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.”

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.”

 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.

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.

]]> http://emeryreddy.com/blog/2011/04/washington-democrats-present-workers-compensation-plan/feed/ 0 http://emeryreddy.com/blog/2011/04/court-wont-certify-class-action-in-blow-to-workers-rights/ http://emeryreddy.com/blog/2011/04/court-wont-certify-class-action-in-blow-to-workers-rights/#comments Sat, 02 Apr 2011 16:02:26 +0000 Jennifer Atkinson http://emeryreddy.com/blog/?p=276 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.

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.

Under the care of Dr. Orn Eliasson, the worker was diagnosed with a 54% bilateral pulmonary impairment, which Dr. Eliasson determined using the 5th Edition AMA Guide.  Yet a second physician, Dr. Albert Rizzo, also attended to the same patient, and rated a 24% permanency based on the 6th Edition AMA Guide.

During his July 2010 hearing the claimant was no longer working.  His employers maintained that worker safety measures from 1986 should have provided him with adequate protection from asbestos exposure beyond that date—meaning, according to the logic of their argument—that the employee’s disability benefit quotient should have been based on his average weekly wage in 1986 for determining his present disability award.

The worker’s complicated employment history has made it difficult to determine all the factors involved in his asbestos exposure.  He was last employed by Catalytic in 1982.  The worker then moved to Raytheon, where he worked from 1984 until 1997.  After retiring from Raytheon, the claimant took a part-time position with Delaware City Refinery, Raytheon (from 1997 to 1998), and Washington Group (from 2000 to 2001).  The workers also performed services for several other companies for short spells between 2004 and 2007.

In 2008, the worker started to develop acute respiratory symptoms.  It was at this point that Dr. Eliasson initially diagnosed him with asbestos-related lung disease, and designated a 54% bilateral lung impairment rating based on the AMA Guide 5th edition.  Dr. Eliasson testified that there is a 10 to 20 year-latency period for developing asbestosis following exposure, and so in his medical opinion, the worker’s contributory exposure likely occurred between 1982 and 1997.  However, Dr. Albert Rizzo also examined the injured worker, and in a testimony on behalf of the various employers,  he argued that the harmful exposures were “most likely cumulative, making it difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint when the harm occurred.”   Drawing on the guidelines of the 6th Edition AMA Guide, Dr. Rizzo gave the patient’s bilateral lung impairment a 24% rating.

Ultimately, the Industrial Accident Board deferred to the prevailing doctrine of “the last injurious exposure rule” and upheld Dr. Eliasson’s testimony that the latency period for manifesting asbestos-related disease is 10-20 years.  The Board cited the 1988 case “Lake Forest School District v. DeLong” (WL 77665), arguing that when an injurious exposure is cumulative over the period of successive employment, the final employer is liable for the entire award.  In the case in question, the Board regarded the final year of the claimant’s fulltime employment (which fell between 1996 and 1997) as his last injurious exposure, and disregarded any asbestos exposure from 1997-2007 as outside the latency period.  Under these measures, Raytheon was found liable for the occupational illness.

When it calculated the worker’s award for permanent impairment, the Board declined to base its decision on the 5th Edition AMA Guide, and partially adopted Dr. Rizzo’s rating.  Using the 6th Edition, the Board determined that Dr. Rizzo’s rating corresponded with a Class 3 disability, which falls in the range between 24% to 40% impairment.  Yet the Board found Dr. Rizzo’s rating of 24% “low,” and awarded 30% to each lung.

If you think you may be suffering from asbestos exposure or another work-related injury or illness, please contact a workers’ compensation attorney at Emery Reddy.  We will fight to ensure that you receive the full workers’ compensation benefits to which you are entitled.

The present state of the economy appears to be a significant factor in the decline of work-related deaths, especially as high-risk occupations like construction are experiencing a historic downturn and employing fewer people.

Here in Washington State, 57 workplace injuries resulted in death, the lowest number since 2000.  Of these fatalities 9 were construction-related, less than half the number of construction-accident deaths in 2008.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics published the following data on Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2009:

• 2009 saw an overall 17% decrease in fatal work injuries, although workplace homicides dropped by only 1%.
• Workplace fatalities among salaried and wage-workers declined by 20%, while accidental deaths among self-employed workers dropped only 3%.
• Fatalities in private construction declined by 16%.
• Building cleaning and grounds maintenance occupations were the only sectors that experienced an increase of fatalities.

See the full report published by the United States Department of Labor.

This information is provided by the Emery Reddy Worker’s Compensation and L&I blog.  If you have been injured at work, or if someone close to you has been killed in a a workplace accident, please contact our firm today for a free and confidential consultation with one of our Worker’s Compensation attorneys.

Historically, New Jersey’s maximum workers’ compensation has increased by modest increments on a yearly basis. The decrease slated for 2011 indicates a significant faltering of the state’s economy.  And while there will be a decline in scheduled disability rates, skyrocketing medical costs will continue to go uncapped.  The financial consequences of that disparity remain unclear in a period of declining payrolls and smaller premium collections on workers’ compensation benefits.
2011’s maximum workers’ compensation benefits for temporary disability, permanent partial disability and permanent total disability rates are based upon the States’s Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) for the prior year. Currently, New Jersey allows a maximum benefit of 75 percent of the state’s average weekly wage.

Maximum workers’ compensation benefit rates in New Jersey have been regarded as rather low in relation to other states in the U.S., and many workers’ compensation attorneys and workers’ rights advocates have purchased for a higher adjustment.

The new payment schedules will apply to workers who suffer on the job injuries and deaths in 2011.

In a conference announcing the proposed penalties, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis stated that “Accurate workplace injury and illness records are vital tools for identifying hazards and protecting workers’ health and safety. Workers and employers need this information to recognize patterns of injuries and illnesses, and prevent future hazards.”

OSHA’s investigation of Goodman Manufacturing began in March 2010 after the agency received a series of complaints that Goodman had violated OSHA’s regulations by systematically failing to properly document workplace injuries and occupational illnesses. The investigation determined that from January 2008 to March 2010, the company had inaccurately recorded—or simply declined to document altogether—nearly 75 percent of employee injuries and illnesses on its premises.

Workers and regulators have commented that Goodman is highly knowledgeable of OSHA’s recordkeeping procedures, but nevertheless persisted in the decisions and actions resulting in the alleged violations.  Critical information pertaining to the degree and duration of its workers’ injuries and illnesses have been inaccurately documented, including the duration of their time off the job.  Such figures are vital to properly handling and treating injured workers in a workers’ compensation claim.

As OSHA’s Assistant Secretary of Labor, Dr. David Michaels explains, “OSHA takes these violations extremely seriously. We need accurate data to effectively target inspections and resources, and to measure the impact of OSHA’s actions on workplace safety. Employers and workers need to understand how important accurate data are to workplace safety and health.”

According to OSHA regulations, the definition of a willful violation is one that is committed with gross indifference to or intentional neglect for a worker’s safety and health.
Goodman Manufacturing was given 15 business days after the citations were issued to comply with OSHA’s protocol and request a consultation with the agency’s Houston director.  Goodman can also contest the citations with the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

OSHA recently implemented a National Emphasis Program on Recordkeeping to evaluate the accuracy of employer documentation of worker injury and illness.

All workers are urged to immediately report accidents, fatalities or dangerous workplace conditions to OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742. 
 Injured workers should also consult a Washington Workers’ Compensation Lawyer at Emery Reddy.