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.

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.

And yet for a North Carolina health care worker, the offended party was his employer. And the form of betrayal?  Workers’ Compensation Fraud.

The case highlights a troubling trend in the increasing intrusion of employers into the private, even intimate life, of their workers.  The case also reveals that without proper protection from workers’ compensation attorneys, the government is ready to support the employer’s effort to do so.

According to media reports, the plaintiff in the case  worked as a health care technician at a residential health care facility.  After being the victim of a physical struggle with a patient, the plaintiff reported a back injury and began to collect benefits in March 2007.

Court records reveal the employer began to hear reports that there were video postings on the Internet of the plaintiff engaged in sexual acts while he was receiving workers’ compensation benefits. Armed with these rumors, the health care facility hired a private investigator to substantiate these claims.

It seems the investigator did… tracking down a whopping 107 videos. Adding to the already provocative nature of the claims, the investigator discovered the other participant in the videos was a co-worker.   Citing this information, the employer fired the two workers in January 2008 for personal misconduct. While these dismissals themselves bring up a host of troubling questions about the rights workers have to autonomy and intimacy in their private lives, it is the further use of these videos that seem to represent the biggest threats to workers’ rights under workers’ compensation laws.

The Employer had a physician review several videos and testify that the acts depicted should have caused the worker substantial pain and suffering. Although the worker argued that the videos were filmed well before the date of the injury, the government met this claim with skepticism. In November 2007, the full North Carolina Industrial Commission ruled the worker was not credible and denied his claims to worker’s compensation.

In a world where videos of injured workers playing golf or working around the yard are aired by anti-labor  media outlets bent on stirring outrage in the public, the focus on a sensational sex video in this case and the seeming moral approbation attached to the worker by the Commission cannot be dismissed. And yet if we are to eject the puritanical lens through which the Commission no doubt viewed the case, there are even more deeply troubling trends in the erosion of workers’ rights suggested here.

The most obvious problem with the decision is the expectation that a worker must not maintain a functioning private life in the face of a work injury.  In effect, the Employer was arguing that the worker must completely forgo sexual relations to be credible in his claim to worker’s compensation.  And yet, if the worker could no longer have sexual relations with spouse, he or she could claim “loss of consortium” — i.e. the claim that the injury prevents one from having sex with a spouse.

Ultimately what is at stake here is the right for a worker to accept pain to engage in acts of private, human intimacy even while he has the right not to experience pain in the performance of work duties.

Workers that suspect their rights to privacy and autonomy are being tested or violated by employers should immediately contact an experienced Seattle or Washington Labor and Industries Lawyer to protect them.

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 state law, a “willful” violation occurs when an employer knowingly breaks a rule and exhibits an obvious indifference to correcting that violation; a “serious” violation is an incident involving a substantial probability of serious worker injury or death.

The accident occurred at Tesoro on April 2, 2010.  L&I concluded that the explosion was located in the refinery’s Naphtha Hydrotreater Unit, and occurred as workers were restoring a bank of 40-year-old heat exchangers into service after they had been shut down for maintenance. One of the heat exchangers ruptured, releasing hydrocarbon gas that quickly ignited.  Investigators determined that equipment was never tested in any way that would have indicated the problem.

L&I also found that for years, the exchangers had leaked extremely volatile and flammable vapor and liquid from its connections, particularly when the machinery was being started up or following a shutdown.  The company’s repair efforts, which included very simple clamps, were shockingly inadequate.  When these failed to correct the problem, Tesoro’s workers were forced to disperse the flammable vapors with tubes known as “steam lances” in order to try to prevent ignition. Employees carried out this hazardous work wearing hard hats, gloves, goggles and basic flame-resistant coveralls, which was insufficient protection for the hazards to which they were exposed.

According to the agency’s press release, “L&I inspectors found that Tesoro disregarded a host of workplace safety regulations, continued to operate failing equipment for years, postponed maintenance, inadequately tested for potentially catastrophic damage and failed to adequately protect their workers from significant risk of injury and death.”

Killing seven workers, the Tesoro explosion was the worst industrial tragedy since L&I began enforcing the state’s workplace safety law 37 years ago under the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act.

Governor Chris Gregoire was among several officials to remark on the workplace accident and tragic loss of lives.  “The loss of seven lives is a tragedy not just for their loved ones but for our entire state. What makes the loss of these lives all the more painful is that these deaths could have been prevented,” she said. “I believe the action L&I is announcing today and the record fine they have assessed against Tesoro sends a clear message that these tragedies are not acceptable.”

Addressing a group of Seattle workers’ compensation attorneys,  Dr. Michael Silverstein—the assistant director of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health—reiterated the Governor’s remarks: “If Tesoro had tested their equipment appropriately and had followed their other safety requirements, we believe that they would have found the cracks that caused this explosion and, either by replacing the equipment or repairing it, prevented this from happening.”

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.

According to the Globe and Mail, the lawsuit is being filed by Dilshod Marupov, a 22-year-old worker from Uzbekistan who was repairing balconies on a Toronto apartment building when the scaffolding he was using snapped in half, causing him to fall 13 stories to the ground. Both of Marupov’s legs were crushed and his spine was broken, forcing him to stay in the hospital for several months. All other workers who fell from the scaffolding were killed.

Charges filed against Metron Construction of Toronto and Swing N Scaff of Ottawa include failure to ensure that workers were provided with proper devices to protect them from falling, and failure to make certain that the work platform was not overloaded.  “We are suing them because we think they have a duty that they didn’t exercise properly,” said Marupov’s lawyer, William Friedman.

Unfortunately, such workplace accidents are common in Washington as well.  While OSHA reports a declining trend in deaths from workplace accidents, workplace injuries remain at unacceptably high levels.  If you have been seriously injured in a workplace accident, contact a Washington workers’ compensation attorney to help you recover damages including medical costs, lost wages and compensation for pain and suffering.