Tag Archives: OSHA

Local reporting of packinghouse COVID-19 cases nixed. Why workers’ comp. reporting may not fill the information gap

Posted on by
The JBS Swift plant in Grand Island, Neb. Governor Pete Ricketts refused a request from local health officials to shut down the plant (Photo by KTIC Radio)

News Channel Nebraska reported last week the State of Nebraska would no longer report COVID-19 exposures from individual meatpacking plants.

Five Nebraska counties with major meatpacking plants – Dakota, Dawson, Colfax, Hall and Saline, ranked in the top 31 of highest per capita exposure to COVID-19, the New York Times reported last Thursday.

Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts cited confidentiality concerns as the reason for the order.  But, Ricketts decision seemed geared towards deflecting widespread criticism of meatpacking houses for their role in spreading COVID-19. Pro Publica reported last week that Ricketts refused a request from public health officials in Grand Island to shut down a JBS Swift plant over COVID-19 concerns.

Workers’ comp. and COVID-19 exposure reporting

But while public official will no longer report COVID-19 exposure by meatpacking house, those plants are still required to report possible COVID-19 exposures to the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court. Those so-called First Reports of Injury are public record. But those records may not be accurate for two reasons.

First, many companies like to under-report work injuries. This practice pre-dates the COVID-19 pandemic. Employers under-report work injuries as a a a way to suppress claims. In Nebraska, the penalty for claims suppression is minor.

Secondly, OSHA guidance appears to exempt meatpackers from having to log COVID-19 exposure as an occupational injury. Standards for logging an injury for OSHA and reporting it to the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court tend to blur. Because of the guidance from OSHA, I suspect companies will under-report work injuries to state workers’ compensation courts.

Workplace safety and public health

The prevalance of COVID-19 in packinghouse towns has lead the general public to connect public health and workplace safety. The issue of workplace safety will need all the attention and public support it can garner. It appears as if corporate American wants to protect companies for COVID-19 exposure litigation. I believe this immunity could cover workers’ compensation.

A public nuisance suit filed against a Smithfield Foods plant in Missouri highlighted the link between workplace and public health. In the suit, community members sued Smithfield for the role it played in spreading COVID-19 in the area surrounding the plant.

But last week, a federal judge dismissed the case and ruled that any challenges to Smithfield safety practices would have to be filed with OSHA. In a blog post, University of Wyoming Law Professor Michael Duff called the decision a “mood point” indicating a potential “unreflective, anti-liability fervor enveloping the Great Reopening”.

I agree with Professor Duff. The unwillingness of courts to push the envelope for workers’ rights predates the COVID-19 pandemic. State and federal elections are coming up in six months. For once issues like workplace safety may be at the forefront of the discussion during campaign season.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , .

OSHA guidance on COVID-19 reporting could make it harder to prove workers’ compensation claims

Posted on by

Bloomberg Law reported that the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will not require non-medical and non-first responder employers to report possible COVID-19 exposures in the workplace.

OSHA’s decision on limiting reporting of potential work-related COVID-19 exposure could make it harder for workers to have COVID-19 exposure covered by state workers’ compensation laws. It will likely also make it more difficult to track exposure to the virus.

Injury reports and proving job-related exposure to COVID-19 through circumstantial evidence

Even if OSHA does not require most employers to report possible COVID-19 exposure, employers would still have to report possible COVID-19 exposures on the job to state workers’ compensation courts and agencies. However, many employers effectively use federal standards for recording an injury for reporting injuries to state workers’ compensation agencies. OSHA’s ruling may lead employers to under report possible COVID-19 exposures to state agencies.

In a blog post last week, Thomas Robinson wrote that many workers exposed to COVID-19 on the job will have to rely on circumstantial evidence to have COVID-19 exposures covered by workers’ compensation. But if employers aren’t required to log potential COVID-19 exposures, then it will be more difficult for employees to build their workers’ compensation cases with circumstantial evidence of other potential COVID-19 exposures in their workplace.

In theory employees could rely on state workers’ compensation reports to build a circumstantial case. But the lack of a federal reporting requirement may mean that employers don’t report potential COVID-19 exposure to state authorities.

Difficulties of tracking COVID-19 through medical records and billing

State workers’ compensation laws may provide another way to track the effect of COVID-19. Medical providers tend to ask about the cause of a medical condition or injury for the purposes of medical billing.  Knowing which COVID-19 cases were billed to workers’ compensation would be one way to track occupational exposure to the virus.

But there are problems with this approach. Doctors usually need to rely on patient history in order to determine whether an injury or illness is related to work. A worker may be unaware of how they contacted COVID-19.  Evidence that other workers were potentially exposed to COVID-19 may help doctors make that determination.

However, getting additional information to medical doctors and asking them to link an injury or illness to work duties is time consuming and often expensive. Sometimes a doctor will expressly conclude that an injury or illness was caused by work in their medical records. But with the advent of electronic medical records, it is less common to find causal statements in the body of a medical records. Unhelpful medical records will probably make it more difficult for workers’ compensation lawyers and public health authorities to investigate the causes of COViD-19 exposure.

COVID-19 and a two-tiered approach to workplace safety

I am disturbed by OSHA’s decision to limit reporting of COVID-19 by employers. The reason behind the decision is that many employers complained it’s difficult to determine if COVID-19 is caused by work. I agree that it will be difficult to cover COVID-19 cases under state workers’ compensation laws. But, filing an OSHA 300/301 report or a First Report of Injury in Nebraska isn’t an admission that an injury or illness is work-related.

Workplace safety advocates rightfully believe that this move by OSHA will make it more difficult to track COVID-19 exposure in the workplace to the detriment of retail, delivery, warehousing, transportation and food processing employees who are vulnerable to COVID-19 exposure.  In his blog post about proving up COVID-19 cases, Tom Robinson wrote passionately about how first responders and health care employees were getting more workplace safety protections than retail, delivery, transportation and food processing employees.

The two-tiered approach to workplace safety predates the COVID-19 pandemic. Lowly paid retail employees are routinely subjected to violence on the job, but they usually aren’t eligible for workers’ compensation benefits for strictly mental injuries or “mental-mental” injuries. By contrast, first responders are eligible for mental-mental benefits and a growing number of states are giving first responders a presumption that mental injuries are work-related. The COVID-19 pandemic is throwing these pre-existing divisions into starker contrast.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , .

Who do rules about texting and driving really protect?

Posted on by

OSHA came out with guidelines about mobile device use while driving by employees. So why do I have mixed feelings something that most people would think is a good idea?

I believe texting and emailing while driving is a terrible idea and a clear safety hazard. But, management and insurers can use rules about mobile device use while driving to deny workers’ compensation claims.

Management and insurers can use rules about mobile device use while driving to deny workers’ compensation claims. They can argue either that mobile device use by an employee by driving is a deviation from employment duties. That may be difficult to argue if a travelling employee was using a mobile device while driving for work purposes.

In the alternative the employer may affirmatively allege that mobile device used was a safety violation that would disqualify them from receiving workers’ compensation. This is a difficult burden for an employer to meet. OSHA suggests that employers set up a “disciplinary action system” for workers who violated driving safety rules. Having written rules against a practice can make it easier for an employer to defeat a workers’ compensation claim by arguing an employee was willfully negligent.

Generally, workers compensation laws are favorable to workers who are injured while travelling, this known as the travelling employee doctrine or presumption. But in fairness to the insurance industry, this legal doctrine developed before the use of mobile phones.

In fairness to OSHA, their guidance on mobile phone usage was also meant to protect workers from being forced to use mobile devices while driving. Those who work and live in relatively remote areas know the term “windshield time” to describe long car trips. There is intense pressure to use that time productively. There is a strong temptation to text or email while driving even though you know the hazards.

The guidelines may give employees some protections against retaliation if the refuse to text or email while driving. But anti-retaliation laws are only as good as the court cases that interpret them and some courts have recently began to curtail protections afforded by those laws.

I speak from first-hand experience. I do a lot of long-distance driving for work.  If areas like rural Nebraska were better served by air, rail and bus service, I wouldn’t need to drive so much. The same goes for many workers in states like Nebraska. But thanks to transportation deregulation those of us who travel to and within rural areas are stuck in our cars during business hours.

Texting and driving creates risks for other motorists in addition to the drivers who text and drive. But the law already punishes drivers who cause accidents through use of their mobile devices. Drivers who text and drive can be punished criminally and be held accountable in civil cases. Accountability for employers who create dangerous working conditions is mostly limited to state workers’ compensation laws.

I believe the risk of distracted driving is apparent to any adult. Why does OSHA need to issue guidance?  I suspect it has something to do with my point about employers using rules against cellphone usage while driving to deny workers’ compensation claims.

But while OSHA is issuing guidelines about the obvious risk of texting and driving, the United States Department of Agriculture is overlooking the obvious risk of overuse injuries to packinghouse workers. The USDA in the Trump and Obama administrations have allowed meat processors to speed up lines to the detriment of workers. I hope if there is a new presidential administration next year, that administration will use its rule-making power to make workplaces safer and not give employers ways to dodge their responsibilities under state workers’ compensation laws.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , .

UPS far from the only employer under-reporting workers’ compensation claims

Posted on by

Fatima Hussein wrote a well-reported story for Bloomberg Law about UPS discouraging or under-reporting workers’ compensation claims.

This practice is sometimes known as claims suppression. Claims suppression is a common issue in workers’ compensation. Lawyers from coast to coast, Tara Reck in Washington state and Jeff Blackwell in Alabama, have recently written about the topic.

Washington state, to their credit, formally recognizes the concept of claims suppression in their law and identifies the practice. In Washington, employers guilty of claims suppression can be civilly fined. Employees can also apply to their workers’ compensation board to extend statute of limitations if claims suppression lead them not to file a claim.

Claims suppression in Nebraska

Though Nebraska doesn’t formally recognize the term claim suppression in our law, we have similar remedies to Washington state for the practice. Employers can be prosecuted for the misdemeanor of not filing a first report of injury with the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court. The failure of an employer to file a first report of injury also automatically extends the two-year statute of limitations to file a petition in the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court.

In my view the penalties for claims suppression in Nebraska are weak. I am unaware of any times where an employer was prosecuted for claims suppression in Nebraska.

Fighting claims suppression in the civil justice system

But I am a skeptic of criminalizing workers’ compensation — which at its core is a contractual issue between an employee and their employer. My view is that employees are more vulnerable to prosecution than employers. Since workers’ compensation is stigmatized, workers’ compensation fraud by employees is viewed as a variant of welfare fraud. Welfare fraud is prosecuted aggressively in many jurisdictions.

I believe that the civil justice system is a better forum for wrongs done in a commercial transaction. But many barriers exist to employees being able to bring civil claims for workers’ compensation claims suppression by their employers. The first barrier is the fact that workers’ compensation laws are the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries. For example, in Nebraska an employee can’t bring a bad faith action against their workers’ compensation insurer because their remedy for bad faith is the penalty and fee statute under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-125.

The employment at-will doctrine and claims suppression

A related barrier to bringing civil claims for claims suppression, is the growing reluctance of courts to allow employees to sue their employers. I believe this is because of the overwhelming power to the doctrine of the employment at-will doctrine.

Claims suppression cases are often brought as retaliation cases. Earlier this year, a federal court in Pennsylvania narrowly interpreted Pennsylvania’s prohibition on workers’ compensation retaliation to rule against an employee. That case turned on the court finding the receipt of workers’ compensation benefits wasn’t actually claiming workers’ compensation benefits, so the employee wasn’t being retaliated against when they were fired after their work injury. The court’s narrow construction of Pennsylvania’s anti-workers’ compensation retaliation is based on the importance of the employment at-will doctrine.

Arguably in cases where an employee doesn’t file a claim because of claims suppression, then a court can find the employee isn’t being retaliated against because they never filed a claim in the first place. Recognizing a civil action for claims suppression requires more legal creativity than many courts are willing to give an injured employee.

But just because bringing a claim for claims suppression is difficult doesn’t mean that some lawyers aren’t trying. The Bloomberg article quotes Paul Taylor of the Truckers Justice Center, a nationally recognized expert on retaliation claims under the Surface Transportation Amendments Act (STAA) retaliation claims. Workers’ in industries covered under the STAA could bring suppression claims under the STAA. These claims have a more favorable burden of proof for workers’ than typical civil rights claims.

The Bloomberg story also mentions cases for workers’ compensation that have been brought under California state law. But, California state law is considered to be one of the most friendly for employees in the nation. I question what weight a Nebraska court would give to a ruling made under California law.

Ultimately claims suppression will probably have to be addressed by state legislatures as workers’ compensation laws are state laws. State legislatures can increase the penalties for claims suppression and create private causes of action for workers’ compensation claims suppression by statute. If federal minimum standards for workers’ compensation get momentum in Congress, stronger anti-claims suppression laws should be part of those standards.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Workers Compensation, Workers' Compensation. Workplace Injury and tagged , , , , .

What protections will pork plant workers have after the USDA allows faster line speeds?

Posted on by

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced  it would allow pork processors like Tyson, Smithfield and Hormel, to speed up production. Worker safety advocates rightly pointed out that faster production line speeds lead to more injuries for meatpacking workers.

Fortunately, the USDA is not the last word on regulating working conditions in meatpacking.

Workers’ Compensation laws

State workers compensation laws make employers bear the costs of work injuries. In Nebraska a packinghouse worker need only show working conditions contributed to their work injury. Nebraska also compensates multi-member injuries based on how the injury impacts a worker’s ability to earn a living in many circumstances. This way of compensating an injury can take into account ability to understand English and size of job market in compensating a work injury. This means meatpacking workers, particularly immigrant workers, exposed to higher line speeds in Nebraska have the opportunity for fair compensation.

Nebraska also enacted a Meatpacking Workers’ Bill of Rights in 2000 to some fanfare. In my experience that law is mostly symbolic. I believe the amendments to  Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-121(3), enacted in 2007 which expanded the coverage for multi-member LOEP injuries is substantively more important for meatpacking workers than the meatpacking bill of rigthts.

But workers compensation laws can vary greatly by state. The same packinghouse worker in Kansas would have a more difficult time being compensated fairly for injuries caused by faster line speeds because of major differences between Nebraska and Kansas workers’ compensation law. Kansas workers can only collect workers compensation if they prove their work is a prevailing factor in causing their injury. This is a much tougher standard than the contributing factor required in Nebraska.

Unions

Unions are another factor that can help remedy the effects of faster line speeds in pork plants.  Meatpacking workers are about eight times more likely to be unionized than the typical private sector employee. In Nebraska, two major pork plants, Smithfield in Crete and Hormel in Fremont are unionized. But not all plants are unionized and union plants may feel pressured to compete with non-union plants regarding line speed.

OSHA

Meatpackers have pointed out that United States Department of Labor/Occupational Safety Health Administration (DOL/OSHA) is still regulating workplace safety. They have also pointed out that the Obama USDA moved to increase line speed in poultry production in 2014.

It is true the Obama USDA approved faster line speeds for poultry workers, but the Obama DOL was relatively aggressive in protecting poultry workers. The Trump DOL has been less aggressive in enforcing workplace safety rules. I would imagine they will become even less aggressive now that Eugene Scalia has been confirmed as Secretary of Labor.

Scalia, the son of the late Supreme Court Justice, argued against an OSHA ergonomics rule proposed by the Clinton administration which likely would have prevented many overuse injuries. The younger Scalia’s bid for Labor Secretary was supported by high profile legal scholar and Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein. Sunstein’s support of Scalia shows the DC legal establishment is ambiguous at best, hostile at worst to federal regulation of workplace safety.

If Donald Trump wins a second term, the DOL will likely turn a blind eye to the occupational effects of faster line speeds signed off on by the USDA. If the Democrats take over in 2021, it’s harder to know what will happen.

Some pundits think a Democratic president would be more aggressive in defending labor and employment rights. Steven Greenhouse seems to be particularly optimistic about the plans of the major Democratic candidates. I would note that Greenhouse doesn’t seem to have factored in workplace safety issues in his grades of the candidates.  I don’t want to delve too deeply into the Democratic presidential primary right now. I hope any future Democratic administration has a better record on workplace safety than the Obama administration did.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Nebraska, Workers' Compensation and tagged , , , , .

Legislation seeks to prevent heat-related deaths on the job

Posted on by

Reps. Raul Grivjala (D.-Ariz.) and Judy Chu (D.-Cal) introduced federal legislation that would mandate OSHA  standards for workers exposed to high heat as well as mandating paid cooling breaks, access to water and training to recognize heat stroke.

The Asuncion Valdiva Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention Act is named after a California worker who died after picking grapes for ten hours in 105-degree heat and modeled after a California law passed by Rep. Chu when she served in the California legislature.

Fortunately, deaths and injuries from heat exposure are covered by workers’ compensation in Nebraska. This can even be true if heat causes a heart attack where there is a heightened standard for causation. But compensation in workers’ compensation cases is limited and no amount of money can replace the life of a family member.

Nebraska recently experienced nasty heat wave that is still effecting most of the country. While agricultural production in Nebraska is more capital-intensive than in states like Arizona and California, many workers are still vulnerable to heat. The first to come to my mind would be residential construction workers building new houses in shade less subdivisions.

Climate change is expected to raise average summer temperatures in Lincoln, Nebraska by 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050 and by 11 degrees by 2100. Heat will be an even larger occupational risk than it is today.

Chicago experienced a heat wave in 1995 that killed 749 people. This little remembered natural disaster could be a precursor for more heat-related health problems and deaths in the future and the need to take precautions. The Chicago heat wave of 1995 shows how northern and cold weather areas could be particularly vulnerable to risks from climate-change induced heat waves. Federal legislation about heat standards on the job would be one precaution.

I would urge everyone to contact their elected representatives to support the Asucnion Valdiva Act. Nebraska’ legislators lo like to tout the value of manual labor as a way for young people to build character. But building character shouldn’t mean sacrifcing safety. I also believe that Nebraska should adopt a state law version of the Asuncion Valdiva act.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Nebraska, Workers Compensation and tagged , .

OSHA’s Top 10 Violations for 2018 revealed at National Safety Council Congress and Expo

Posted on by

Today’s post comes from guest author Paul J. McAndrew, Jr., from Paul McAndrew Law Firm.

Today’s post comes from our colleagues at WorkersCompensation.com

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced the preliminary Top 10 most frequently cited workplace safety violations for fiscal year 2018. Patrick Kapust, deputy director of OSHA’s Directorate of Enforcement Programs, presented the Top 10 on the Expo floor as part of the 2018 NSC Congress and Expo, the world’s largest annual gathering of safety professionals.

While the rankings for OSHA’s Top 10 most cited violations vary little from year to year, violation No. 10 on this year’s list, “Eye and Face Protection” (1926.102), was not on the 2017 list.

“Knowing how workers are hurt can go a long way toward keeping them safe,” said National Safety Council President and CEO Deborah A.P. Hersman. “The OSHA Top 10 list calls out areas that require increased vigilance to ensure everyone goes home safely each day.”

The Top 10 for FY 2018* are:

1. Fall Protection – General Requirements (1926.501)

7,270

2. Hazard Communication (1910.1200)

4,552

3. Scaffolding (1926.451)

3,336

4. Respiratory Protection (1910.134)

3,118

5. Lockout/Tagout (1910.147)

2,944

6. Ladders (1926.1053)

2,812

7. Powered Industrial Trucks (1910.178)

2,294

8. Fall Protection – Training Requirements (1926.503)

1,982

9. Machine Guarding (1910.212)

1,972

10. Eye and Face Protection (1926.102)

1,536

A more in-depth look at the Top 10 violations for 2018 will be published in the December edition of the Council’s Safety+Health magazine.

*Preliminary figures as of Oct. 1, 2018

About the National Safety Council
The National Safety Council (nsc.org) is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to eliminate preventable deaths at work, in homes and communities, and on the road through leadership, research, education and advocacy. Founded in 1913 and chartered by Congress, NSC advances this mission by partnering with businesses, government agencies, elected officials and the public in areas where we can make the most impact.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Workers' Compensation, Workplace Injury and tagged , , , , .

Be thankful for poultry workers, give them a safer workplace

Posted on by

Most people were fortunate to sit down for the traditional Thanksgiving meal with turkey and all the trimmings this weekend. Stopping to reflect about what people are thankful for is a part of Thanksgiving.

People should be thankful for the people who make their meals possible.

Bloomberg reported before the holiday that turkey processors have been cited for safety violations 61 times by OSHA since 2011 and that poultry workers are 60 percent more likely to be injured on the job than the average workers. Debbie Berkowitz with the National Employment Law Project also pointed out that turkey processing can be more hazardous than chicken processing because turkeys tend to be larger than chickens.

Our firm has blogged quite a bit about the dangers of meat processing whether about poultry  or beef and pork which is more common in Nebraska and Iowa. OSHA and other government agencies like the USDA have recently announced plans that could increase the risk of injury to meat processing workers.  But even when  federal regulatory agencies were aggressive in protecting worker safety, many of an injured workers’ legal remedies – whether through workers’ compensation or anti-retaliation laws – stem from state law.

Much was made of the “blue wave” in November’s elections. Democrats picked up governorships and won control of state legislatures. Hopefully newly empowered Democrats will protect and expand worker safety and workers rights bills on a state level.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Nebraska, OSHA, Workers Compensation and tagged , , .