As part of the Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee (JLARC) implementation L&I received approval from the Legislature to hire additional account managers to increase capacity for first calls to employers and to provide loss control support. The Employer Services Early Contact Team was formed in October 2016. This team is currently staffed with 4 account managers with the plan to hire 4 additional account managers in February 2017.
The Early Contact Team began the Employer First Contact Call Pilot on Tuesday, December 27th. As a pilot, they started by calling on a small number of potential time-loss claims and plan to gradually expand over time.
The Early Contact Team will ask the following questions of the employer:
What was the workers’ last day worked?
Has the worker returned to work? Or, is there a planned returned to work date?
Is light duty available?
Will the worker be kept on salary?
Are the wages and health care benefits the worker listed on the ROA correct?
The Early Contact Team will educate employers on:
The claim free discount, if the employer has one.
Long-term impacts of time-loss on the firm’s experience factor.
The benefits of light duty jobs and options to obtain cost reimbursements through the Washington Stay at Work Program.
Early return-to-work assistance to develop light duty jobs consistent with the worker’s restrictions.
Risk management services or a safety and health consultation for accident prevention.
The Early Contact Team will make referrals if indicated for:
Washington Stay at Work Program
Early Return to Work (ERTW) Services
Risk Management Services
Safety and Health Consultation Services
Ergonomic Evaluations
This means the Early Contact Team will be the first to contact employers, rather than the claim manager, in some instances. As a future phase of implementing the JLARC recommendations, we will improve the speed of claim manager first contacts on claims at risk of long-term disability and equip them with the tools to help partner with employers to reduce this risk.
Mike Elk of Payday Report recently ran an article detailing that workplace deaths among Latinos were the highest in 2015 than they had been since 2007. This spike was attributed in part to aggressive immigration enforcement by the Obama administration which immigrant advocates believed made workers afraid to speak out about working conditions over fear of deportation.
Immigration and workers compensation is often thought of in the context of Mexicans and central Americans working in industries like meatpacking and construction. This is a misconception, the meatpacking industry in Nebraska and elsewhere employs an uncounted but significant number of Somali workers. Somalis are one of seven nationalities banned from entering the United States under President Trump’s order. Ironically Somalis were recruited heavily into meatpacking work after raids during the Bush administration lead to the deportation of Latino meatpacking workers. Somalis had refugee status so there were few questions about their immigration status or eligibility to work legally. Under the new executive order, their immigration status is less secure and they may be less likely to speak out about working conditions.
A smaller but growing number of Cubans are coming to Nebraska for meatpacking work as well. Like Somalis, Cubans are deemed to be refugees so their ability to work lawfully is not a question for employers. However in the waning days of Obama administration, President Obama ended automatic refugee status for Cubans in an effort to normalize relationship with the Castro regime. There was little public outcry over this order like there was for the so-called Muslim Ban. However because of an executive order, Cuban nationals working in Nebraska may be less inclined to speak out about working conditions or claim workers compensation benefits due to newfound uncertainty over their immigration status.
Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.
Several members of Congress have written to Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell regarding the danger of the chemical PAA, which is used to sanitize chickens in poultry plants.
The hazards of chemical exposure are not limited to meat-processing workers. Chemical exposure fatalities are too common in rural America. Recently, a worker on an industrial cleaning crew in Beatrice, Nebraska, was killed from inhaling industrial cleaning chemicals. In October, a resident of northeast Nebraska was killed after inhaling chemicals from a leak in anhydrous ammonia pipeline. That same month, 125 residents of Atchison, Kansas, sought treatment for inhalation of chlorine gas from an explosion at a distiller.
While chemical exposure can often result in sudden death, ongoing exposure to chemicals can also create injuries that may not be apparent for years after the exposure. Unfortunately, Nebraska limits the ability of workers to recover for such injuries.
The letter about the hazards of PAA was written to outgoing cabinet members. The new Trump administration is expected to have a less-aggressive approach toward regulating the workplace. Hopefully the new administration will take the threat posed by hazardous chemicals in the workplace seriously.
Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.
Benefits for injured workers continue to be under attack throughout the country. In New York, there have been a number of changes in the last decade, all in the name of reform. These reforms were encouraging at first as they increased the weekly benefits for some higher wage-earning injured workers for the first time in decades. They also created medical treatment guidelines under the guise of allowing injured workers to obtain pre-approval on certain medical treatments and procedures.
Unfortunately, the changes also resulted in reduction of benefits for many injured workers. Monetary benefits were capped, so injured workers deemed partially disabled could only receive a certain number of weeks of benefits regardless of their ability to return to their pre-injury jobs. The determination of the degree of disability has become a battle involving multiple, lengthy depositions of medical witnesses where the outcome is how long injured workers get wage replacement or whether they receive lifetime benefits. The criteria is not whether injured workers can return to their prior employment, but whether they are capable of performing any work at all, regardless of their past job experience or education. The battle is not limited to the amount of weeks of benefits injured workers can receive, however. The medical treatment guidelines, touted as getting injured workers prompt medical treatment, discounts the fact that if the requested treatment is not listed within the guidelines, it is denied and the burden is placed upon injured workers and their treating doctors to prove the requested treatment is necessary.
Other changes designed to cut administrative costs and court personnel include reducing the number of hearings held, thereby denying injured workers due process. There also has been a reduction in the number of presiding judges, and in many hearing locations the judges are not even at the site but are conducting hearings through video conferencing. At the end of October, the Board announced a new procedure authorizing the insurance carrier to request a hearing on whether injured workers should be weaned off of opioids that are used by many medical providers to treat chronic pain. While everyone would agree that the misuse of prescription pain medication is an epidemic in this country, many question whether the insurance industry really has the injured workers’ best interest at heart.
As an attorney who has represented injured workers for more than 26 years, I have seen many workers successfully transition from injured worker back into the labor market. It is very encouraging to note that for many people the system has worked. They receive their treatment, which may involve physical therapy, surgery, pain management, prescription therapy, or whatever else their treating physician recommends. They are paid a portion of their prior income and after a period of convalescence, they are able to return to work. Some injured workers, however, are not so lucky. The decisions about what happens to those unable to work have been left to those who seem to care more about business and insurance industry profits.
Just about one year ago, 14 people were killed and 22 more injured when ISIS-inspired terrorists went on a shooting rampage in San Bernardino, California. The nation and the world were horrified to hear about this tragedy and the story was in the news for many weeks. Now a year has gone by and many of the survivors have complained about treatment being denied and prescription medication being cut off. While many injuries happen quietly without the headlines seen in the California attack, there are many similarities. It seems that when an initial injury occurs, there are many good protections and benefits in place. However, as time goes on and costs increase, injured workers are looked upon as enemies to defeat or to forget about. Unfortunately for injured workers and their families, they don’t have this luxury and they don’t have the means to fight.
Most people don’t think it will ever happen to them. That is what most of my clients have thought as well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Today’s post comes from guest author Thomas Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.
We have reported regularly on the impact of obesity on workers’ compensation (see WFW October 2005 “Diabetes and Work Injuries” Alan B. King, M.D. and WFW Winter 2009 “The Rising Impact of Obesity on Workers’ Compensation” book review).
A recent study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the official publication of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in September 2016 reported that obese and overweight workers are more likely to result in higher costs related to workers’ compensation claims, especially for major injuries.
In a study analyzing 2,300 workers in Louisiana, Dr. Edward Bernacki of the University of Texas—Austin found that workers’ compensation costs and outcomes for obese workers (defined as a Body Mass Index of 30 or higher) incurred higher costs related to their workers’ compensation claim. This study noted that after three years about 10% of claims for significant injuries were still open, meaning the worker had not yet returned to work. Obesity and overweight did not play a role in the delayed return to work. However, for workers with major injuries, overweight was associated with higher workers’ compensation costs. In the group with the higher Body Mass Index, costs averaged about $470,000 for obese workers, $270,000 for overweight workers compared to $180,000 for normal weight workers (with a Body Mass Index between 25 and 30). The study made adjustments for other factors including the high cost of spinal surgeries and injections and, after making the adjustment for these factors, obese or overweight workers with major injuries were twice as likely to incur costs of $100,000 or more. Significantly, Body Mass Index had no effect at all on costs for closed claims or less severe injuries.
Previous studies (including a study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 2015 linked obesity to a higher rate of workplace injuries and a longer time off. However, the cost effects were not studied until this recent assessment. The new results indicate obesity is a significant risk factor for higher costs in major workers’ compensation injuries.
One significant finding in the study was that more than three-fourths of the workers’ compensation claimants were overweight or obese. Further studies are planned. Previous studies include those from the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI) “How Obesity Increases the Risk of Disabling Workplace Injuries”. Editor’s Note: According to most studies, there is a strong correlation between Body Mass Index and injuries such as ankle fracture severity and increase risk of osteoarthritis. For workers’ compensation practitioners, one wonders whether these studies are a prelude to an assault on the “as is” doctrine. Each of us in our own practice can recognize some of the wide-ranging effects in costs of obesity, from special procedures for hospital treatment of obese patients such as open MRIs and more extensive surgical procedures to a reduced fuel economy in commercial vehicles due to fat drivers. Additionally, the cost of treatment for obese patients with work-related injuries increases the work-related injury potential to medical staff (lifting, transferring, etc.). Increasing admissions of severely obese patients leads to a corresponding increase in medical workplace injuries related to lifting and maneuvering obese patients. Workers’ compensation practitioners may see obesity as yet another “pre-existing condition” to surmount in future causation and extent of disability battles.
Today’s post comes from guest author Rod Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.
Workers’ compensation laws are under constant attack by “reformers” from industry, insurance and self-insureds. NCCI is the National Council on Compensation Insurance, a group that participates in many aspects of workers’ compensation, including setting premiums. The NCCI recently released presentations regarding big issues in workers’ compensation, including information about prescription drug cost-control (listed first below) and an insurance industry financial review (listed last below). These presentations were part of the NCCI’s 2016 Annual Issues Symposium.
These presentations are interesting. I recommend reviewing them for a snapshot of our current workers’ compensation system in America. The financial review link (“Shape of Things to Come … ” above) shows high net income for the insurance industry. Is the constant pressure to “reform” workers’ compensation law fair and reasonable? Is maximizing profit for the insurance industry more important than fair compensation of worker injury and death?
