Cannabis > Opioids?

Today’s post was shared by WC CompNewsNetwork and comes from www.workerscompensation.com

The title of an article published in the Santa Fe New Mexican on November 4 certainly piqued my interest – "Advisory panel backs medical cannabis as tool in opioid war." While not binding or official until the Health Secretary decides how to proceed, the advisory board to the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program voted 5-1 to add "opiate use disorder" to the list of qualifying conditions. Let that sink in for a little bit.

The proposal drew support from health professionals, addiction specialists and lawmakers. Medical Advisory Board Chairman Dr. Mitch Simson cast the only vote against adding opioid addiction to the cannabis program, saying he was concerned about substituting one addiction for another.

So there you have it, the argument distilled into two simple sentences. Can cannabis help resolve our opioid epidemic? Or are we just trading one problem for another?

I heard this argument when lobbying for HB 195 earlier this year in Santa Fe that would have removed the case precedent requirement for Work Comp to reimburse injured workers for medical cannabis. On both "sides". Opponents of the bill made the argument that opioids are dangerous (I’ve been preaching that since 2003) and that cannabis could help resolve the epidemic. Proponents of the bill were mostly focused on the financial and legal repercussions but there certainly were concerns about sanctioning marijuana use by reimbursement.

I was quoted in a WorkCompCentral article today

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

WA Workers’ Comp Rates for 2017 will Increase <1 percent

The average premium for workers’ compensation coverage in Washington will go up less than 1 percent in 2017. On November 30th, the state Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) announced the rate will rise by an average of 0.7 percent next year.

The 2017 increase will cost employers on average about $10 more a year per employee. Most workers will not see an increase in what they pay.

Employers and workers around Washington pay into the workers’ comp system so they’re covered if someone suffers a work-related injury or illness. Last year, L&I covered nearly 93,000 claims in our state.

“We’ve improved the support we provide to injured workers, and I’m pleased to say we’re seeing tangible, positive results,” said L&I Director Joel Sacks.“Injured workers are able to stay at work or return to work faster, and the number of workers on long-term disability is dropping. That’s good for employees and employers, and it helps us hold down costs.”

L&I sets rates every fall for the following year. Workers’ compensation premiums help pay for wage and disability benefits, as well as medical treatment of injuries and illnesses. They also provide a safety net to make sure the system is prepared for the unexpected.

There are several factors that help determine rates, including expected workers’ compensation payouts, the size of the reserve fund, wage inflation and other financial indicators. Over the past six years, the average annual workers’ compensation rate increase has been just over 1 percent.

Helping workers recover and reducing costs

Reducing costs of the workers’ compensation system helps keep premium rates steady and predictable. Over the last three years, L&I’s work to promote injury prevention, provide injured workers vocational services, ensure quality health care and support employers has helped reduce projected long-term costs by more than $700 million.

In September, L&I proposed the 0.7 percent rate increase and then took public input on the plan. The agency held public hearings around the state and also took comments online and by mail before making the final decision. 

The new rates take effect January 1. There’s more information at www.Lni.wa.gov/Rates.

####

Workers’ Comp Facts:

  • L&I is the state’s primary workers’ compensation insurance provider, covering about 2.6 million workers and more than 170,000 employers.
  • An individual employer’s actual rate change may vary depending on that employer’s industry and history of claims that result in wage replacement and/or disability benefits.
  • More than 90,000 claims are accepted each year through the Washington State Workers’ Compensation State Fund. 

Photo credit: damonjah via Foter.com / CC BY

WA Minimum Wage Climbing to $11 in 2017; Paid Sick Leave Starting in 2018

The minimum wage in Washington will increase to $11 an hour starting on Jan. 1, 2017. The new minimum wage, a result of the passage of Initiative 1433 in November’s election, applies to all jobs, including those in agriculture. Workers under 16 years old can be paid 85 percent of the adult minimum wage, or $9.35 per hour, in 2017. In addition to minimum wage, the initiative addresses paid sick leave.

Seattle, Tacoma, and the City of SeaTac have higher minimum wage rates for 2017. For employers in those areas, the local minimum wage rate will apply as long as it is higher than the state minimum. The new law does not change minimum wage exemptions or regulations regarding overtime pay.

Since 1998, L&I has been responsible for calculating the state’s minimum wage each September. Under Initiative 1433, the minimum wage will increase to $13.50 by 2020. L&I will resume calculating the minimum wage for calendar years 2021 and beyond.

Paid sick leave starting in 2018

Along with increasing the state minimum wage, the initiative requires employers to provide paid sick leave starting Jan. 1, 2018.

Under the initiative, L&I must adopt rules to enforce the new requirement, including, “…procedures for notification to employees and reporting regarding sick leave, and protecting employees from retaliation for the lawful use of sick leave…”

The official rulemaking process, which will include public comment opportunities, will take place in 2017. Interested parties can sign up for updates on the process on L&I’s Employment Standards Program listserv.

L&I enforces the state’s wage-and-hour laws. The agency investigates all wage-payment complaints. More information on Washington’s minimum wage is available on L&I’s wage and hour webpage. Employers and workers may also call 360-902-5316 or 1-866-219-7321.

Photo credit: Internet Archive Book Images via Foter.com / No known copyright restrictions

 

Dollar Tree Store Cited and Fined for Willfully Exposing Workers to Safety Hazards

Note: A quick Google search led me to Glassdoor’s page covering Dollar Tree stores.  Many photos, mostly posted by managers and bemoaning their impossible working conditions, clearly show that the problem identified in Washington is widespread. The caption for the above photo reads “3,000 cartons in per week…” – kc

Dollar Tree Stores Inc., faces a $145,200 fine for workplace safety violations that knowingly put workers at risk.

The Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) recently cited the Virginia-based employer after an inspection at its Aberdeen store found serious, repeat safety hazards.

The company was cited for two willful safety violations, each with the maximum legal penalty of $70,000. Dollar Tree also received a $5,200 fine for a repeat-serious violation. The employer was previously cited for the same violations at its Chehalis location.

The first willful violation was for storing merchandise in a way that created a serious hazard. The inspection found the storage room was a crowded jumble of stacked boxes, bundles and containers that weren’t secured and could topple over at any moment. The haphazard stacks stood as high as nine feet, with heavy boxes piled on top of light ones. Some were leaning due to collapsed boxes or crushed corners.

Improperly stored merchandise can fall on employees causing serious injuries including contusions, broken bones, concussions or even death if the boxes cause an employee to fall and strike their head on the floor. Additionally, lifting heavy boxes into nine-foot stacks is likely to cause strains and sprains or serious back injuries.

The second willful violation cited was for not ensuring that exit routes were free of obstructions. At the time of the inspection, several aisles and passageways were blocked with merchandise. Employees did not have clear paths to emergency exits, and a doorway with two swinging doors couldn’t be exited because it was obstructed by stacks of merchandise or carts full of products.

In addition, there were hazardous products stored in the area, including helium cylinders that are explosive when heated, lighters, and plastic merchandise that would emit toxic fumes in a fire, increasing the danger to employees.

Dollar Tree was cited for a repeat-serious violation for not installing protective guarding or covers over light fixtures that could be struck and broken by the stacked merchandise. Breakage of overhead bulbs is likely to cause eye injuries or cuts from falling glass.

A serious violation exists in a workplace if there is a substantial probability that worker death or serious physical harm could result from a hazardous condition. A willful violation can be issued when L&I has evidence of plain indifference, a substitution of judgment or an intentional disregard to a hazard or rule.

The employer had 15 business days to appeal the citation.

Penalty money paid as a result of a citation is placed in the workers’ compensation supplemental pension fund, helping injured workers and families of those who have died on the job.

Photo credit: Glassdoor submission

Labor Report Urges Study Of A Federal Role In State Workers’ Comp Laws

Howard Berkes and Michael Grabell have been investigating the decline of workers compensation for Pro Publica and NPR.

Today’s post comes from guest author Edgar Romano, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.

Howard Berkes and Michael Grabell have been shining a light on the deterioration of state workers’ compensation benefits over the last decade. A new U.S. Department of Labor report bolsters their investigative journalism, noting that those hurt on the job are at “great risk of falling into poverty” because state workers’ compensation systems are failing to provide them with adequate benefits.

The Workers Injury Litigation Group (WILG) has been fighting against this decline for 20 years, and we will continue to advocate for fair benefits for injured workers. The following is a summary of Mr. Berkes and Grabell’s recent article:

A “race to the bottom” in state workers’ compensation laws has the Labor Department calling for “exploration” of federal oversight and federal minimum benefits.

“Working people are at great risk of falling into poverty,” the agency says in a new report on changes in state workers’ comp laws. Those changes have resulted in “the failure of state workers’ compensation systems to provide [injured workers] with adequate benefits.”

In the last decade, the report notes, states across the country have enacted new laws, policies and procedures “which have limited benefits, reduced the likelihood of successful application for workers’ compensation benefits, and/or discouraged injured workers from applying for benefits.”

The 44-page report was prompted by a letter last fall from 10 prominent Democratic lawmakers, who urged Labor Department action to protect injured workers in the wake of a ProPublica/NPR series on changes in workers’ comp laws in 33 states.

The ProPublica/NPR stories featured injured workers who lost their homes, were denied surgeries or were even denied prosthetic devices recommended by their doctors.

A “race to the bottom” in state workers’ compensation laws has the Labor Department calling for “exploration” of federal oversight and federal minimum benefits.

“Working people are at great risk of falling into poverty,” the agency says in a new report on changes in state workers’ comp laws. Those changes have resulted in “the failure of state workers’ compensation systems to provide [injured workers] with adequate benefits.”

In the last decade, the report notes, states across the country have enacted new laws, policies and procedures “which have limited benefits, reduced the likelihood of successful application for workers’ compensation benefits, and/or discouraged injured workers from applying for benefits.”

The 44-page report was prompted by a letter last fall from 10 prominent Democratic lawmakers, who urged Labor Department action to protect injured workers in the wake of a ProPublica/NPR series on changes in workers’ comp laws in 33 states.

The ProPublica/NPR stories featured injured workers who lost their homes, were denied surgeries or were even denied prosthetic devices recommended by their doctors.

“The current situation warrants a significant change in approach in order to address the inadequacies of the system,” the report says.

That’s where federal intervention comes in. The Labor Department calls for “exploration” of “the establishment of standards that would trigger increased federal oversight if workers’ compensation programs fail to meet those standards.”

The agency also suggests a fresh look at reestablishing a 1972 Nixon administration commission that recommended minimum benefits and urged Congress to act if states failed to comply.

“In this critical area of the social safety net, the federal government has basically abdicated any responsibility,” says Labor Secretary Thomas Perez.

Without minimum federal standards for workers’ comp benefits, Perez adds, the current system “is really putting workers who are hurt on the job on a pathway to poverty.”

Prior to the report’s release, employers, insurance companies and others involved in workers’ comp programs expressed alarm at the possibility of federal intervention.

“There has never been federal ‘oversight of state workers’ compensation programs’,” says a statement posted on the website of a group called Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers’ Compensation, which says it represents the workers’ comp interests of the business community.

“Federal requirements imposed on a national basis would be inconsistent with the state workers’ compensation system, which has been in place for more than 100 years without federal oversight,” the group wrote.

Federal minimum benefits could ensure that injured workers across the country would not receive lesser benefits for often shorter periods of time simply because they lived in a state where lawmakers dramatically cut workers’ comp costs for employers.

“This is a system with no federal minimum standards and absolutely no federal oversight,” says Deborah Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the National Employment Law Project. “Clearly, more federal oversight is necessary to assure that that this system works for those most in need of assistance.”

No direct administrative or legislative action is proposed in the report, but Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, says he’s “drafting legislation to address many of the troubling findings laid out in this report and will be working with my colleagues to advance it in the next Congress.” 

Brown echoes Perez, saying injuries on the job shouldn’t force workers into poverty.

“But without a basic standard for workers compensation programs, that’s exactly what’s happening in too many states across the country,” Brown adds. 

Another incentive for federal involvement, the report notes, is a shift of billions of dollars in workplace injury costs to taxpayers when state workers’ comp benefits fall short and workers are forced to turn to Medicare and Social Security for treatment and lost wages.

The report lays the groundwork for federal intervention by providing an extensive section detailing the government’s role in promoting national benefits standards in both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back to 1939.

But many in the workers’ comp world consider workplace injury policy and regulation a states’ right and any prospect of a controlling federal role will likely face stiff resistance.

Federal “Takeover” of Work Comp?

Today’s post comes from guest author Charlie Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.

State workers’ compensation laws are facing increased scrutiny from the federal government.  As reported by NPR, the U.S. Labor Department is exploring the idea of further oversight of state-run workers’ compensation systems.  The full Labor Department report can be found here.

Traditionally, beginning with Wisconsin in 1911, individual states enacted, amended, and ran their own workers’ compensation system.  These systems certainly shared the similar overall framework of the “grand bargain” of work comp: an inability to sue an employer in exchange for defined benefits without proviing fault.  Within this framework, though, the state-led process allowed each state to tailor its approach in line with the industries of their state and particular legislative goals.

However, in the past decade or so, state legislative enactments around the country have significantly reduced (and in some cases, slashed) worker’s compensation benefits for injured workers.  A deep dive on the effect of these efforts was revealed in a series of stories by ProPublica and NPR.  The new Labor Department report echoes the refrain of these stories–indicating:

Despite the sizable cost of workers’ compensation, only a small portion of the costs of occupational injury and illness is borne by the employer. 

Costs are inappropriately shifted to the worker, their families, and the government (through other benefit programs).

Furthermore, with lowering costs on employers for workplace injuries, those employers–especially “high hazard employers”–have less incentives for safety or preventing injuries in the first place.  

As such, the Labor Department suggested the need to explore federal oversight or minimum federal standards for state workers’ compensation laws.  It even suggests the potential to reconvene a national commission–last seen in the 1970s–to study state workers’ compensation systems.  Any of these proposals would be major sea changes to the traditional state-led approach.

Whether any of these proposals will move forward is unknown, but one fact remains: based on legislative attempts to reduce injured workers’ benefits, the state-led workers’ compensation systems face increased scrutiny.   Pushed too far against workers, these laws face constitutional challenges–and ultimately the threat of federal oversight or takeover.

 

 

Department of Labor Weighs In on New Age of Salary Servitude for ‘Executives’

Today’s post comes from guest author Roger Moore, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

Most of the U.S. workforce has the right, provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act, to be paid overtime for working more than 40 hours in a week. Before the federal government set rules for overtime, most employees worked longer hours, and millions of Americans worked six or seven days a week, as Chinese factory workers do today. Salaried workers also have the right to be paid a premium for overtime work, unless they fall into an exempt category as a professional, an administrator, or an executive. Exempt employees must be skilled and exercise independent judgment, or be a boss with employees to supervise. However, many companies have worked to get around these overtime rules by classifying employees like cooks, convenience store employees or restaurant workers as “managers,” “supervisors,” or “assistant managers or supervisors,” so that their employer can deny them overtime under this exception. 

In May 2016, the Department of Labor issued its final rule establishing a new minimum salary threshold for the white-collar exemptions (executive, administrative and professional) under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This new threshold of $913 per week ($47,476 annualized) more than doubles the current minimum weekly salary threshold of $455 per week ($23,660 annualized).  While that may seem like a huge increase, the old threshold level is only $2 a week above the poverty level for a family of four. Twenty-one states have filed suit to challenge this rule, citing the rule will force many businesses, including state and local governments, to unfairly and substantially increase their employment costs. 

The old rule allowed companies to put employees on “salary” at a low rate and require them to work sometimes significant overtime. The fact that so many government entities are concerned about this new rule substantially increasing their employment costs underscores the extent to which even government entities have taken advantage of employees in this fashion. Can you imagine earning $25,000/year and having to work 50, 60 or 70 hours a week? Even at 50 hours a week, that equates to an hourly wage of only $8.01!

In the first year, the department estimates that the new rule may affect, in some manner, over 10 million workers who earn between $455/week and the new $913/week threshold.  

The median worker has seen a wage increase of just 5 percent between 1979 and 2012, despite overall productivity growth of 74.5 percent (Mishel and Shierholz, 2013), according to the Economic Policy Institute. One reason Americans’ paychecks are not keeping pace with their productivity is that millions of middle-class and even lower-middle-class workers are working overtime and not getting paid for it. Before this rule change, the federal wage and hour law was out of date. This change purports to correct this modern day servitude that the law – for the last 30 years – has carved out a huge exception, allowing workers to be taken advantage of simply by assigning them a title and paying them a salary.  

 

Sources:

In Complicated Times, Police Who Risk Their Lives Still Need Support

Today’s post comes from guest author Edgar Romano, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.

Last week was a very bad one for police officers across the country, starting with the separate police shooting of two unarmed men. These shootings – days apart in different parts of the country – sparked widespread outrage and protests throughout the country. 

While the investigation continues into the circumstances surrounding these civilian shootings, video evidence suggests the outrage over these shootings appears to be justified. The week ended with the assassination of five police officers in Dallas who were providing protection to citizens engaged in a peaceful protest over the shootings of the unarmed men. The gunman indicated he had killed the police officers in retaliation for the shooting deaths. This was the worst loss of life for the police department since September 11, 2001.  Additionally, seven police officers were injured in the attack.

These horrific events highlight the difficult job that police face every day. While not all police officers are perfect (in fact, who amongst us is?), most don’t begin their shifts with the mindset that they are going to kill a civilian. Most see their role as keeping the peace and protecting citizens. They do, however, wonder many times whether they will make it through their shift safely and return home to their loved ones.    Unfortunately, they are not always immune to death and injury.   

As an attorney who has represented many law enforcement officers injured on the job, I know the majority of them receive medical treatment and may have a period of convalescence, but then are able to return to work. However, some sustain serious and career-ending injuries. Most police officers in New York City and Long Island are likely a member of a Civil Service Retirement System. If so, and they become permanently disabled from performing their specific job duties, they may be eligible for a life-long disability pension.

There are many pension systems in the state, all with different applications, rules, procedures, and guidelines. Each disability pension has its own statute of limitations and guidelines for eligibility. There are different pensions available, ranging from one-third to three-quarters. Just because you were injured on the job does not mean you are automatically entitled to the three-quarter pension, which would enable you to receive 75% of your previous year’s earnings. 

Although not always relevant, how police officers are injured on the job can impact whether they are entitled to a three-quarter disability pension. Additionally, just because they were injured while working does not automatically mean they are entitled to a three-quarter disability pension. Factors that get taken into account are issue of causation, medical evidence from the officer’s own doctor, and the retirement system’s medical board. It is not always an easy process for our law enforcement personnel to receive reasonable retirement benefits, but it should be. Day in and day out, they protect the citizens of our cities and our states, putting their own lives at risk simply because they are dressed in blue. 

There is a huge spotlight this week on police, and rightfully so, as there is so much mistrust and anger regarding the recent events. There needs to be an honest, open dialogue where those aggrieved are given the opportunity to be heard without fear of reprisal, just as the police department needs to be given the opportunity to have investigations completed before a rush to judgment. While the majority of police officers are honest and hardworking, those who fail to uphold their oath should be punished.

Police officers are sworn to protect and serve; they run toward trouble when we run away from it. They patrol neighborhoods that are dangerous, riddled with crime, where we are taught to avoid them. They put their lives on the line every day, knowing they might never return to their families. Yes, this has been a very tough week. Let’s hope that future discussions help bridge the gap between our police and the citizens they are sworn to protect.

 

Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy  Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.

Don’t Believe What Insurance Carriers Say: Workers Do Finish Retraining Programs

Today’s post comes from guest author Charlie Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.

“He’ll never go back to school.”  “He’ll never complete school.”

As a representative of injured workers, I hear those refrains on repeat from insurance carriers.  And, guess what?  It’s just not true.

Vocational retraining claims straddle the line between being a worker’s advocate and being their social worker.  Under the law, if an injured worker has permanent limitations following an injury that does not allow them to return to their former employer, they can pursue vocational retraining benefits–which includes receiving weekly workers’ compensation benefits (2/3 of weekly wage) along with compensation for meals, parking, books, mileage and tuition.  As an advocate, I’m urging an injured worker to pursue retraining to maximize their benefits under the law.  But more importantly, I put on my “social worker” hat to encourage these workers to return to school as a means to help themselves, their families, and society as a whole.

Restoring an injured workers’ earning capacity serves as the underpinning behind vocational retraining benefits.  Simply put, we want to incentivize working.  If a worker is too injured to return to their old line of work, let’s try to get that worker retrained (presumably to a less physical field) so they can reenter the workplace and be a productive member of the economy.  Social work and advocacy fit together when encouraging a worker to go back to school.

However, far too many insurance carriers scoff at the viability of injured workers returning to school–especially after decades of absence from a school setting.  Even though not everyone is a great school candidate, I’m amazed each and every day watching my clients pursue their retraining with passion and vigor.   I feel pride and vindication when that same client forwards me a copy of their certificate or diploma after completing the program.  That document is immediately forwarded to the insurance carrier.  (I recently forwarded a completed diploma from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and one from Milwaukee Area Technical College).

Most workers just want to be back working.  They want to earn income, provide for their families, and find purpose.  If a work injury knocks them out of their old job, most workers embrace the idea of going back to school and finding a new field that fits their limitations.   Even for individuals with limited eductional backgrounds, most schools provide incredible academic support or remedial programs.  Under Wisconsin law, we can claim vocational retraining benefits for remedial or GED programs, even before a worker begins a formalized program (though consulting with an attorney first is best).

I’d urge insurance carrier to not underestimate the efforts of a motivated worker.

 

WA L&I’s Stay at Work Program Hits Major Milestone: > 20,000 Workers Helped

A Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) program that helps support light-duty jobs after workplace injuries has reached two major milestones. The Stay at Work Program has now helped more than 20,000 injured workers and provided more than $50 million to reimburse businesses that take part. 

The program pays employers for part of the costs associated with offering light-duty jobs to injured workers. It helps defray some of the expenses so businesses can allow eligible employees to keep working during their recovery and stay connected to their workplace.  

“This return-to-work incentive is changing the workers’ compensation system, and more importantly, changing workers’ lives and improving the bottom line for employers,” said Vickie Kennedy, L&I’s assistant director of Insurance Services.   

To date, more than 4,500 employers have used the program to offer light-duty jobs to help thousands of workers return to work as part of their recovery from a workplace injury or illness.

Supporting Recovery

Mao Pen, an industrial seamstress at Seattle Tarp, is one example of those helped by the Stay at Work Program. Pen broke her left elbow and forearm last June when she fell backwards while helping coworkers stretch a large tarp. “It was a horrible break,” said Chris Perlatti, president of Seattle Tarp, where Pen has worked for 20 years.

After having surgery and staying home for three months, Pen wanted to come back to work. “And we wanted her back,” said Perlatti. “She’s a valuable employee and a sweet individual. She’s part of our work family.”  

Perlatti said the answers came when L&I’s occupational nurse Deirdre Staudt started talking to his staff about how light duty could help both Pen and Seattle Tarp. 

Through the Stay at Work Program, Seattle Tarp could get reimbursed for half of Pen’s light-duty wages (up to 66 days and $10,000), along with costs for training, equipment, tools, and any clothing needed for the light-duty work.

“This is a phenomenal program,” said Perlatti. “I wish we had known about it before one of our workers got injured.”

Changing Workers’ Compensation

“Instead of writing a check to the worker to replace some of their wages while they stay at home to recover, we’re reimbursing employers to help workers return to work as soon as medically possible,” said Kennedy, adding that the workplace connection offers financial, social and psychological support that a worker needs to improve recovery times.   

Return-to-work initiatives like the Stay at Work Program, efforts to ensure quality medical care, and other improvements in the workers’ compensation system are helping an estimated 560 injured workers each year avoid possible long-term disability. 

Together, these efforts have saved $700 million in estimated wage replacement, disability and medical costs to Washington employers, workers, and the workers’ compensation system. More importantly, these efforts are helping injured workers heal and return to productive lives. 

L&I encourages employers to establish return-to-work programs at their worksites. Employers can start by creating light-duty job descriptions and using the Stay at Work incentives to offset costs associated with workplace injuries.

There’s more information online about the Stay at Work Program (Lni.wa.gov/StayAtWork).

 Photo credit: kenmainr via Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA

Published by Causey Wright