Posted on Feb 19, 2014
In the 2008 clean-up efforts from Hurricane Gustav in Louisiana, an electrical worker from an Oklahoma company that volunteered to help, suffered significant injuries while attempting to repair the damaged portion of a downed power line. The local company supervising the operation appealed a multimillion dollar jury verdict in favor of the worker on multiple grounds. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal in Louisiana refused to set the verdict aside because the trial judge did not need to instruct the jury on a lack of duty to protect the worker from open and obvious dangers, and an...
Continue Reading
Posted on Feb 18, 2014
In November 2009, two employees of a domestic land drilling contractor died while conducting modifications to an oil/gas well drilling rig involving a crane. In response to lawsuits brought by the families of the deceased workers, the drilling company made requests to the insurer of its workers’ compensation policy and to the insurer of an umbrella liability policy to defend or indemnify the company. The workers’ compensation insurer indemnified the company up to the limit of that policy, but the umbrella insurer argued that the umbrella policy did not provide coverage for this incident....
Continue Reading
Posted on Feb 18, 2014
A Pennsylvania federal court rejected a railroad’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of an ergonomics expert proffered to testify about the medical causation between years of walking on uneven surfaces on or near tracks and a worker’s severe arthritis. The fact that the expert was not a doctor did not preclude the expert from being sufficiently qualified to provide opinions about the conditions of the workplace environment and exposures encountered by the worker that allegedly led to his injuries. The court concluded that the specialized knowledge of an ergonomics expert could...
Continue Reading
Posted on Feb 18, 2014
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the State Industrial Commission’s denial of a claim for workers’ compensation, which alleged that a decade of working next to a machine that transmitted x-rays as part of the aluminum foil manufacturing process contributed to the worker’s brain cancer. Citing the device’s radiation protection shield, the inability of a worker to get within five feet of the device, the lack of any measurable levels of radiation during routine testing, and the similarities in radiation levels around the device with normal background radiation, the court...
Continue Reading
Posted on Feb 14, 2014
OSHA has proposed a substantial $697,700 fine to a manufacturer of welded wire products including wire mesh following the death of a worker who allegedly was struck by a part that fed wire into a machine’s welding area when he entered the machine to retrieve a fallen part. According to the proposed OSHA violations, the part that would have automatically turned the machine off and prevented the incident had been disabled. The proposed violations also allege that the company failed to take steps to ensure that several other machines were shut down or locked or tagged out prior to employees...
Continue Reading
Posted on Feb 13, 2014
California’s Interagency Working Group on Refinery Safety released its final report outlining recommendations to improve worker safety at and near state oil refineries. The report provides recommendations for improving emergency response and preparedness, requiring safer systems to prevent hazardous events, and improving community awareness and emergency alerts. It specifically calls for: Coordination of regulatory activities to avoid duplication and increase effectiveness; Establishment of clear criteria for unified emergency response and alignment of radio communications between industry...
Continue Reading
Posted on Feb 12, 2014
An Ohio federal court granted a dairy manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment in a case brought by a worker under the Americans with Disabilities Act who had been assigned a new job of watching milk containers pass on a conveyor belt and removing any leaking containers. The worker, who was disabled as a result of a motorcycle incident years earlier, refused to perform the safety check on the grounds that the job had to be performed standing up and that his work restrictions prevented him from doing the job. Despite the company offering to provide him with a stool to perform the job so...
Continue Reading