Other metrics confirmed the upward trend.  The Thomson Reuters consumer sentiment index climbed to 76.2, the highest level in more than a year. Even with gasoline at nearly $4 per gallon, Americans reported more optimism about the economy this March than at any other time over the past year. “Fears that the economy was going to slow substantially this quarter were overdone. The economy is doing fairly well, given the headwinds from Europe, rising gasoline prices,” said Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody’s Analytics in Pennsylvania.

The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index rose 5.19 points, (or 0.4%), while the Dow Jones industrial average rose 66.22 points (0.5%). The S&P 500, which is a general measure of the entire market, closed this part three months showing a 12% gain, while the Dow blue-chip index had an 8% gain, the best first quarter in 14 years for both.

The Nasdaq was up almost 19 percent for the year, which would be its best first quarter since 1991.

According to analysts, with confidence remaining strong, consumer spending should stay up in the first half of 2012 and mitigate the impact that slowing factory activity is having on the economy.  A report on Friday indicated that growth in factory activity in the Midwest softened in March, with employment and new orders pulling back from high recent projections.

Analysts also pointed out that the economy expanded at a 3% rate in the final three months of 2011 as businesses restocked their inventories; however, the inventory buildup has most likely run its course and is not expected to help this quarter. When adjusted for inflation, spending increased 0.5 percent, the largest gain since September.

Increased consumer spending suggests that American households were adjusting to the spike in gasoline prices. March prices average about $4 a gallon, and have risen 62 cents since the start of the year.

A 0.2 percent rise in income helped account for some of the recent spending increase, but consumers also saved less. The amount of disposable income that put aside for savings dropped to 3.7 percent, the lowest rate since August 2009.  “While households want to spend and will raid their bank accounts to support that habit, unless income gains start improving, consumption will have to slow,” said Joel L. Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors in Holland, Pa.

Despite good overall news on the economy, many Washington workers continue to struggle with unemployment and other difficulties in the workplace such as wrongful termination and work injuries. If you have suffered a workplace injury, experienced workplace discrimination or have received a notice of requirement from L&I to attend an Independent Medical Examination, please contact an Employment Attorney or L&I Lawyer at Emery Reddy for help with your case.

In recent months the California Department of Insurance has been trying to enlist “suspicious employers,” investigators, and “concerned co-workers” in the fight against insurance fraud by asking them to use social networks and “smart interviewing techniques that uncover information [leading] to prosecutions.”  The CDI is even holding workshops and distributing DVDs to reinforce their campaign.  Yet in the process, it’s been making some outrageous claims about the rates and cost of workers’ compensation fraud.

Recent discussions encouraging the use of tools like Facebook to combat fraud portray insurance companies as victims beset by California workers who “prey on the workers’ compensation system.” But in one rather ironic passage, the Department of Insurance tries to create the impression of a fraud epidemic in 2011 by citing the 103 individuals convicted of fraudulent acts “in and around the workers’ comp system” that year.  To me, 103 people in a state of 37 million didn’t seem like a very substantial percentage; but since I can’t do long division with numbers in the millions off the top of my head, I pulled out my trusty calculator to determine the rate of verified fraud in 2011 – based on the Insurance Department’s own figures:

Grand total: 0.0002%.

But just in case this doesn’t seem like sufficient cause for alarm, the California Department of Insurance reminds us that its figures don’t include cases that went undetected.  (So maybe the number is even bigger….)

The CDI’s argument goes from absurd to outrageous when it claims to have “new data”on the costs of insurance fraud last year: “the overall impact of fraud exceeds $1 billion annually, according to CDI estimates.”

One billion. With a “B.”

If this number bears any relation to reality, it might indeed support the Insurance Department’s suggestions of an epidemic. But again, I’m bad at unaided long-division when someone throws a number like one billion at me. So going back to that rate of convicted fraudsters, I once again run the figures through my calculator. And according to CDI’s allegations, costs would have to stand at an average of $9.7 million dollars per fraud case for this to be true.

For a brief moment, I considered the possibility that this was simply a typo – a scenario that’s hardly farfetched given the overtime hours that Public Relations folks have to put in for the Insurance Industry these days. But no: the California Department of Insurance reported similar numbers the previous year as well.

As countless events have shown over the past few years, banks and insurance companies do not have the best track record when it comes to accurately representing numbers — or the threat to national prosperity posed by American workers relative to the financial sector. Moreover, as studies by the American Association for Justice show, the lion’s share of criminal activity is committed by insurance companies, not by injured workers.

To learn more about how insurance companies put profits above people, please see our discussion of industry tactics used to deny injury claims for workers’ compensation injuries and personal injuries. And if you or someone you know needs help with an L&I claim, contact a Seattle Workers’ Compensation Attorney at Emery Reddy today. We also encourage workers to consult with an attorney prior to completing an Independent Medical Exam, which is often required by L&I for many workplace injury claims.

Do I have to have an Independent Medical Exam?

The rule was enacted in response to a bill passed by the Washington State Legislature, which requires L&I to implement protections that abide by recommendations in the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health reports of 2004 and 2010.

L&I will host a public meeting to discuss the creation of a Hazardous Drugs Advisory Committee, as well as model programs that support employers as they implement the rule.  This event will take place at the L&I Tumwater building from 2 – 4 pm on Wednesday, January 25^th. The Auditorium is located at:

Department of Labor & Industries Auditorium
7273 Linderson Way SW
Tumwater, WA 98501-5414

When the Hazardous Drugs rule goes into effect it will cover all health care settings where workers come into contact with these hazardous drugs. Some of those substances have been identified as cancer-causing agents, while others are known to cause irreversible harm to health care workers – even at low-level exposure rates.

Under this new rule, “health care facilities” will be defined as sites where a health care provider administers medical care to patients.

The rule includes minimum requirements for advancing a hazardous drug control program.  Using existing hazard assessments, employers will establish programs to reduce or eliminate employee exposure to hazardous substances.

If you or someone you know has suffered a work-related illness due to exposure to hazardous substances, contact an Employment Attorney at Emery Reddy for help recovering damages.

Washington’s new Stay at Work program is open to employers who pay workers’ compensation premiums to L&I. The program partially reimburses those businesses for the cost of returning employees with a work injury to light-duty jobs before they have medical clearance to return to their primary positions.

While the program was just launched yesterday, the legislation that produced it went into effect in June of 2011.  L&I claim managers anticipate that thousands of reimbursement requests from businesses who’ve already been offering light-duty jobs to employees with work-related injury during the period since the legislation passed.

The new program is one of a number of historic workers’ compensation reforms to come out of the 2011 Washington legislative session. These reforms are intended to lower costs and improve the recovery rates for workers with on-the-job injuries.

“The Stay at Work program gives us a unique opportunity to give Washington businesses an active role in their injured workers’ recoveries and return to productive employment,” said L&I Assistant Director for Insurance Services, Beth Dupre. “Most important, we have a much better chance of helping injured workers stay on salary and in the game while they recover under their doctor’s care.”

Employers participating in the Stay at Work program help injured workers by creating light-duty or “transitional” jobs that adhere to physician’s recommendations and medical restrictions. Some workers will need to undergo an Independent Medical Examination as part of this process. During the prescribed recovery time, the injured worker earns wages from the employer rather than receiving time-loss compensation from L&I.  For example, a worker with a construction site injury might take an inventory job while recovering from a back injury. Then through the Stay at Work program, L&I reimburses the employer for half of the worker’s base wage, plus some additional expenses (not to exceed $10,000 per L&I claim).

The program has already proved effective in Oregon, showing a tendency to speed recovery time and reduce long-term disability for a given workers compensation injury.  Medical studies indicate that many workers recovering from an injury are less likely to suffer from long-term disability when they remain active and engaged.

“This is a win-win for our employers,” Dupre said.  “It’s a strategy that will help their businesses and workers, and it won’t negatively impact their premium costs.”

If you need help with your L&I injury claim, contact a Seattle L&I Attorney.

“Work-related disability is a major public health problem that’s largely overlooked in the U.S.,” Dr. Franklin of L&I said. “This study shows that using occupational health best practices when treating injured workers can have an important effect on their recovery.”

In 2008, L&I began to collaborate with physicians in both Washington and throughout the U.S., University of Washington medical researchers, and business leaders and labor advocates to assess best practices for helping workers recover during the first 12 weeks following a work-related injury. L&I’s Centers of Occupational Health and Education (COHE) were the direct outcome of this project; these organizations function as community-based centers that promote the most effective procedures and treatments of injured workers.

Specifically, these practices emphasize the safe, healthful recovering of injured workers and their return to full capacity and employment in the workplace. Such “best practices” include quickly filing a workers’ compensation claim with L&I, directly contacting the employer to discuss the worker’s ability to resume their job (or some lighter tasks in the workplace), and frequently evaluating a worker’s ability to perform tasks and activities at work.

L&I provides monetary incentives and administrative support to COHE healthcare providers to help them put injured workers back to work as soon as possible. Health services coordinators are central to the success of this process: these individuals work with COHEs and report to healthcare delivery teams, supporting community-wide integration of medical care.

This undertaking, and the enhanced integration of care by way of best practices and incentives, has emerged as an early prototype of what many imagine could be a more “accountable-care” concept within national health care reform.

The study involved seven workers compensation researchers from L&I, the Ohio State University’s College of Public Health, and the University of Washington’s Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences. Together, this team examined and evaluated 105,000 + workers’ compensation claims from 2001 to 2007, including both COHE and non-COHE-related claims.  Findings show that injured workers who received treatment from healthcare providers following COHE best practices had 20% fewer “disability days” compared to other injured workers receiving treatment, as well as a $510 drop in total medical and disability costs per claim. One of the most promising figures related to back strain: workers with back injuries showed a 30% drop in disability days. In his report, Dr. Franklin stated: “We’re especially encouraged that the outcomes for workers with low-back strain were significantly better. Lower-back strain is a costly and common disabling condition in workers’ compensation.”

At the moment, four COHE sites work with 2,000 providers and hundreds of workplaces, providing treatment to nearly one-third of injured workers in Washington. Figures from the study brought about new legislation this year that will make COHEs more accessible, expanding access to all injured workers in Washington by 2015.

Earlier this year OSHA published a “Request for Information on Infectious Diseases.” The agency was looking to compile various strategies and practices that have been effective in reducing workers’ risk of occupational exposure to infectious agents. Moreover, officials at OSHA wanted to establish accurate distinctions between the nature and extent of various work-related infectious diseases. Using feedback from healthcare professionals and the larger business community, as well as internal research on the issue, the agency is now debating whether to create a program standard aimed as reducing infectious agents in the workplace.

Dr. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, released a statement claiming “We know that workers in healthcare and related facilities may be exposed to infectious agents, and they deserve to be protected. Information gained from these meetings will help us determine the best approach to assure that workers don’t put themselves at risk while caring for patients and doing their job. After all, a good job is a healthy and safe job.”

On the agenda for the upcoming meetings in Washington, DC is a discussion of the relative merits and disadvantages of implementing a program standard to control occupational exposure to infectious agents; whether (and to what extent) employers should be required to provide an OSHA-approved infection control plan that would outline the implementation of infection control measures for protecting workers; and finally, the possibility of alternative approaches to OSHA rulemaking intended to enhance compliance with existing infection control guidelines under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Health, and other public health agencies.

Under the 1970 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are required to provide employees with a safe and healthy workplace. In its capacity as the act’s regulatory agency, OSHA creates and enforces standards and provides training and assistance to workers to ensure the safety of working conditions across the U.S.

If you believe you are suffering from a work-related illness or injury, a Washington Workers Compensation Lawyer can help investigate and support your claim.

The recent forced closure of a North Carolina bus company with an extensive history of safety violations has brought greater scrutiny to how professional drivers are treated by the agencies that employ them.  Although the driver involved in the latest deadly accident was cited for reckless driving, there is some evidence that Sky Express, the company that employed the driver, had a history forcing possibly fatigued drivers to work multiple shifts with inadequate rest.

What this incident highlights is that bus, taxi, and limousine drivers as well as other “for-hire” vehicle drivers are not merely unskilled workers, but professionals who literally hold the lives of their passengers in their hands, and that their ability to do so is directly linked to the kinds of workplace protections they may receive.  As such, there have been recent pushes by Labor advocates and Labor & Industries experts to expand access to health care and workers’ compensation benefits for these workers.

In February, Seattlepi.com reported that a Senate Bill requiring drivers to be covered by workers’ compensation benefits stalled in the legislature.  Scott Gutierrez reports, “Senate Bill 5785, one of two bills on the topic, would define taxis, limousines and other for-hire vehicles as ‘urban transportation businesses’ and require their owners to pay industrial insurance premiums.  The goal is to ensure that drivers are covered for work-related injuries beyond what’s covered by auto insurance, which is mandatory in the taxi business.”

The Bill’s sponsor, Senator Adam Kline, D-Seattle, is quoted as arguing “They get robbed and beat up, and because they spend so much time on the road, they’re exposed to more collisions.  That’s an occupational hazard.”

There has also been confusion over who is liable when a taxi or town car driver is injured in the workplace.  Gutierrez notes, “In the past, health care providers mistakenly filed medical claims with L&I involving cab drivers who said they were injured on the job, even though no one was paying into the system for them.  Then, L&I had to sort out whether the driver was an employee and who was responsible for the premiums.”  In fact, there was even a “recent lawsuit in Tacoma between L&I and a taxi association over a $400,000 medical claim involving a driver who was shot during a robbery.”

The Tacoma driver is only one of many Washington State drivers who have been the victim of violence in recent years.  Drivers are put in very vulnerable positions in relation to their passengers and often have little recourse when they are attacked, robbed, or even killed.  These statistics reveal that creating access to benefits could increase safety for passengers and drivers alike

The Department of Labor and Industries is well aware of these dangers and now seems prepared to help the legislature close this important gap in coverage for this very vulnerable class of workers.  The Preproposal Statement of Inquiry filed by L&I this week will seek advice from both employers and individuals from the for-hire vehicle industry as they move this initiative forward.

Workers injured on the job should first seek medical help, but then consult with an expert Washington workers compensation lawyer about their claim.  The expert workers’ compensation attorneys at Emery Reddy are standing by to assist injured workers with their claims.

After all the debate and maneuvering on reform over the last months, the issue has boiled down to one very contentious proposal: giving workers the option of settling their workers’ compensation claims with a lump-sum payment rather than negotiating a lifetime disability pension.

Like many other states dealing with massive budget shortfalls as the economy slowly recovers, Washington State lawmakers are focused on slashing programs and reforming services that are seen as bleeding money.  As we have reported here, Workers’ Compensation emerged as a flash point in the budget debate when it was reported by several media sources and government agencies that about 85 percent of all workers’ comp costs came from just 8 percent of all claims.  These claims involved injured workers who received long term benefits or were awarded lifetime pensions.  While these sorts of settlements are often necessary to meet the long term needs of injured workers, the oft quoted “85 percent” figure has become the clarion call for groups aligned with big business against labor rights.  Speaker Frank Chopp is the most vocal opponent to the lump sum settlement option.

The Seattle Times Editorial Board has come out strongly against efforts by Chopp to stall the budget in order to protect labor rights.  They cast the fact that Washington has no settlement option for workers as limiting to all parties involved: injured workers, employers, attorneys, and the Labor & Industries system.  They argue, “Now the workers’ comp system gives them a pension and tells them they are done working for life.  The new idea is to allow them to take a lump sum and find different work.”  They note further, “Now the system pensions them.  It has been handing out more than 1,000 new lifetime pensions a year, a practice that has been become expensive…for labor, too, because a payroll tax is a tax on the creation of jobs.”

This formulation of the workers’ comp fix directly echoes arguments made by Republicans and the Association of Washington Business that offering lump sum settlements is an obvious, simple fix for the Labor & Industries system.

However, Labor Rights activists note that the devil is very much in the details.  As we have noted here in this blog, “Buried in the back of the bill is a section that may limit the ability for workers to be compensated for separate and totally unrelated injuries, merely because they were unfortunate enough to have been injured multiple times.”  Further, many groups aligned with Labor point out that the temptation to accept a lump sum can be overwhelming a worker who is injured and anxious about his or her future. The Seattle Times quotes David Groves of the Washington State Labor Council when he points out “People who are in desperate circumstances are going to be pressured to take buyouts that re against their best interests.”

In a letter posted to the Times on May 11, Kelly McQuade makes perhaps the most telling point about the lump sum option for injured workers.  She notes, “Where is that person going to turn when the lump sum is gone?  Other state-funded services (if they even exist in the future) will pick up the slack.  This is a Band-Aide that will hurt Washington labor for years to come and cost more in the long run.”

Governor Chris Gregoire has indicated that forcing the Legislature into special session over this matter would be unacceptable.  As she works behind the scenes to come to a compromise, we will keep you updated on how this crucial issue plays out.  As this crisis makes clear, injured workers should seek the advice of a Seattle Labor & Industries Attorney who is an expert at navigating the rapidly shifting landscape of Washington Labor & Industries Law.  Visit us soon here for major updates…

On December 8, 2010 Time.com reported that a “group of women employees is suing Walmart for discrimination, charging the nation’s biggest retailer with underpaying female workers and denying them equal opportunities for promotion.”  Slate.com describes the genesis of the case: “In 2001, Betty Dukes sued Wal-Mart for sex discrimination in a lawsuit filed on behalf of every woman who worked for the company since 1998–roughly 1.5 million women.”  Dukes alleged several grievances against Wal-Mart.  The central claim was lack of equal pay, even for women with greater seniority and better performance reviews.  Also, Dukes claimed the path to promotion was much more difficult and longer than for men and that women were routinely subjected to sexist language.

Beyond the sworn declarations of 120 women who describe their experience of sex-deiscrimination at Wal-Mart, the plaintiffs argue Wal-Mart’s hierarchal structure as directly contributing to the systematic discrimination.  Wal-Mart gives store managers discretion when making promotions and hiring decisions, using such criteria as “teamwork, ethics, integrity, and the ability to get along with others.”  The plaintiffs contend that it was just such subjective criteria decided by mostly male managers that allowed the system to be vulnerable to common sexism and gender stereotypes. This was, after all, the 1990s.  The claim rests on the idea that mostly male managers with little oversight tend to either consciously or unconsciously apply gender stereotypes when it comes to such nebulous concepts as the “ability to get along with others.”  Unfortunately, as many women continue to know today, long-held sexist attitudes about gender roles continue to influence managers in their decision-making process.

It is just this argument that Wal-Mart claims undermines the very status of the class.  As Slate.com notes, “Because Wal-Mart gives managers at the store store level almost complete discretion make personal decisions, there’s nothing that connects the decisions of one Wal-Mart manager to those of another.”  Thus, even if female employees across the country DID suffer sex discrimination, Wal-Mart claims those events were ultimately unconnected.  And while the company acknowledges that such discrimination might have existed, they want the employees to file the claims independently.

Of course, this is where the importance of  the current Supreme Court battle becomes key.  While the decision before the court is narrow (can all these women constitute a class?), the stakes are enormous: can large groups of injured employees band together together to face the legal might and deep pockets of large corporations like Wal-Mart?

When arguments commenced before the Supreme Court on March 29, it soon became clear the Justices had questions in line with Wal-mart’s claims.  The New York Times reports that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he found the issue of manager discretion as a foundation for proving systematic abuse “internally inconsistent.”  Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative and consistently pro-business members of the court argued “One the one hand, you say the problem is that they were utterly subjective, and on the other hand you say there is strong corporate culture that guides all of this.  Well, which is it?”

The chief worry of the court seemed to be the large number of companies that could be liable if this diverse class was certified. However, as many labor rights activists note, class actions were designed in part to hold companies accountable for abuses on a large scale and that these cases should work as a deterrent to prevent future abuses.  So the court must decide who is more important: corporations or American workers?

We will continue to provide updates on this important case and others.  Workers who believe they have experienced workplace discrimination of any kind should contact an expert Washington Labor and Industries Attorney immediately.

Oklahoma Senate Bill 878 purports to be a comprehensive approach to workers’ compensation reform.  Brian Bingman, R-Salupa said, “We are committed to reducing Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation rates and making our state more competitive for job creation in every way.  This bill is progress towards a goal of making Oklahoma more competitive economically with surrounding states.”

The provisions of the Bill include mandating a judge to render a decision within 60 days, mandatory annual reviews of disability recipients, placing more authority in the hands of medical experts when reviewing claims, and encouraging early return to work as a form of rehabilitation.

Critics are skeptical of bill’s true intent.  Barbara Hoberock reports that the bill could limit injured workers’ access to medical treatment. It ties rates of compensation for doctors treating injured workers to 120 percent of Medicare. She quotes Dr. William Gillock, who practices occupational medicine in Tulsa. “We are concerned it would eliminate access to care and affect the quality of care we can provide,” he said.  The primary concern is that the reduction of compensation would make it difficult for doctors to refer their patients to specialists who charge higher raters.

Another measure passed by the Oklahoma Senate is aimed at limiting the amount workers’ compensation lawyers can be paid to represent injured workers.  Critics like Senate Minority Leader Charles Laster argue that the resolution would force injured worker’s to stand alone against the well-funded legal teams representing insurance companies.  Although supporters argue the measure would motivate workers’ compensation lawyers to work harder on behalf of their clients to obtain larger compensation, another possible outcome is reluctance to take cases in the first place.

The Washington State legislature is also pushing major changes in workers’ compensation benefits under the banner of reducing costs to the State.  While Governor Chris Gregoire’s proposal to push workers back into “light duty” while still recovering from injuries and to offer buy-outs to injured workers does not go as far the Oklahoma measures, it does reflect the national trend to push injured workers back into the workplace perhaps before they are ready.  The Seattle Times reports the “idea is to reconnect the worker with his boss, co-workers and paycheck, instead of having him sit at home on state benefit.”  One should note that the Times’ description of a worker sitting “at home” reflects an ugly prejudice in the mass media and by politicians against the plight of the injured worker.  As anyone who has suffered a workplace injury will tell you, recovery is a physically and emotionally exhausting process.

Labor and Industries laws continue to change across the nation.  Injured workers should consult with a Washington Workers Compensation Lawyer to ensure they receive the full protection of the law.