In an October 21 press release, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an encouraging decline in workplace injuries and illnesses. Across much of the U.S., workers compensation claims are down in many industries, particularly construction. Among private employers, nonfatal accidents declined to a rate of 3.6 cases for every 100 full-time workers in 2009, down from 3.9 per 100 in 2008. BLS also announced a drop in the total number of cases in the U.S., which declined from 3.7 million in 2008 to 3.3 million in 2009.

“While the reported decline in workplace injuries and illnesses is encouraging, 3.3 million workplace injuries and illnesses are 3.3 million too many,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “No worker should fear being injured or made sick for a paycheck.”

Solis emphasized the importance of thorough and accurate reporting in the case of workplace injuries. Solid record-keeping for workers compensation claims, she stated, can “serve as the basis for employer programs to investigate injuries and prevent future occurrences.” The Labor Secretary indicated that most employers recognize this obligation and do their best to correct conditions in which worker injuries occur, but pointed out that too many still do not. “That is why my department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration is aggressively working to ensure the completeness and accuracy of injury data compiled by the nation’s employers. We are concerned about the widespread existence of programs that discourage workers from reporting injuries, and we will continue to issue citations and penalties to employers that intentionally under-report workplace injuries.”

Solis concluded the press release by reiterating the importance of adherence to workers’ compensation guidelines and regulations that prevent workplace injury. “Too many Americans suffer each year from preventable injuries or illnesses they received while on the job. Even in these difficult economic times, we must keep in mind that no job is a good job unless it’s a safe job.”

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.

As Dr. David Michaels (Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA) explains, “When workers believe their employers are violating certain laws or government regulations, they have the right to file a complaint and should not fear retaliation. Silenced workers are not safe workers.”  Therefore, as Michaels concludes, “Changes in the whistleblower provisions make good on the promise to stand by those workers who have the courage to come forward when they believe their employer is violating the law and cutting corners on a variety of safety, health and security concerns in the affected industries.”

OSHA’s new regulations cover workers with complaints across a range of industries, including railroad, public transit, commercial motor carrier and consumer product industries; in addition, they also establish more consistency among the agency’s complaint procedures. OSHA’s interim final rules create both procedures and timelines for processing complaints under the whistleblower sections of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

OSHA implements the whistleblower requirements of the OSH Act and 18 other statutes that protect workers who report breaches of airline, railroad, environmental, public transportation, securities, commercial motor carrier, pipeline, nuclear power, and health care reform laws. Details on these new statutes will be available to the public at http://www.whistleblowers.gov.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 declared that state and private employers are responsible for ensuring safe workplaces for their employees. On behalf of American workers, OSHA assumed the role of overseeing these conditions and ensuring compliance by establishing and enforcing standards throughout the American workplace. In addition, it makes education, training, and assistance available to both employers and workers to support that objective.

If you are in need of a workers’ compensation attorney in Seattle or Washington, please contact an attorney at Emery Reddy today.

A federal district court recently ruled in favor of an employee suing several human resources executives after he was allegedly fired for requesting time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  The ruling may set a precedent in which individuals can be held personally liable for damages allowed through FMLA, including financial loss from a denial of benefits, compensation for back pay, lost wages and attorney fees.

The suit was brought against Cardone Industries and five of its senior HR executives by Dmitry Narodetsky, a tool designer who worked for the company for nearly twelve years before his termination.  His case includes a three-count complaint for violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Several weeks prior to his termination, Narodetsky was diagnosed with a leg injury requiring surgery.  His wife promptly notified Narodetsky’s managers that her husband would need time off for the upcoming operation, and requested that they provide short-term disability for his medical leave.  Following the conversation, three of the company’s HR executives and another manager conducted a forensic examination of Narodetsky’s work computer, uncovering evidence of a pornographic email he allegedly forwarded to a coworker over a year earlier.  Before scheduling the surgery, Narodetsky was called into a meeting attended by the defendants, shown the email he had allegedly forwarded, and fired.

Narodetsky alleges that his employers conducted the computer search solely to find a pretext for terminating his employment so they could avoid granting him leave. He filed a suit alleging that not only the company, but also the five individual defendants interfered with his rights under FMLA and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Attorneys for the defense argued that none of the individual claims were warranted because Narodetsky’s suit did “little more than simply list each such defendant’s title,” and because it failed to include “any facts showing how each defendant was involved in plaintiff’s alleged request for medical leave or the decision to terminate.”

Yet U.S. District Judge Thomas N. O’Neill of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss Narodetsky’s claim, noting that it went well beyond the narrow characterization of the defense by alleging that each of the individual defendants “participated in the forensic search of [the plaintiff’s] computer with the goal of finding a reason to justify his termination because he had requested FMLA leave.”  O’Neill also maintained that the executives and manager were properly named as defendants since each possessed the authority to fire and played a role in the decision to terminate Narodetsky. “The allegations support an inference that each of the defendants exercised control over the plaintiff in the decision to terminate him,” O’Neill wrote.  The judge also stated that “Given the timing of his termination–falling right on the heels of his request for medical leave–I find that it is reasonable to infer that the defendants terminated his employment for the purpose of interfering with his plan benefits.”

Both the individual defendants and Cardone Industries, Inc. have declined to comment publicly on the ruling.  The case is now proceeding to adjudication in a new trial. See O’Neill’s full opinion in Narodetsky v. Cardone Industries Inc. (pdf)

Citation: Narodetsky v. Cardone Industries et al., Case #09-4734; February 24, 2010, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Companies that cut costs by misclassifying regular employees as “independent contractors” will face tighter regulations and stricter penalties in 2010. The Obama administration has already begun to crack down on companies that misrepresent worker status, recently hiring one hundred additional enforcement agents to effect compliance with the law. Meanwhile, auditors at the IRS have launched an intensified campaign to determine if over 6,000 major companies are using misclassification as a way to cheat on taxes.

Business experts have shown that a growing number of companies wrongfully classify regular workers as “independent contractors” to avoid paying unemployment insurance premiums and Social Security and Medicare taxes on the wages of their employees. Since taxes are not generally paid on the compensation of independent contractors, employers reduce business costs by improperly applying this designation to individuals who should be regarded as regular employees (some of these “contractors” even have company office space and work the same hours as employees).

In a recent New York Times article, Steven Greenhouse indicated that companies wrongfully classify about 3.4 million workers as contractors; the Department of Labor largely corroborates these figures, and estimates that up to 30% of U.S. companies participate in worker misclassification at some level.

The practice has enormous economic repercussions. In Ohio, for example, close to 100,000 misclassified workers have cost the state an estimated $35 million a year in unemployment insurance taxes, and over $100 million in worker’s compensation premiums. With federal and state governments currently struggling under record deficits, businesses can expect a significant increase in penalties for misclassification in the near future. Steven Greenhouse reports that the attorney general of California is currently seeking $4.3 million from a single construction company accused of misclassifying its workers. When implemented on a comprehensive, nation-wide scale, these measures could yield significant results. According to the Obama administration’s 2010 budget estimates, tightened enforcement could translate into $7 billion in revenue over 10 years.

Yet wrongful classification of workers is not merely a matter of concern for government officials; the practice has implications on a more personal level as well, denying basic employment rights to workers. Employers often misrepresent regular W-2 employees as contractors to circumvent minimum wage, overtime and antidiscrimination laws. If workers are designated as contractors and then laid off, they are ineligible for unemployment insurance. Those who are injured on the job cannot receive workers’ compensation benefits.

Prominent members of the business community have responded to the impending crackdown with alarm. When the IRS or state tax authorities identify instances of wrongfully misclassifying workers, companies often face fines and penalties, and can be liable for back-taxes on the reclassified employee. Most employers maintain that worker misclassification is unintentional, resulting from confusion and ambiguity in the legal distinctions between independent contractors and regular employees.

While current developments demonstrate a growing political will to enforce compliance with the law, cases of misclassifying workers have repeatedly emerged in the national spotlight in recent years. Last year the attorneys general of several states threatened to sue FedEx Ground for wrongfully classifying its drivers.  According to allegations by the Teamsters, FedEx has used misclassification to prevent drivers from unionizing (since independent contractors, unlike traditional employees, cannot form unions).

Yet perhaps the most prominent case of misclassification surfaced in 2007, when the private security firm Blackwater USA came under investigation for evading payment of millions of dollars in taxes by classifying workers in Iraq as “independent contractors.” Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, accused Blackwater of engaging in an “illegal tax scheme” that allowed it to avoid an estimated $31 million in employment-related taxes in the last year of its contract alone. The company also attempted to prevent one of its guards from contacting members of Congress after the worker discovered this illegal practice. In a letter to Blackwater’s CEO, Waxman wrote that “it is deplorable that a company that depends on federal tax dollars for over 90 percent of its business would even contemplate forbidding an employee to report corporate wrongdoing to Congress and federal law enforcement officials.” Despite the fact that it routinely misclassifies workers as contractors, Blackwater has been awarded more than $1 billion in government contracts since 2001.

According to guidelines established by the IRS, an employee is defined as anyone who works for an employer when that employer controls what will be done on the job and how those services will be performed. Independent contractors, on the other hand, are defined in a such as way that the payer or employer can only control the result of the work performed, but not the means of accomplishing that result. This distinction is codified in revenue ruling 87-41 (generally referred to as “the twenty factor test”). For a more extensive discussion on properly classifying employees and contractors, see the official guidelines as detailed on the IRS website.

Washington Labor and Industries is in the process of overhauling its website, www.lni.wa.gov. The revisions to the Washington L&I website are the result of user feedback collected over a significant period of time, as well as the efforts of L&I website designers. The new look improves the homepage, streamlines navigation and uses space more efficiently.

The new Washington L&I homepage, the content of which provides details on injured workers’ employment and workers’ compensation rights, provides better visuals and a more welcoming portal to the rest of the L&I site. Online services like the Claim and Account Center simplify the search for injured workers’ rights and remedies, workers’ compensation information, and specific claim information.

Streamlined navigation was a major focus of the L&I site revisions, and the result is a menu that includes headings for Safety, Claims and Insurance, Workplace Rights, and Trades and Licensing. These headings are continuously available. The new L&I site also restricts views to exactly what workers need, eliminating the confusing overload of unnecessary information. An injured worker pursuing a claim will find it easier to review his or her workers’ compensation and Washington L&I rights, understand workers’ comp injury data and statistics, verify workers’ comp coverage, and complete insurance forms. These changes promise to ease the burden on workers who depend on this web tool for information about injury claims.

The new L&I website also makes the most of its available space by consistently packaging information into succinct titles and removing duplication of information, such as contact information and Spanish translation for non-ESL workers.

Of the many revisions to the L&I site, one of the most effective is a new tool that permits a site user (commonly a worker with an L&I covered injury) to maintain a set of links packaged specifically for that worker. For example, a worker who suffered a back injury on the job could build links and bookmarks about necessary claim information, PPD awards related specifically to his or her injury, relevant contact information, and crucial information the worker would need if he or she found it necessary to appeal a claim with the Washington Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. These links would remain consistently available regardless of the user’s navigation to other locations on the site. A review of the new site is available at http://www.lni.wa.gov/refresh.

Previously, an injured worker in need of advice might navigate the L&I website without access to important links that remained buried in inconspicuous locations. New content and links refer an injured worker directly to information about pursuing claims or appeals for his or her injury.

For more information, please visit Emery Reddy, PLLC online, or contact us via telephone at (206) 442-9106.

Emery Reddy represents plaintiffs in L&I, employment law and personal injury matters.  The firm and its attorneys are trusted advocates for Washington workers who experience job related injuries.