Meanwhile, the practice has morphed into big business for cell phone companies, with a growing number of carriers marketing a suite of “surveillance fees” to police departments to track a suspect’s location, document phone calls and texts, or provide other services. Some departments are logging dozens of traces each month for both routine investigations and emergencies.

With cell phone ownership and use now widespread, police claim that phone tracing is an indispensable weapon in emergencies like child abductions, suicide threats, and investigations in drug cases and murders. One police training manual identifies cell phones as “the virtual biographer of our daily activities,” providing a hunting ground for identifying contacts and movements.

However, civil liberty advocates point out that cell tracking raises legal and constitutional questions, particularly when police act without judicial orders or oversight. According to 5,500 pages of internal records obtained and studied by the American Civil Liberties Union from 205 police departments across the U.S., while many departments require warrants to use phone tracking in non-emergencies, some maintain broad discretion to obtain records on their own.

The internal documents indicate a dubious practice that police officials are hesitant to discuss publicly. While cell tracking by police has received limited media coverage in the past few years, the ACLU documents show that the practice is much more prevalent— and has far fewer safeguards — than officials have previously acknowledged.

The issue gained new urgency in the wake of a January Supreme Court ruling that found a GPS tracking device placed on a drug suspect’s car to be in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. While the ruling did not directly involve cell phones — many of which now include GPS locators — it provoked questions about limitations for cell phone tracking, lawyers say.

For example, in Arizona, even small police departments regard cell surveillance so invaluable that they have procured their own tracking equipment to circumvent the time required to have phone companies carry out operations for them. The police department in Gilbert AZ, for instance, spent a quarter of a million dollars on such equipment.

Cell carriers, on the other hand, are now staffed with special law enforcement liaison teams, and the ACLU’s records show that they bill police departments from a few hundred dollars for locating a phone to over $2,500 for a full-scale wiretap of a suspect.

While most of the police departments cited in the records declined to comment when the New York Times ran a recent story on the trend, other law officials claim that the legal ambiguities are outweighed by life-saving benefits.

The police in Grand Rapids Michigan, for example, used a cell locator in February to locate a stabbing victim who was in a basement hiding from his attacker.  According to Roxann Ryan, a criminal analyst with Iowa’s state intelligence branch, “It’s pretty valuable, simply because there are so many people who have cellphones,” she said. “We find people, and it saves lives.”

Yet interview transcripts show that both lawyers and law enforcement officials agree that much uncertainty remains over what information the police are entitled to legally obtain from cell companies, what standards of evidence they must meet before doing so, and when the courts must get involved.

If you suspect that your rights have been violated in the workplace, contact an Employment Attorney at Emery Reddy for help with your case.  We represent Washington workers who have suffered from FMLA discrimination, wage and hour violations, wrongful termination, workplace discrimination, sexual harassment and all other forms of workers rights violations.

Our Seattle workers compensation lawyers also provide assistance with L&I Claims for any type of workers’ compensation injury.

However, eight more jobs reports will follow in the months leading up to Election Day in November, each one an uncertain and potentially dangerous political moment for both President Obama and his Republican rivals.

Any given report could bring news of a slower pace of job growth and an uptick in the national unemployment rate, which is currently 8.3%. Conversely, gains in the labor market could continue to push the unemployment rate down, while boosting confidence in prospects for private sector job creation.

This uncertainty is the catch.

For President Obama, the last two months have supplied better news than expected in job creation numbers. Combined with a drop in the unemployment rate, last month’s jobs report caused Obama’s approval rating to rise and provided raw material for a new sense of optimism from the president and his administration.

Friday morning’s news will certainly encourage more positive rhetoric from the president. “Over the last two years, we’ve created over 3.5 million jobs, just in the private sector,” Mr. Obama said at a fund-raiser in New York last week. “Manufacturing is stronger than it’s been since the 1990s. We’ve now had 10 consecutive quarters of growth.”

The hopeful figures released in last month’s report gave Obama and his allies a potent political weapon. The evidence of economic improvement – even though it remains modest at this point –has deflated the rhetoric of Republican presidential candidates, especially Mitt Romney.

But just as quickly, a disappointing jobs report could shift political momentum in favor of the Republicans.

Alan B. Krueger, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged this risk in a statement Friday morning.

“The monthly employment and unemployment numbers can be volatile, and employment estimates can be subject to substantial revision,” Mr. Krueger said. “Therefore, as the administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”

Mr. Romney, who has largely based his campaign platform on claims that he can fix the economy, would benefit from some new ammunition to attack. Obama’s policies. Indications that U.S. growth is sputtering again – which will remain a distinct possibility in the face of rising oil prices and economic uncertainty in Europe – could lend new urgency to Romney’s arguments. It would certainly be injudicious for Romney to be seen as rooting for a slowdown; but if one happens, he will inevitably seize on it.

It is hard to foresee exactly how these trends will affect Washington workers; the state unemployment rate currently stands at 8.6%, as compared to 8.3% nationally. However, the state budget crisis could easily trigger more job loss among government workers.

Unfortunately, Washington residents not only feel the continued squeeze of unemployment, but also face additional struggles within the workplace itself, such as wrongful termination, workplace discrimination, obstacles in collecting workers compensation benefits, and the difficult gauntlet of managing a Labor & Industries Claim (including the need to appeal a rejected L&I claim). Many injured workers do not fully understand their rights, and find themselves taken advantage of when they attend an L&I Independent Medical Exam. If you face any of these issues, please contact an L&I Lawyer or a Seattle Employment Attorney at Emery Reddy today.

Starting in January of 2013, certain providers that practice medicine in Washington state will be required to participate in the network in order to treat injured workers beyond the initial emergency-room or office visit. This will include L&I doctors, chiropractors, naturopathic physicians, registered nurse practitioners, physician assistants, dentists, and optometrists.

Beth Dupre, Assistant Director for Insurance Services, explained that L&I “wants every great health-care provider in the state to be part of our network. Your patients are counting on your participation. I urge you to apply early, so we can have credentialing completed before the network launches.”

Standards and guidelines for joining the network are detailed in the new L&I rules, which became effective on February 3, 2012.

Providers have the option of applying at www.JoinTheNetwork.Lni.wa.gov. Over the coming year, L&I plans to reach out to current L&I providers and encourage them to apply. New providers can apply to the network at any time.

Providers currently treating patients with L&I claims must re-apply; this includes health professionals already participating in the Centers for Occupational Health and Education (COHE).

Different kinds of medical providers (including out-of-state providers) will be able to continue treating injured workers with an L&I Claim until they are contacted about joining the network at a later date.

After the network officially begins to operate, injured workers will have the option of seeing non-network providers, but only for their initial visit. After this, the injured worker must select a network provider for subsequent care. An L&I Attorney can help workers locate a network provider.

Workers having trouble collecting injury benefits from L&I are encouraged to contact a Seattle Workers Compensation Attorney.  We can also provide you with crucial advice if the Department of Labor and Industries has required you to complete an Independent Medical Examination.

In the course of an inspection begun in August based on a referral, OSHA discovered that a worker had been injured and hospitalized due to a faulty truck-mounted crane. While moving concrete-based traffic lights, the boom of the crane broke away from the truck, striking the operator in the head and knocking him from the operator’s station to the ground below.

One willful violation (carrying a $42,000 penalty) results from the employer’s failure to conduct annual inspections on the equipment. The employer was evidently aware of safety concerns raised by OSHA in previous citations from 2002 and 2006. A willful violation is one committed with deliberate understanding or intentional disregard for measured required by law, or with obvious indifference to worker safety and health.

Two serious violations carrying $8,400 in proposed fines have also been issued for undertaking modifications to the truck-mounted crane without the written approval of the manufacturer, and for permitting the crane to remain in operation despite known deficiencies. A serious violation occurs when there is considerable probability that death or serious worker injury could result from a hazard the employer knew about.
“Because this employer failed to provide safe equipment, a worker was seriously injured and could have been killed,” said Darlene Fossum, director of OSHA’s Fort Lauderdale Area Office. “This unfortunate incident illustrates why following OSHA’s standards are so important. All employees deserve a work environment free from unnecessary hazards.”

To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742).

If you were injured at work and plan to file an L&I claim, contact a Washington Workers’ Compensation Attorney at Emery Reddy. During the workers compensation claim process, the Department of Labor & Industries may require you to undergo an Independent Medical Exam; if this happens to you, we urge you to consult with an Seattle L&I lawyer before attending the IME. Finally, if your claim has been denied, it is in your best interest to work with an experienced L&I attorney to appeal rejected L&I claims.

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.