention to lead exposure was prompted by elevated levels of the metal in the Flint, Mich., drinking water and amplified by similar, but much smaller-scale discoveries elsewhere, including 30 schools in Newark. Last year, Paterson discovered elevated lead levels in the drinking water of 14 schools and made necessary repairs, but school officials acknowledged last week that they failed to inform parents of the problem.

Click here to read the entire article:  N.J. to nearly double spending on lead safety programs this year

NJ Governor Christie commented:

"So New Jersey’s approach is far more protective than a majority of states. In fact, screenings for lead exposure have increased dramatically over the past 20 years with 20 times more children being tested in 2015. The total in 2015, we tested 206,221 children in New Jersey compared to just 10,200 children who were tested back in 1998, so we’ve increased that twentyfold. 

"According to the latest data, 97% of New Jersey’s children under the age of 6 have had at least one blood test for lead in their lifetime, and I want to make something very clear and again a point that’s been distorted: The primary lead concern in New Jersey has been and remains the outdated lead-based paint in our old housing stocks, not water sources.  

"That’s the major problem we have regarding lead in New Jersey, so as part of the conversation about how we protect children in their homes and deal with the legacy of lead paint, I said that I have no objection to providing money for lead containment efforts, and I don’t, so over the past few weeks my administration has been hard at work developing recommendations for me on how to best address this issue moving forward.  

"Today, I’m happy to announce an additional $10 million in this year’s budget to support an improved lead remediation and containment program for low- and moderate-income households in New Jersey. This funding has been identified by my administration within existing 2016 budget funds and will be made available for this purpose, so that we can address and double nearly the amount of money we’re spending on lead remediation efforts but do it in a fiscally responsible way.  

"The Department of Community Affairs will work through nonprofit organizations as we always have with experience in lead remediation programs, identify licensed lead-evaluation contractors and EPA-certified, lead-safe renovation organizations to assess and remediate lead-based paint hazards.  

"The estimated costs will average about $20,000 a unit in repair and related costs for eligible households to fund their remediation plan. DCA will then collect data from homeowners to determine best practices for potential program expansion and refinement in the FY 2017 budget. This effort will operate in addition to what we’re already doing to address lead, so we’re going to continue to do the program as we’ve done before and what I’m announcing today is we have located another $10 million in funds that are available within the current fiscal year budget and we’re going to make those available on top of the funds we’re already spending.  

"New Jersey has been a national leader on the issue of lead paint in housing and the resulting decline in cases proves that point, so we are working hard and making sure that lead poisoning, while it is a concern, does never become an epidemic in New Jersey.

….

Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters). 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.

For more information about lead paint litigation contact us.

Read more about "lead paint poisoning:"

Workers' Compensation: UW study finds link between lead paint ... Aug 22, 2013 ... A new study that analyzed medical and discipline data from Milwaukee Public Schools found young children who are exposed to lead are ... idoctor-health.blogspot.com

Workers' Compensation: Lead: Bringing it Home From Work Aug 12, 2015 ... Although deteriorating lead paint in pre-1979 housing is the most common source of lead exposure in children, data indicate that ≥30% of ... idoctor-health.blogspot.com

FL Supreme Court: Watch Oral Argument on Constitutionality of Workers' Compensation

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Daniel Stahl v Hialeah Hospital, et al., SC15-725 statewide – Video now available of the oral argument

Mr. Stahl, a nurse who was injured while working at Hialeah Hospital, filed a claim for benefits under Florida’s workers’ compensation law but was denied the benefits he believed were appropriate. He challenged the constitutionality of the law, pointing to its failure to provide benefits for workers who are permanently and partially disabled from on-the-job injuries. The First District Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the workers’ comp law and this appeal followed.


Watch the hearing: Video Portal: Florida Supreme Court Online Video Portal
Read the Transcript - Click here

Florida Supreme Court DocketCase DocketCase Number: SC15-725 - Active DANIEL STAHL vs. HIALEAH HOSPITAL, ET AL.Lower Tribunal Case(s): 1D14-3077, 04-022489

Updated: 4-9-2016

Related articles

• An Update on Florida's Constitutional Challenges to Workers' Compensation (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Florida Supreme Court Weighs Workers' Comp Attorney Fee Schedule (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Florida Businesses, Insurers to Fight Ruling Overturning Workers' Comp System (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• FL Supreme Court to Hear Fee Cap Case (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Florida exclusive remedy ruling may upend workers compensation system (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Federal judge rules Florida workers' compensation law unconstitutional (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• The Florida Court Declines Review of Padgett (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)

CBC Gelar Promo Besar untuk Teknologi Terbaru @CBC.Pamulang

Sumber : http://kicaubintaro.co.id/cbc-gelar-promo-besar-untuk-teknologi-terbaru/

CBC Gelar Promo Besar untuk Teknologi Terbaru @CBC.Pamulang 

Tangsel – CBC, klinik kesehatan dan kecantikan yang berdiri tahun 2004 silam, meresmikan teknologi terbaru di CBC Cabang Pamulang, Kota Tangerang Selatan (Tangsel), hari Rabu (30/3) dan Kamis (31/3). Selain meresmikan beberapa teknologi baru, CBC juga menggelar diskon hingga 50 persen sampai tanggal 10 April 2016 mendatang.

Dokter Estetika CBC Pamulang, Nadia mengatakan, beberapa teknologi yang ada di CBC hanya dimiliki oleh beberapa klinik di Indonesia. Salah satunya, teknologi Coolsculpting (program slimming) dan Ultheraphy (program Anti Aging).
“Kedua teknologi tersebut menjadi teknologi andalan untuk perawatan kulit di sini,” ujarnya kepada Kicau Bintaro.

Menurut Nadia, selain aman, perawatan kulit dengan teknologi baru ini tanpa rasa sakit, tidak ada efek samping, dan pasien bisa mendapatkan hasil luar biasa.

Selain Coolsculpting dan Ultheraphy, masih banyak perawatan dalam dan luar. Antara lain, IPL-Laser Treatment (hair removal), Blood Cell Therapy, Platelet Rich Plasma atau PRP (perawatan dengan menggunakan serum yang diambil dari darah sendiri), Infused Whitening (suntik putih), dan Thread Lift (tanam benang).

“Semua perawatan itu sudah termasuk dalam promo besar-besaran hingga 10 April mendatang dengan syarat dan ketentuan yang berlaku,” pungkas Nadia.

Teks dan foto : Nadia Lisa Rahman

Note:
Coolsculpting : 20% (+5% member)*
Ultheraphy : 20% (+5% member)*
IPL- Laser Treatment : 50 %*
PRP : 50 %*
Infused Whitening : 50 %*
Thread Lift : 30 % (minimal 10 benang)*
Syarat dan Ketentuan Berlaku *


CBC PAMULANG
Komp. Ruko Puri, Pamulang Blok A No.4
Pamulang Barat - Tangerang
Depan Pamulang Square , Danau Pamulang 1
Phone : 021.83209768 / 0812 9730 0048
PIN BB : 2B922D3F

Consequences of Increasing the Minimum Wage

The national wave toward raising the statutory minimum wage to $15.00/hour is going to have major consequences for the ailing national network of workers' compensation programs. Not only is it going to increase benefits for injured workers that are calculated on wages, but it is also going increase much needed premium dollars for insurance companies whose premiums are based on payroll costs.

NY Gov Andrew Cuomo
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How it happened is an interesting story authored by Steven Greenhouse in an article appearing in the NY Times:

"BACK in November 2012, when Alterique Hall, an $8-an-hour McDonald’s cashier in New York, joined 200 fast-food workers in the first one-day strike for the Fight for $15 campaign, many scoffed at their demand for $15 an hour as pie in the sky. Frustrated with his meager pay, Mr. Hall said, “It’s time for a change.” 

"Three and a half years later, that change is starting to arrive. Last Monday, Gov. Jerry Brown of California announced a deal with state lawmakers to raise California’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022 — a move expected to lift pay for five million workers. And late Thursday Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York reached a deal with legislative leaders to adopt a $15 minimum wage in New York City in 2018 and in its suburbs in 2021, with a $12.50 minimum in upstate New York.

 Calif. Gov Jerry Brown
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Once California and New York go, it is likely that more states will follow,” said Paul K. Sonn, general counsel of the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for low-wage workers. (Shared from nytimes.com)

Click here to read the entire article, How the $15 Minimum Wage Went From Laughable to Viable.

Related articles

• Workers' Rights at McDonald's (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Home is an Odyssey For The Aging Population (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Fast food workers plan nationwide strike for December 4 (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Thousands Fast Food Workers Strike in 190 Cities, Demand $15 an Hour Wage (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• McDonald's charged with abusing workers over wage protests (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Fast-Food Workers Intensify Fight for $15 an Hour (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Fast food workers meet in suburban Chicago to plan escalation of demands for higher pay, union (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)

Asbestos Related Deaths in NJ Continue at Record Rates

Source: EWG Fund
asbestosnation.org/

Asbestos related disease, including mesothelioma, continues in New Jersey at epidemic proportions according to an article authored by Environmental Working Group that reviews data of the CDC-WONDER database.

Read more about "mesothelioma" and workers' compensation:

Workers' Compensation: New staging of mesothelioma tumors may ... Feb 9, 2016 ... A recent study indicates that a new physician staging processes by weight and volume of mesothelioma tumors may be helpful in predicting ... idoctor-health.blogspot.com

Workers' Compensation: Pleural mesothelioma reported in a school ... 6 days ago ... Fibro Clay, and its causal relationship to mesothelioma, has been ... Malignantmesothelioma cases among primary school teachers are usually ... idoctor-health.blogspot.com

Asbestos Cement Factories Pose High Risk Mesothelioma Jul 20, 2012 ... An increased risk of developing asbestos related disease, including mesothelioma, was identified in a recent study. Asbestos exposure has ... idoctor-health.blogspot.com

Workers' Compensation: Mesothelioma Rates Continue to be High Jun 29, 2012 ... Mesothelioma is a rare but highly fatal cancer of the thin membranes surrounding the chest cavity or abdominal cavity. The only ... idoctor-health.blogspot.com

Related articles

• Study: Glyphosate Doubles Risk of Lymphoma (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• OSHA forms alliance with Concerned Beauty Professionals to reduce chemical hazards in the beauty industry (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• Proposed 2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• CDC Laboratory Safety Errors: The Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• CDC Alert to U.S. Hospitals and Long-Term Care Facilities: Patients at Risk of Listeriosis from Certain Blue Bell Brand Ice Cream Products (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)
• US officials expected to announce Ebola screening at airports (idoctor-health.blogspot.com)