Category Archives: workplace accidents

Hazards exist in the surface refinishing business

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Gelman from Jon Gelman, LLC – Attorney at Law.

University of Iowa, College of Public health, recently reported the death of a bathtub refinishing technician who died from the inhalation of paint stripper vapors.

The apartment manager and first responders reported a strong chemical odor in the second story apartment.

In 2012, a 37-year-old female technician employed by a surface-refinishing business died from inhalation exposure to methylene chloride and methanol vapors while she used a chemical stripper to prep the surface of a bathtub for refinishing. The technician was working alone without respiratory protection or ventilation controls in a small bathroom of a rental apartment. When the technician did not pick up her children at the end of the day, her parents contacted her employer, who then called the apartment complex manager after determining the victim’s personal vehicle was still at the refinishing company’s parking lot. The apartment complex manager went to the apartment unit where the employee had been working and called 911 upon finding the employee unresponsive, slumped over the bathtub. City Fire Department responders arrived within 4 minutes of the 911 call. The apartment manager and first responders reported a strong chemical odor in the second story apartment. There was an uncapped gallon can of Continue reading

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.

Nanotechnology in the Workplace

Today’s post comes from guest author Leonard Jernigan from The Jernigan Law Firm.

During cancer research in 1986 an accident created the first man-made nanoparticle, an incredibly small particle which can absorb radiant energy and theoretically destroy a tumor. One type of nanoparticle is 20 times stronger than steel and is found in over 1,300 consumer products, including laptops, cell phones, plastic bottles, shampoos, sunscreens, acne treatment lotions and automobile tires. It is the forerunner of the next industrial revolution.

What is the problem? Unfortunately, nanoparticles are somewhat unpredictable and no one really knows how they react to humans. A report out of China claims that two nano-workers died as a result of overexposure, and in Belgium five males inhaled radioactive nanoparticles in an experiment and within 60 seconds the nanoparticles shot straight into the bloodstream, which is a potential setup for disaster. In a survey of scientists 30% listed “new health problems” associated with nanotechnology as a major concern.

Lewis L. Laska, a business law professor, wrote an article in Trial Magazine (September, 2012) in which he advised lawyers to become knowledgeable about nanoscience and be aware of the potential harm to workers and others who come in contact with this new technology, particularly because the EPA, FDA and OSHA have neither approved nor disapproved the use of nanostructures in products. It has been said that workers are like canaries in the cage (in mining operations), and if nanoscience is a danger then workers’ compensation lawyers will be the first to see it and appreciate it.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.

NY Roofing Contractor Fined for Falling Short on Fall Protection

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) works to save workers’ lives throughout New York by fining employers who fail to comply with workplace safety standards. OSHA cites any employer who fails to comply with safety requirements, but one of the top problems that lead to OSHA citations is a failure to provide adequate fall protection.

OSHA reports that one company in New York was fined a total of $159,250 recently for failures to protect workers from falling as they performed work on roofing projects. Our Manhattan work injury attorneys know this employer was just one of many in New York who fail to embrace solutions that would limit or prevent falls in the workplace.

Falls Are a Common & Dangerous Workplace Accident

OSHA assessed the New York roofing contractor a large fine for the lack of fall protection in part because the offense was a repeated violation. The employer knowingly chose not to take steps to protect workers.

Unfortunately, this company is not the only one that fails when it comes to falls. In fact, OSHA reports that falls are the number one killer of construction workers and that many construction sites provide either no fall protection or inadequate fall protection. 

The absence of fall protection contributes to the high number of deaths. In 2011 alone, OSHA reported that there were 251 fall fatalities out of a total of 721 total deaths nationwide on construction sites.  These fatalities were preventable.

OSHA’s Fall Prevention Campaign

With falls as the leading cause of death on construction sites, OSHA has launched a nationwide outreach campaign called Stop Falls in order to raise awareness of the hazards of falls from roofs, scaffolds and ladders.

The campaign focuses on the three steps necessary to prevent falls:

  • Planning: Deciding in advance how a job performed up high must be done. Employers and workers must estimate what safety equipment is necessary in order to complete each task and employers should be sure to factor in the cost of equipment when bidding for a job.
  • Providing: Providing means that employers have to provide safety gear, as well as the right types of ladders and equipment when a worker is working six feet or more up in the air.
  • Training: Safety equipment is only effective if it is used properly. Employers must train workers on how to recognize hazards and on how to use the equipment they need to do their jobs in a safe and effective manner. This means training workers on fall protection systems as well as the use of scaffolds and ladders.

Employers must take responsibility for preventing falls. If a worker gets hurt the employer will be held responsible regardless of whether the employer was negligent or an employee was at fault.

Workers cannot generally sue employers, but they can make workers compensation claims and negligence doesn’t matter in these cases. A worker can be entitled to workers compensation benefits, including payment of medical bills, under any circumstances where his injury arose from a fall at work.

New York also has special scaffolding laws imposing strict liability on property owners and/or project managers in certain cases when scaffolding injuries occur. It is important for workers to understand their rights in scaffolding accidents and when other fall accidents occur.

If you’ve been hurt at work, contact the Law Offices of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP today for a free evaluation by calling (800) 692-3717.

 

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.

What Is Workers’ Memorial Day About?

Today, April 28th is the day that the unions of the AFL-CIO take action to make workplaces safer for both union and non union workers.  It has become known as Workers’ Memorial Day, a day of remembrance for the people who have lost their lives while on the job. These days it is hard to ignore the tragedies that confront workers internationally such as the recent building collapse in Bangladesh which killed hundreds of garment factory workers or those that occur in our own country – the young police officer killed while on duty by the alleged Boston Marathon Bombers or the first responders killed during the West, Texas fertilizer explosion when they ran to the danger. While these deaths were well publicized because of their notoriety, they represent only a small part of the story as there are thousands more killed each year which few of us hear about.  

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4693 workers were killed on the job in 2011 up from the previously reported 4609. It will be months before a final tally is determined for 2012. 

“Every day in America, 13 people go to work and never come home. Every year in America, nearly 4 million people suffer a workplace injury from which some may never recover. These are preventable tragedies that disable our workers, devastate our families, and damage our economy. American workers are not looking for a handout or a free lunch. They are looking for a good day’s pay for a hard day’s work. They just want to go to work, provide for their families, and get home in one piece.”

- Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, Workers Memorial Day speech April 26, 2011

Let’s pause for a moment and remember those we represent – those who are maimed, injured and killed while performing workplace functions and pray that those injuries and deaths that are preventable will not be included in future statistics.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.

Holding Individuals Accountable For Workplace Safety Violations

Today’s post comes from guest author Leila A. Early from The Jernigan Law Firm.

British Petroleum (BP) supervisors Donald J. Vidrine and Robert Kaluza were indicted on manslaughter charges in the deaths of 11 fellow workers in connection with the 2009 Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. David Rainey, a BP deepwater explorer, was charged with obstruction of Congress and lying about the size of the spill. These indictments were in addition to a record $4.5 billion in criminal fines that BP agreed to pay for the disaster, which will be paid out over 5 years.

 Mr. Vidrine and Mr. Kaluza were negligent in their supervision of key safety tests performed on the drilling rig, and they failed to phone engineers on shore to alert them of problems in the drilling operation. These charges carry maximum penalties of 10 years in prison on each “seaman’s manslaughter” count, 8 years in prison on each involuntary manslaughter count and a year in prison on a Clean Water Act count. Mr. Rainey obstructed Congressional inquiries and made false statements by underestimating the flow rate to 5,000 barrels a day even as millions were gushing into the Gulf. He faces a maximum of 10 years in prison.

 By charging individuals, the government was signaling a return to the practice of prosecuting officers and managers, and not just their companies, in industrial accidents where reckless and wanton conduct is involved. The practice of charging individuals was more prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s but has recently been a rare occurrence, with company fines being the only penalty sought. Some wonder if the $4.5 billion criminal settlement is enough to penalize a corporation after 11 people were killed, and that if a culture of  disregard for safety exits in a corporation that is “too big to fail” then the only way to stop that culture is to send those who knew about it to jail. We shall see. 

 

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.

Bangladesh Garment Factory Fire: Another Triangle Shirtwaist Fire?

A garment fire in Bangladesh killed 112 workers last week

Today’s post comes to us from our colleague Tom Domer of Wisconsin.

A garment fire in Bangladesh killed 112 workers last week, harkening back to the tragic Triangle Shirtwaist fire 100 years ago on March 24, 1911, which claimed the lives of 146 young men and women, mostly immigrant garment workers. The Triangle fire galvanized a broad spectrum of reformers and reforms, one of which was worker’s compensation. In the aftermath of the Triangle fire, many states adopted worker’s compensation laws. (Wisconsin’s was the very first constitutional law in 1911.) Other reforms included workplace safety regulations, child labor laws, and enhanced fire inspections, among others.

There is a growing effort by worker groups to demand safety reforms in Bangladesh where factory fires have killed hundreds of workers in recent years.

An additional tragedy in the Bangladesh fire, whose products are sold here in America Mart, was the revelation that managers may have lowered gates to prevent employees from leaving because they thought it was a false alarm. There is a growing effort by worker groups to demand safety reforms in Bangladesh where factory fires have killed hundreds of workers in recent years. Photos taken by workers showed labels for Wal-Mart’s private label Faded Glory in the remains, along with clothing for a number of other United States labels including work wear brand Dickies.  

The analogies to the Triangle Shirtwaist fire are striking. In that fire, people on the 10th floor, mostly in administrative offices, were able to escape to the roof of an adjoining building. Workers on the 8th floor fled using the stairs, the fire escape and elevators. However, Continue reading

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.

Why Wait? A Case Study…

Today’s post comes from guest author Kit Case from Causey Law Firm.

I reviewed a workers’ compensation claim for a potential client nine months ago.  At the time, I told him of several items that I saw as upcoming issues in his case and shared my opinion about why it would be important for us to start clearing those issues off the deck sooner rather than later.  Would he be found employable with no services or would he receive just a bit of training to allow him to continue working in his field as a welder but in a lighter-duty capacity?  Would the onset of depression be addressed under the claim and taken into consideration when making employability decisions?  Would his level of permanent impairment be under-rated through the typical Independent Medical Evaluation (IME) process or would his surgeon be willing to provide a rating that more accurately reflects his limitations?  I shared my concerns about his case, explained the process I would recommend for addressing these concerns and discussed the fees and costs to be expected.  He indicated he wanted to go forward with representation.

I did not hear from him again, until yesterday.  He left me a message asking for help with his claim.  I looked at the case this morning before returning his call.  He has been found to be employable with no additional retraining, so he will likely not be able to continue with his favored career but, instead, can look forward to his new line of work as a small parts assembler.  He underwent an IME that conservatively rated his level of permanent impairment and approved the job analysis for small parts assembly.  His attending physician signed the form letter to indicate concurrence with the IME results and, on this basis, the Claims Manager has found him employable and is closing the claim.  What about the depression?  Not addressed by the IME, so the Claims Manager is construing the attending physician’s signature on the concurrence form letter to mean that he is also not contending that depression is an issue, so she is denying this condition under the claim.

I know there are two sides to every argument, and I know that an employer representative would look at this same fact pattern and see a job well done, but I am a claimant’s advocate, so I share my thoughts from only that perspective.  I see a situation where I now have a 15-day deadline for filing a dispute with the Vocational Dispute Resolution Office if I want to argue that Continue reading

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.