Tag Archive for L&I Seattle Attorney

Jennifer Atkinson | March 30, 2012
No comments

OSHA Joins the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication to Reduce Worker Injury & Illness from Dangerous Chemicals

In an effort to promote best practices and reduce worker injury from exposure to hazardous chemicals, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has renewed its alliance with the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication (SCHC). Working together, these organizations will continue to address hazard communication and increase awareness of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health David Michaels stressed the important of workplace safety in regard to this issue, noting that “more than 32 million workers are exposed to 650,000 hazardous chemical products in American workplaces. Our continued Alliance with the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication will help ensure that workers are aware of the chemical hazards to which they may be exposed, and help reduce chemical-related occupational illnesses and injuries.”

Over the next two years, the Alliance will also share data on OSHA’s National Emphasis Programs, Regulatory Agenda, and opportunities for involvement in the rulemaking process. The Alliance will develop literature on the physical hazards of chemicals and on aspects of GHS compliance.
SCHC represents more than 500 chemical hazard communication professionals who advance awareness of issues and educate the public about new developments in hazard communications.

Through the Alliance Program, OSHA will partner with groups committed to workplace safety and worker health (such as unions, trade and professional organizations, employers and educational institutions) to minimize workplace injury, illness, and fatalities. OSHA and the groups collaborate to develop and implement compliance assistance tools and resources, sharing these resources with workers and employers, and educating the public about worker rights and responsibilities.

OSHA’s newly developed Hazard Communication web page offers information and links  on OSHA’s revised standard, as well as requirements for the new safety data posters and labels.

If you have experienced a work injury, need assistance to recover your workers compensation benefits from the Department of Labor and Industries, or want to appeal a denied L&I claim, an Employment attorney at Emery Reddy can represent your interests. Every day our experienced L&I Lawyers and Seattle Workers Compensation Attorneys provide guidance to workers who have been ordered to complete an independent medical exam, or who have other difficulties with their L&I claim.

Category: Department of Labor and Industries, Independent Medical Examination, L&I Attorney, Rejected L&I Claim, Worker Injury, Workers Compensation Attorney, Workplace Safety | Tags: , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | June 16, 2011
No comments

Illinois Workers’ Compensation Bill: Reform or Assault on Workers’ Rights?

In the continuing effort to confront mounting budget shortfalls, states across the country are making deep cuts in important government programs, including workers’ compensation.  The Bill passed by the Illinois Senate recently is worth examining as it contains many proposals that are being debated to bring down costs here in Washington State as well.

The Illinois bill is touted as “reform,” but many critics and labor rights activists see it as a giveaway to Big Business with workers bearing the cost.  Touted by many pro-business Democrats, Senate President John Cullerton argued “This reform package is the single most important thing we can do to improve our business climate and ensure our economic recovery continues.  Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also backed the bill as essentially job-creation legislation.

At the heart of the legislation is a 30 percent reduction in fees that businesses are required to pay doctors who treat injured workers. Proponents of the bill argue this would save Illinois businesses up to $700 million.  Of course, what is not addressed is how this gap in coverage will be addressed.

Other features of the bill include establishing a medical network for workers compensation claims and cutting the duration when a worker can receive payments for carpal tunnel syndrome from 40 weeks to 28 weeks.  Perhaps most troubling, the measure places the burden of proof on workers when proving that drugs or alcohol did not not contribute to a workplace accident.

Predictably, while these features certainly represent major change, Republicans did not feel the Bill went far enough.  Hyperbole and rhetoric abound when state Republicans complain that Bill does not go far enough:

“The person who plays football on Sunday afternoon gets hurt and goes to work on Monday and says he has a workers compensation injury, we don’t address that, the very meat and potatoes of what we need to do,” complained House Minority Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego).

Attorney Michael Helfand notes the dishonesty at the heart of such a statement: “That sounds outrageous and would be if it was true.  But the truth is that any injured worker has to prove that their injury arose out of and in the course of their employment.  In the course of means while they were working or doing something for the benefit of the employer.  So if the scenario that Tom Cross describes happens then the case can and will be fought and in fact the worker can be charged with fraud.”

Helfand is on point when he notes that such statements play into old, dangerous stereotypes of the “scamming” injured worker. As any worker who has been injured on the job can attest, being forced to seek medical care that prevents one from working is not a pleasant experience, and can often be trying and fraught with obstacles.

We will continue to watch this bill and others as they make their way through state legislatures.  Workers’ Compensation law is complex and dynamic, but an attorney who specializes in such cases is an injured workers’ greatest ally.  An expert Washington workers’ compensation lawyer at Emery Reddy is standing by to help with your very important claim.

Category: Uncategorized, Worker Injury, Worker Rights, workers compensation | Tags: , , , , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | June 13, 2011
No comments

Construction Accident Attorneys

Construction site jobs are among the most dangerous work in the U.S.  Each year, thousands of Washington workers are seriously injured or killed in construction site accidents.  Some of the most frequent injuries include falling, crane accidents, scaffolding accidents, hazards from compressed gases, defective machinery or equipment, nail gun mishaps, explosions, and welding or cutting accidents.  According to some industry estimates, 40% of construction site fatalities involve electrocution.

Construction accidents cause Washington workers to suffer more than just serious injury; employees also face financial hardships, the inability to support families, long-term medical complications and expenses, surgery, and sometimes life-long difficulties maintaining employment.

When the responsible party is the workers’ employer, a coworker, or even the injured worker him- or herself, claims and benefits are managed by the Department of Labor and Industries.  However, if a construction site injury is caused by the negligence of someone other than a direct employer – or if accidents occur at a location other than the place of employment – workers may have the right to additional compensation and benefits through a third-party liability claim.  In distinction from workers’ compensation benefits, there is virtually no limit to the settlement amount in a third-party liability claim. This can give injured workers access to additional medical benefits and wage-loss benefits, and further compensate them for personal pain and suffering as well as loss of services for dependents or a spouse.

From a legal perspective, construction accident claims are highly complex. Construction sites are demanding and rapidly-changing environments where projects are managed under intense time constraints, and projects often involve multiple businesses, contractors, sub-contractors, rental companies, property owners, workers, and equipment manufacturers and owners.  Simply pinpointing the party responsible for an accident can be overwhelming.  This means that victims without skillful and experienced legal representation can face an endless series of questions and criteria in assessing the viability of their construction accident claim: what personnel were present on the site when an accident occurred? What machinery or equipment was involved? Who manufactured, owned, installed, or operated it? Are there available witnesses?  A construction site attorney with comprehensive knowledge of third-party liability and workers’ compensation laws can be crucial to the success of a case. The Construction Site Accident Attorneys at Emery Reddy are experienced in maximizing compensation that workers receive from serious injury and wrongful death cases.

Our attorneys have successfully negotiated and litigated construction site accident cases involving defective products that are commonly used in commercial building projects.  Each year, poorly manufactured or improperly maintained construction equipment causes thousands of serious injuries and fatalities.  Life-altering injuries and deaths, for instance, commonly result from scaffolding that is incorrectly installed or that fails to follow L&I and OSHA safety regulations.  Rental companies that do not properly care for or install equipment may be held accountable in a third-party liability claim.

While some workers are tempted to accept a quick settlement from an insurance company, this rarely reflects the full cost of personal, medical, financial and professional damages suffered by the injured worker.  What is in the insurer’s best interest is generally not in the best interest of the victim, since insurance companies will look for every available means to pay claimants as little as they can.

Emery Reddy’s Construction Accident Attorneys can help client recover the maximum compensation to which they are entitled by Washington law. As committed advocates of Washington workers, we take pride in our successful record of securing benefits for the injured and disabled, and will guide you through every step of your personal injury, third party liability or workers’ compensation claim.  Contact one of our attorneys today for a free consultation.

Category: Worker Injury, workers compensation, Workplace Accident | Tags: , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | April 12, 2011
No comments

Tsunami Aftermath: Disaster, Contract Labor, and Workers’ Comp

They have become known in the press around the world as the “Fukushima 50,” the 50 anonymous workers who venture into the dark, flooded depths of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in the wake of the March earthquake and tsunami that sent the plant’s systems spinning perilously out of control.  Ethicists and labor rights activists wring their hands over the morality of sending in civil workers into what is certain to be a radioactive environments while editorials and politicians praise their bravery and selflessness in the face of disaster.

In the wake of their acts of bravery, labor advocates began to ask important questions about these nuclear workers’ access to health care and workers’ compensation benefits should they suffer any ill effects from their important work.  After all, a startling “88 percent” of Japanese nuclear workers are contract workers with uncertain access to benefits, according to the NYTimes.com.

The New York Times noted these workers are “emblematic of Japan’s two-tiered work force, with an elite class of highly paid employees at top companies and a subclass of laborers who work for less pay, have less security and receive fewer benefits.”  The Times reports that the medical care and benefits for these workers tends to dwindle as you work your way down the ladder from contracted worker, to subcontracted, to even sub-subcontracted.  Essentially “nuclear migrants,” these workers attempt to conceal injuries or exposure to radiation so they can retain their employment.

As the United States re-evaluates its own nuclear power industry, the spotlight has shifted to how the U.S. treats those workers who are asked to put themselves in jeopardy in what is essentially a work situation.  Just today, Scientific American reports that the U.S. nuclear safety regulator is investigating how three nuclear workers in Nebraska were exposed to radiation in a workplace setting in early April. Scientific American writes, “The three workers triggered radiation alarms by incorrectly moving a radioactive tube on April 3. They immediately set the tube down and fled the area.  Nebraska Public Power District, which operates the Cooper Nuclear Station, does not believe the workers were exposed to radiation above regulatory limits, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a release.”  There is no word if these workers were subcontractors or full-time employees.

Of course, if the United States suffered a disaster so severe that it forced not only nuclear workers, but emergency workers to enter extreme environments to save lives, the most obvious, and unfortunate parallel is 9/11.  Chris Bragg wrote as late as 2007 that “many cleanup workers who rushed to help the city in its time of need say they have developed serious physical conditions due to that work: 756 cleanup volunteers and many more paid workers have submitted claims. Many claimants say, however, the Workers’ Compensation Board has been slow in helping them get back on their feet.”  Workers employed by the city, such as firefighters and police officers, go through a tailored compensation process.  But contract workers are at the mercy of the city’s Workers’ Compensation Board, and literally hundreds of articles over the years have detailed their struggle.

Labor & Industries experts will continue to watch the drama unfolding in Japan with an eye to how workers in the U.S. would be treated in similar circumstances.  If anything, the situation reveals the need for greater protection of subcontracted workers of all stripes, especially in terms of workers’ compensation, before a disaster happens and workers must rush into the unknown.  If you have been injured and have questions about your employment status as it relates to workers’ compensation, contact an expert Washington Labor & Industries Attorney.

Category: Employment Discrimination, Uncategorized, Unfair Pay Practices, Worker Injury, Worker Rights, workers compensation | 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