Tag Archive for injury attorney

Jennifer Atkinson | January 27, 2012
No comments

L&I Pushes for Better Worker Protection in Metals Industry

Two years ago a Washington state foundry worker fell into a tub of molten steel and sustained injuries that resulted in the loss of a leg and arm. Then, only a few months following this tragic incident, another Washington worker suffered severe burns at a galvanizing plant when he stepped into molten zinc. These cases, unfortunately, are only two of many incidents each year where metal workers suffer a work-related injury or occupational illness due to exposure to metal dust, fumes and other harmful substances.

In response to these workplace injuries – along with other health and safety hazards common among workers in the primary metals industry –the Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) has joined in a national campaign headed by OSHA to reduce serious injuries and enhance workplace safety across the industry. L&I officials estimate that approximately seventy businesses in Washington are in the primary metals industry.

In a statement released by the head of L&I’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), L&I Assistant Director Michael Silverstein offered the following remarks:

“Men and women working in foundries and other jobs where metal is cast or refined face several significant hazards, including exposure to lead and dangerous chemicals, extreme noise and heat, as well as injuries from the machinery and materials being used. With this special emphasis, L&I hopes to reduce the risks these workers face.”

As part of this new worker safety initiative, L&I has created a web page specifically devoted to reducing workplace hazards in the metals industry; the page also provides training materials and other relevant resources. Washington workers and employers are encouraged to visit the site here: www.PrimaryMetals.Lni.wa.gov.

The new workplace safety campaign also includes a mailing of informational literature to nearly seventy businesses in Washington that fall within the primary metals category. For those interested in seeing images of two serious workplace injuries caused by to molten metal, L&I has also put together a slideshow (viewer discretion advised). Finally, Washington L&I plans to expand enforcement inspections throughout the state.

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) launched a nationwide program to protect metal workers last year. Officials stated that due to the hazards of this workplace, workers in the metal industry have an injury and fatality rate exceeding many other industrial jobs. This trend, unfortunately, holds true in Washington State as well.

Employers and managers who oversee worker safety are encouraged to request individualized help in addressing workplace hazards by contacting an L&I Safety and Health consultant, or by calling a local L&I office.

If you have suffered a workplace injury or have an occupational illness, contact a Seattle L&I Lawyer at Emery Reddy today for help with your L&I claim.

Broadcast version of L&I’s news release:

“The Department of Labor & Industries has joined a national effort to improve safety at smelters, foundries and other metal processing facilities that make up the state’s primary metals industry. The effort involves increased inspections, more safety and health outreach into the industry, including the development of a new L&I web page, with training materials and other information. Businesses in this industry should expect to receive a postcard in the mail announcing the effort.”

Category: Department of Labor and Industries, L&I, Occupational Illness, Worker Injury, Workers Compensation Attorney, Workplace Accident, Workplace Safety | Tags: , , , , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | January 17, 2012
No comments

As Snow Storm Hits Washington, Workers Take Precautions

With weather forecasters predicting one of the biggest Seattle snow storms in recent years to arrive tomorrow, workers and employers should prepare to take full precautions to ensure winter safety. The U.S. Department of Labor has created a new page on the website for its Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to help protect workers from potential hazards that come with winter storm response and recovery operations.

Visit OSHA’s Winter Storms Web page.

During winter months, employees who work in snow storms experience increased rates of injuries, as shown by increased L&I claims during these extreme conditions. OSHA’s new online tool offers tips and guidelines for how Washington employers and workers engaged in clean-up and recovery operations can identify hazards inherent in snow storm conditions, and take necessary steps to ensure worker safety while carrying out their jobs in wintry conditions. The webpage includes best practices and directions for workers whose activities may lead them to clear heavy snow around workplaces or from rooftops; encounter downed power lines; travel on slick or icy roads; or restore power after storms.

Hazards related to work in winter storm conditions include:

  • Workers being struck by falling objects (icicles, tree limbs, utility poles, etc)
  • Vehicle accidents on icy roadways
  • Carbon monoxide poisoning
  • Dehydration, hypothermia or frostbite
  • Exhaustion from overexertion
  • Back injuries – or even heart attacks – while removing snow
  • Slips & falls on slippery walkways
  • Electrocution from downed power lines and objects in contact with them
  • Burns from fires caused by energized line contact or equipment failure
  • Falls from rooftop snow removal, or while working on aerial lifts or ladders
  • Roof collapse under excess snow weight
  • Injuries from improperly operated chain saws and power tools, or from improperly attempting to clear jams in snow blowers

In response to these winter hazards and the work-related injuries that often occur in such condition, OSHA details the most effective measures for minimizing winter storm hazards. These include:

  • Approaching all power lines as if they were energized, and staying completely clear of downed or damaged power lines
  • Ensuring all powered equipment is properly guarded and disconnected from power sources before cleaning or performing maintenance
  • Using extremely caution on and around surfaces that are weighed down by snow or ice
  • Shoveling only moderate to small amounts of snow at a time, and using appropriate lifting form to avoid back injuries
  • Keeping walking surfaces clear of snow and ice; use salt where appropriate
  • Employers should provide and ensure the use of fall protection measures, and maintain ladders in good working condition
  • Remaining in one’s vehicle in the case of roadway emergency. Occupants should not leave a vehicle unless help is visible within 100 yards
  • Wearing reflective uniforms or clothing, as well as face and body protection
  • Clearly marking work zones
  • Using engineering controls, personal protective equipment and safe work practices to minimize the length of exposure to cold.

The new Winter Storms Web page provides links to OSHA guidelines, as well as advice from Federal Emergency Management Agency, the American Red Cross, the National Weather Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Safety Council and other relevant organizations.

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

Category: Department of Labor and Industries, L&I, Worker Injury, Workplace Accident, Workplace Safety | Tags: , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | November 29, 2011
No comments

What is an Independent Medical Exam?

Employees suffering from a work-related injury, disability or illness are often required to have an Independent Medical Exam (or IME).

 What is an Independent Medical Exam?

 If you become injured or disabled at work and have an open L&I claim, the Department of Labor and Industries may require you to submit to an Independent Medical Exam. Many workers believe that the exam is impartial owing to the word “independent” in the name of this procedure. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. In fact, some workers’ advocates claim that “it would be a lot more accurate to call the exam an Insurance Medical Exam because it is done by, for, and to benefit the insurance company. Unfortunately, insurance carriers are not looking for an independent evaluation.”

This is not exactly correct in all cases, but there is a certain kernel of truth to the charge. Most “Independent” Medical Exams are performed by doctors (or other medical professionals) who depend on the IME for a substantial part of their income. IME physicians understand that the Department of Labor and Industries has no overwhelming incentive to find you injured or disabled.

In any case, the general sentiment that Independent Medical Exam physicians are biased in favor of L&I is prevalent enough that many IME groups address the stereotype head-on.  One Independent Medical Exam website offers the following disclaimer that “While we can’t answer for physicians elsewhere, our physicians are all board-certified, in private practice with injured patients of their own to care for. They are not ‘paid by the State’ (or anyone else), but by us. We allow no pressure of any kind to be brought to bear on our specialists, either by referral sources, or, for that matter, by anyone else. Our physicians have no incentive to offer a biased opinion; financial or otherwise, nor will we permit any attempt to influence their best medical judgment. Their financial relationship is with us, not the referral source; they have no reason to “please” the referral as they have no financial contact with the referral source. We see our primary task as providing an influence-free environment for every evaluation.”

Furthermore the IME source claims that “Our physicians will be responding to questions provided by the referral source; however, this does not mean that the interests of the referral source will prevail or drive their conclusions in any manner. The sole purpose is to provide a current, thorough, medical evaluation of your injury or condition, without influence of any kind.”  Such defenses are commonly heard when concerns are raised about the impartiality of the Independent Medical Exam process, although such claims themselves are not usually supported with evidence that convinces critics of the IME system.

An L&I Washington Law Firm raises the following doubts about such statements of defense: “Most medical professionals who perform IME’s for insurance carriers usually do so on a regular basis either in a direct relationship with the carrier or with a third-party IME service, and this gives them a vested interest in finding disabled claimants healthy and able-bodied – they consider it job security. These medical professionals seek to tell the insurance carriers (their customers) what the insurance carriers want to hear, i.e., that the patient is medically fine and not entitled to disability benefits. They know that if they perform an independent examination and find the claimant to be disabled, it will lead to less repeat business from the insurance carrier, or carriers. In the end, the IME doctor most often chooses to keep his or her customer happy by giving them what they want – a medical report which supports denying the claim.”

What happens at an Independent Medical Evaluation?

The IME usually begins with a record review. Before patients even meet the IME doctor, Labor & Industries staff who are reviewing your L&I claim have already scrutinized your medical records, and may provide only selective records to the IME doctor for review. Records that have been taken out of context can create the appearance that your medical condition isn’t as serious as it might be, or that medical evidence is contradictory or ambiguous.  As a result, even if an IME doctor would otherwise be inclined towards impartiality, he or she is only provided with pre-screened information.

Another fairly common practice among some IME doctors is to look for “holes” in your medical record. Something as simple as an accidental omission on the part of your treating physician can result in an IME doctor deciding that your medical report does not support your disability claim.

Many patients report that even when the exam finally occurs, it can seem rather superficial. IMEs often last only a few minutes – which many find surprising given the extensiveness of an IME doctor’s report and the long list of clinical testing the doctor supposedly performed.  If you have been scheduled for an Independent Medical Exam, don’t expect a thorough exam.


Other Problems with the IME

Another problem with the system is that many IME professionals have preconceptions about certain medical conditions common among workers with disabilities and injuries. Some IME doctors entirely dismiss debilitating conditions like chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia because these illnesses are difficult to detect through CT-scans, MRIs and other diagnostic procedures. This is unsurprising when you consider that most IME doctors spend much of their time performing IMEs. Unlike primary physicians (your own doctor), who generally examine and treat patients over extended lengths of time, doctors specializing in Independent Medical Exams basically see a mere snapshot of the patient’s medical condition. This means an IME doctor can only assess the claimant’s condition for that single medical visit required by the Department of Labor and Industries.

The fact is that many occupational illnesses or medical conditions can only be diagnosed over long periods of time involving many clinical visits that track developments in a patient’s symptoms and test results. Given their highly restricted interaction with the patient (along with their general bias), it is expectable that so many IME doctors doubt the injured worker’s condition and disregard reported symptoms like headaches, dizziness, pain or numbness.

Is the Independent Medical Exam Required?
Employees with an L&I claim cannot refuse an Independent Medical Exam. If they do, it is likely that the Department of Labor and Industries will automatically reject your L&I claim or terminate your benefits. However, workers can minimize negative consequences from this procedure with the help of a knowledgeable L&I attorney. Emery Reddy counsels clients in advance of the Independent Medical Exam.  We can also send a trained professional to accompany you to your medical examination. This sends a clear message to the independent medical professional that a law firm is paying attention to their assessment.  In observing everything that happens during the IME, the professional will also report to an Emery Reddy attorney, and determine whether the IME doctor completed the clinical tests he or she claims to have performed.

When applying for benefits in an L&I claim, Independent Medical Exams can be an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. But this doesn’t mean you must become a victim. Contact Emery Reddy for a free case evaluation and assistance with your L&I claim.

Category: Department of Labor and Industries, IME, Independent Medical Examination, L&I, Labor and Industries, Occupational Illness | Tags: , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | April 21, 2011
No comments

Washington Democrats Present Workers Compensation Plan

In an attempt to reign in the Washington State Budget, a group of House Democrats put forward a proposal that seeks to make more moderate changes to the State’s Labor & Industries program than a prior proposal unveiled in the State Senate.

As we have reported before here, Washington State’s Workers’ Compensation Program is projected to run into insolvency in whole or in part within the next five to ten years.  KATU.com reports, “The system had about $499 million in reserves as of Dec. 31, the last figure available through the Department of Labor & Industries.  That figure represents the sum of medical fund of the system, which stands at nearly $709 million; the accident liability fund that is in the red for $275 million; and the pension fund that currently stands at $65 million.” Legislators point to these statistics to argue of an impending disaster that only big changes to workers’ compensation can avert.

Beyond the lost revenue stemming from the recession, critics of the Workers’ Comp Program point to one oft-quoted statistic as a major root of the problem: About 85 percent of compensation costs come from only 8 percent of all claims.  How is this possible?  Bert Caldwell of the Spokesman-Review explains that this 8 percent group is characterized by long pay-outs that stretch out into pensions.  He notes that Washington, “unlike most states, does not buy workers out of the program in order to cat its costs. Gregoire’s proposal would make that option available to workers age 55 and older who may not be retrainable and might prefer a reduced stipend that allow them to go their ow way and possibly find new work without worrying that a dollar erned is a dollar out of their pension.”

This “buy out” turns out to be the center of debate in this new round of Workers’ Compensation reform talks.

The Democrats insist their new proposal is more moderate than the one proposed by the Senate.  However, they do retain the option of a voluntary settlement as a central feature to their cost-cutting plain.  The settlement option allows workers to choose a one-time check to cover lost earning power.  Labor Unions reject this option, noting how tempting a one-time “fat check” can be and also arguing that when injured workers run out of settlement money, they are likely to turn to other social service outlets to meet their needs.  However, Rep. Chris Hurst, D-Eunumclaw, casts the settlement provision as an expansion of worker writes: “At the end of the day, it’s the workers’ money and it’s their life, and they should have the right to make this choice, to make this decision on their own and it needs to be a fair process.

Organized Labor counters that settlements rarely fully compensate an injured worker.  Jeff Johnson, president of the Washington State Labor Council recasts this “compromise” between the House and Senate as a shift in cost to injured workers.  He argues, “The only compromise, in any form of compromise and release, is workers compromising the benefits they need to survive.

The Seattle Times Editorial Board supports the measure by arguing that several safeguards, including grace periods before making a decision on a settlement, have been put in place to guard against coercion and split-second decision making that could impact an injured worker for the rest of his or her life.  As such, the momentum seems to be behind this version of the Bill, and Labor & Industries Attorneys and Activists will continue to watch these developments with an eye to protecting worker rights.

If you are injured in workplace setting, immediately seek medical help.  Injured workers should also consult with an expert Washington Labor & Industries Attorney to ensure they are protected as they file their claim.

Category: Uncategorized, Worker Injury, Worker Rights, workers compensation, Workplace Accident | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | April 2, 2011
No comments

Court Won’t Certify Class Action in Blow to Workers’ Rights

The Corporate Food Industry has often been the scene of labor rights abuses ranging from dodging minimum pay laws to mandating long hours linked to the ebb and flow of customer patronage at  food establishments.  Many a waiter and waitress will tell you that they rarely are given the mandatory breaks required by State law. Recently, employees of Joe’s Crab Shack in California banded together in a Class Action lawsuit against the restaurant claiming their employers failed to, among other things, provide employees with meal and rest breaks.

However, the Northern District Court of California denied class certification citing skepticism that an overall trend could be established through analysis of individual records. This ruling demonstrates the difficulties faced by employees who want to use the collective power granted by Class Action suits to redress illegal corporate policies that are often “off the books” and unofficial company culture.

According to court documents, “Plaintiff’s position is that common questions predominate because the main issue is whether…Joe’s Crab Shack restaurants in California followed a common unwritten policy of denying meal and rest breaks, failing to pay employees who did not take breaks, failing to pay for overtime, requiring employees to purchase their own uniforms, and so forth.”  Lawyers for the employees argued that they could establish a pattern of abuse through analysis of the restaurant’s Aloha computer system.

The Court responded that establishing this and other wrongs would emerge from individualized inquiries, thus the “only way of showing the ‘practice’ that plaintiff claims existed in California restaurants would be to determine how when and how it was applied in each instance.”

Like many systematic infractions on labor rights, the practice of discouraging or outright prohibiting meal breaks was not written into official company policy.  As such, proving that such abuses were institutional can be difficult. As the court notes, Plaintiff “must show that the employer impeded, discouraged, or prohibited him from taking a proper break.”

Examination of employee time cards clearly show a pattern of “breakless” shifts. The Court’s view is that it might have been an employee’s choice not to take a meal break. It is an interesting position: after all, how many workers routinely reject the chance to take a break and consume a meal during a long, physically demanding shift?  On the other hand, food workers are primarily dependent on tips, and time not spent on the floor waiting tables is viewed as lost money.  How does one determine collective intentions across a class?

In any event, the Court’s reasoning for declining to certify the class invites questions about the nature of Class Action in general.  If one cannot establish a pattern of institutional abuse through analyzing a trend that emerges through individual experience…then how does one construct a pattern at all?  All Classes are composed of individuals who suffered common wrongs.  Further, it is often only the collective power of a Class that can confront the combined legal might of a large corporation.

The California Court’s refusal to certify may signal a shift in the willingness of Courts to side with Workers against their Employers in the case of Class Actions.

Employees In Washington and Seattle who believe they are subject to unfair labor practices should contact an expert Labor & Industries Lawyer.  Denying basic access to meal and rest breaks and withholding pay are serious violations of Labor Laws and Workers should not be intimidated when securing their basic rights as workers. An experienced Washington L & I Attorney is waiting to speak to you.

Category: Employment Discrimination, Retaliatory Termination, Uncategorized, Unfair Pay Practices, Worker Rights, workers compensation | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Entries