Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Personal Injury Blog

Silica Rule being Held Up

2012-02-02T20:30:28Z

Construction workers are all too familiar with a dangerous work environment. Jobsites have a lot of different types of workers performing tasks in several places at the same time. It would be impossible to be able to watch everything that is happening, so workers have to trust that others are using proper safety techniques and will be focused on eliminating construction accidents.

]]> When construction workers will be coming into contact with dangerous materials, there will be additional state and federal regulations that will need to be followed as well. Workers depend upon these rules to help prevent injuries and illnesses. New rules are often proposed and debated to determine the effect on both workers and the industry.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is considering a rule concerning the amount of contact that is appropriate for workers exposed to crystalline silica. This material is found in many materials that one would typically find at a construction jobsite, including sand and granite.

Silica is problematic because if it is inhaled over a period of years, serious health issues may result, including lung cancer. According to the Department of Labor (DOL), the most recent numbers on silicosis (from 2005) show that there were 161 deaths attributed to the disease in some fashion. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that over 1.7 million workers in the U.S. come into contact with silica each year.

The exact rule has not yet been proposed, because there is some uncertainty what would happen to the construction industry if exposure to silica was regulated. This could cause project costs to skyrocket.

However, despite the potential cost to the industry, safety advocates believe that such a rule is necessary, and are very concerned with the unusual delay. Once the rule has been announced, expect there to be further debate over its impact to workers and businesses.

Source: Huffington Post, "Silica Rule Sits At White House, Endangering Lives, Worker Safety Advocates Say," Dave Jamieson, Jan. 25, 2012

Economy Forcing Injured Pennsylvania Workers Back on the Job?

2012-01-27T20:07:37Z

During these difficult economic times, it has been a challenge for many people to find work. Unemployment rates remain high, and those who do have a job are doing everything they can to stay employed. Workers and employers know that there are people ready and willing to do the job if an employee's performance begins to slip.

]]> While this may lead to an engaged and productive workforce, it is also leading to serious problems, especially for injured workers. Those who have been injured on-the-job are faced with difficult circumstances. Workers depend upon their jobs to be able to make ends meet, and any time that they have to spend recovering will impact their bottom line. While workers' compensation payments can help, many feel that they need to get back to work as quickly as possible to avoid losing their jobs.

Unfortunately, this can lead some workers to return before their injuries have completely healed. A study by the Workers Compensation Research Institute examined injured workers in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. One of the major challenges that the study uncovered concerned what happens when positions and responsibilities need to be changed because an injured worker is not healthy enough to perform his or her usual tasks.

Employers may have difficulty finding new roles for injured employees to take on while they heal, and may have to move other employees to accommodate the injured worker. Employees may struggle to adapt to the new position, and may try to go back to their normal duties before they are ready. This could lead to additional injuries and prolonged recovery times.

Those who have been injured while working should report the injury as soon as possible. Any delay in notifying employers could make it difficult to obtain benefits while recovering.

Removal from the Workforce by Means of Retirement

2012-01-25T21:00:00Z

In the case Keene v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Ogden Corp.), the Commonwealth Court held that a claimant, who was receiving Social Security Disability, did not remove herself from the work force, because she testified that she stopped looking for employment for a two-year period after a work-related knee replacement. Judge Friedman wrote that before the employer could suspend her benefits, they had the burden of showing that the claimant voluntarily retired. According to previous case law the employer meets this burden of proof by providing: (1) there is no dispute that the claimant retired, (2) the claimant has accepted a retirement pension, or (3) the claimant has accepted a pension and refused suitable employment. Since, the claimant did not accept the retirement pension and could not find suitable employment, there was no basis for voluntary retirement.

OSHA Focused on Reducing the Number of Workplace Injuries

2012-01-20T18:46:02Z

Workplace safety has long been a major priority for state and local governments. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has spent decades trying to improve safety conditions for workers across the country. While these efforts have reduced the number of deaths and serious injuries in the workplace, serious problems still remain.

]]> The agency recently reported that 12 workers die on the job every day, which adds up to over 4,500 workers a year. Additionally, each year 4.1 million workers have some type of serious illness or injury that is often preventable. These numbers have remained somewhat consistent over time, meaning that new initiatives may be necessary to address the issue.

OSHA recently released a white paper that is focused on reducing the number of deaths, as well as serious illnesses and injuries in the workplace, by making employers devote more resources to worker safety. The agency is encouraging employers to adopt an "injury and illness prevention program" (I2P2) in an effort to improve worker awareness regarding potentially dangerous conditions.

The report gives guidance to employers in setting up their I2P2 plans. Employers are encouraged to work together with their employees to create a plan that is effectively addresses the issues that may lead to workplace accidents.

Currently, 15 states have already made injury prevention programs mandatory for employers. OSHA has examined the programs in these states, and believes that I2P2 programs will help reduce the accident rate by 15 to 35 percent. Even if the program is only 15 percent effective, it will lead to a $9 billion dollar savings in workers' compensation costs throughout the United States.

Utilization Review Petition

2012-01-17T22:01:53Z

In Gary v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Phila. Sch. Dist.), the court upheld the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision which denied the Utilization Review Petition. The UR Reviewer decided that the treatment did not show a "significant improvement" in the claimant's condition and therefore continued treatment was deemed not reasonable or necessary, even though five years prior the same treatment was ruled reasonable and necessary. The court stated that because five years had passed and there was no improvement, nor was their conclusive information from the treating doctor's notes that the claimant's condition was improving, the first UR decision was not necessary for evidence. Thus basing the current review solely on the treatment within those five years, where no improvement was made.

Criminal Conviction and Disqualification from Employment

2012-01-05T21:10:18Z

In University of Penn. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Hicks), the court determined that an employer was not entitled to suspend a claimant's benefits after he returned to work following a work injury and was terminated for not possessing the proper certification as a campus police office. The employer had a policy that requires all its officers to posses this certification and the claimant, who was involved in a domestic dispute, had been arrested for assault, which might cause him to lose his certification. The court denied the suspension, because the claimant had not actually lost his certification and because he only might lose it in the future.

2012 Pennsylvania Workers' Comp Average Weekly Wage

2011-12-28T21:55:47Z

According to the Workers' Compensation Act, injured workers are entitled to indemnity (wage-loss) benefits equal to two-thirds of their weekly wage for a work-related injury. However, there are minimum and maximum adjustments provided in the Act, and the benefit rate is set using the annual maximum in place at the time of injury. The maximum is based on the Department of Labor and Industry's calculation of the statewide average weekly wage.

Workers' Compensation Rate Schedules

Pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act, Section 105.1, the Department of Labor & Industry has determined the statewide average weekly wage for injuries occurring on and after Jan. 1, 2012, shall be $888.00 per week. For purposes of calculating the update to payments for medical treatment rendered on and after Jan. 1, 2012, the percentage increase in the statewide average weekly wage is 3.5 percent.

The schedules provided on the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry's site provide weekly rates from calendar year 2007 to 2012. The maximum weekly compensation rate for calendar year 2012 is $888.00. The weekly compensation rate is to be 66 2/3 percent of the employee's average weekly wage if the average weekly wage falls between $1,332.00 and $666.01. A weekly compensation rate of $444.00 if the employee's average weekly wage is between $666.00 and $493.33. Lastly, 90 percent of the employee's average weekly wage if his/her average weekly wage is $493.32 or less.

Utilization Review (UR) Process

2011-12-21T22:20:56Z

In the case Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Schuch), the claimant's treating doctor for depressive disorder went under Utilization Review. The findings were that the treatment was reasonable and necessary, with no appeal from the employer. The claimant tried to use the findings of the UR decision as the reason and evidence for his filed Review Petition to amend the work injury to include depression, stating the employer accepted the UR decision and therefore can not deny liability. The Commonwealth Court decided that legislation regarding the UR process does not impose liability and claimant must still meet burden of proof in a Review Petition.

Intentional Physical Stunt not within Course and Scope of Employment

2011-12-20T15:55:39Z

In the case of Penn. State University v. Workers's Compensation Appeal Board (Smith), the Commonwealth Court reversed the Appeal Board's affirmation of a claim petition. There was overwhelming evidence showing that the claimant did sustain injuries, but he also intentionally jumped down a flight of stairs. The Commonwealth Court decided that intentional physical stunts are not within the course and scope of employment and therefore not subject to Workers' Compensation Benefits.

Medicare Part B Premiums lower than projected for 2012

2011-12-16T14:37:10Z

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that Medicare Part B Premiums will be lower than projected. The Part B premiums will have a 3.6% increase to coincide with the COLA increase previously decided earlier in the year. For 2012 the Medicare Part B Premium will be $99.90 and the Part B deductible will decrease by $22, however the premiums paid for Medicare's prescription drug plan will remain virtually unchanged.

Medicare Part B covers physicians' services, outpatient hospital services, certain home health services, durable medical equipment and other items. These services have been greatly improved since the Affordable Care Act was passed, which allows Medicare beneficiaries to receive free preventative services and a 50% discount on covered prescription drugs when they enter the 'donut hole.'

Medicare Part A beneficiaries will see a modest increase in monthly premiums.

To read more information Click Here.

The Grave Danger of Workplace Dust Explosions

2011-12-14T15:57:55Z

To the uninitiated, industrial dust may seem as harmless as the dust on the bedroom dresser. The truth is, however, that explosive dust is responsible for numerous deaths each year in the industrial setting.

While dust levels in grain-handling environments are closely regulated, the dust in other industries - industries with a total of 2.5 million workers - is unregulated. Dust explosions can occur due to fine particles of wood, metal, food or chemicals in factories. These explosions killed 119 and injured 718 workers between 1980 and 2005, according to a 2006 U.S. Chemical Safety Board study.

]]> The Safety Board recommended in 2007 that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration create rules to alleviate the problem. OSHA is studying the issue, and in the meantime it has created a National Emphasis Program to educate people and inspect plants. The inspections, however, focus on housekeeping and worker training, rather than specific rules about explosive dust.

Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation for Explosion Injuries

Workplace explosions can cause very serious injuries, even death. For workers who have been burned or otherwise injured, the medical bills can be large and the recovery time long.

Workers' compensation benefits can pay for the medical bills and lost wages. For certain family members who have lost a loved one to a work-related injury, workers' compensation provides benefits based on what the deceased worker would have received.

The Future of Explosive-Dust Regulations

Dust explosions remain a serious problem, including in Pennsylvania workplaces. When OSHA designs and implements regulations to protect workers from dust explosions, the number of deaths and injuries could significantly decrease, just as they did after grain-dust regulations were put into place.

120 Day Rule Regarding Notice of Injury

2011-12-08T21:09:25Z

In the case Hershgordon v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pep Boys), the appeal board reaffirmed the importance of notifying the employer within 120 days of injury. The claimant filed a claim petition for an alleged work injury occurring on June 13, 2005. The record showed that the employer was not notified of the alleged injury until September 11, 2007, well after the 120 days expired. The WCAB and Commonwealth Court both denied the claim.

Notice of Compensation Denial Decision

2011-12-02T19:00:00Z

In the case, Mason v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Rothman Institute), the claimant's work injury was accepted by a Notice of Compensation Denial (NCD). During litigation of a claim petition, the Claimant argued that the employer could not deny his work injury because of the previous acceptance on the NCD. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board determined that the Claimant still had the burden of establishing the disabling nature of his work injury. The decision is troubling not only because of the employer's acknowledgement on the NCD, but also because with the new Bureau forms it seems that this acknowledgement of injury is limited and burden still lies with the Claimant.

New Attorney Maria Harris Candidate for YLD Executive Committee

2011-12-01T15:53:35Z

Maria E. Harris is the firm's newest associate, focusing her practice on Social Security Disability and Long-Term Disability.
Ms. Harris is a member of the Young Lawyers Division of the Philadelphia Bar Association and is currently running as a
candidate for election to the Executive Committee. She is one
of nine candidates that are seeking seven positions in this year's YLD Executive Committee election to be held on December 6.

Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Harris practiced at an international defense firm litigating insurance matters in the areas of life, health disability and ERISA claims. Prior to that, she served as a law clerk in the Family Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.

In 2007, Ms. Harris earned her law degree from Widener University School of Law. She earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology from Rosemont College in 2003. Ms. Harris is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania. She is also a member of the American and Philadelphia Bar Association, Young Lawyers Division, Women in the Profession and Minorities in the Profession. She is NJ State Certified Bilingual Spanish/English.

Cost-of-Living Adjustment Increases for 2012

2011-11-28T19:50:46Z

For the first time since 2009, the Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) will be increased to offset inflation. This is to be a 3.6% increase for more than 60 million Americans who receive Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Payment increases will take effect for SSI beneficiaries beginning December 30, 2011 and for Social Security beneficiaries it will begin on January 2012.

The purpose of the COLA increase is to help prevent income deficits due to inflation rates. The COLA is based on the CPI-W (Consumer Purchasing Index), determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which represents the changes in prices of all goods and services purchased for consumption for urban wage earners and clerical workers only. This index has not increased since the third quarter of 2008, which has led to the four year lag in Social Security and Supplemental Security Income increases. To see how much this 3.6% increase is estimated to affect your Social Security and SSI please click here. For more information visit http://www.socialsecurity.gov/cola/