Illinois Personal Injury Blog

Worker Safety Incentive Programs: Worker vs. Co-Worker?

Nick Avgerinos — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:23:51 GMT

Promoting workplace safety is as non-controversial as promoting firearm safety, safe-driving, and energy efficiency. However, when the advancement of workplace safety pits worker against worker then controversy begins.

Encouraging labor and management to work together to reduce on-the-job injuries is a good and noble policy. Who among us wants to see an injury occur at work, particularly one that would easily have been avoided if an adequate safety program had been in place, or if the worker had followed directions? Over the years many employers have taken steps to improve workplace safety by consistently explaining and describing how jobs are to be performed, holding mandatory safety meetings and so on. Labor, and labor unions have taken action to reduce workplace injuries by forming safety committees (oftentimes with management), holding workshops for stewards, and the membership, all with the intention keeping the workplace safe.

Reducing workplace injuries produces many favorable consequences, including:

-no lost time from work

-no loss in productivity,

-no loss or reduction in household income

-no disruption to the household

-no medical costs

-reduced workers' compensation costs

-less potential for labor-management conflict over availability and suitability of restricted work

Rewarding workers for exercising proper safety techniques, attending safety meetings or offering recommendations for improving safety practices all sounds good, right? But, here's where worker safety incentive programs can become a problem. In these programs, the employer rewards its employees for the company having gone so many days, weeks or months without a workplace injury, or without any lost time days. The rewards may take the form of monetary compensation, awards or recognition for having reached a predetermined goal as established by the employer.

What's the downside you ask? While workers may be encouraged to report all injuries, the reporting of an injury, regardless of how minor can cause a break in the run of consecutive injury-free days from work and, perhaps more importantly for some, no reward ($$) from the employer. By following the rules and reporting all injuries, a worker risks incurring the anger of co-workers who have been informed by their employer that they will not receive a prize. Here's the dilemma: Report the injury and lose the reward, or don't report the injury and risk potentially serious consequences by way of a reprimand, suspension or something worse for having failed to follow company policy. The situation becomes much more problematic down the road, if what seemed like a minor back strain that the worker chose not to report out of fear of turning the co-workers against him is later diagnosed by a doctor as a herniated disc for which surgery is needed. Now the worker has a huge problem because the workers' compensation claim resulting from the workplace accident will likely be denied by the employer and workers' compensation insurance company because there is no record of the worker having reported the accident to the plant nurse, supervisor, or anyone else in a managerial capacity.

What now is the worker to do if he has been taken off work by his doctor for an accident and condition that the employer has denied is work-related but prevents him from working and generating income, and which requires an operation? The problem is greatly magnified if the injured worker lacks health insurance, lacks short or long-term disability benefits, or lacks a second household income with which to pay for medical care, groceries and rent.

Worker safety programs are intended to bring workers together by providing them with a reward for having an injury free workplace. Programs that implicitly encourage the under reporting of injuries are wrong. It is simply unfair to place an employee in the position of having to forego a bonus because his friend and co-worker has suffered an injury on the job. Instead of uniting workers, the safety incentive programs may well have the unintended consequence of dividing them.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Lifetime Brand Pfaltzgraff Villa della Luna ands Nautica J Class Dinnerware Recalled Due to Excessive Lead and/or Cadmium

Jenny Albano — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:02:23 GMT

Lifetime Brands, Inc., in conjunction with the FDA, is recalling some of its dinnerware because some of the products may have exceeded the FDA's guidance levels for lead and/or Cadmium.

The recalled products include Nautica J Class red dinner plates and red salad plates and Villa de Luna dinner plates and soup/cereal bowls.

So far the company and the FDA have not received any reports of illness from the dinnerware. These products were sold either individually or as part of a set and were available online or nationwide through retail stores.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Truck Kills Two At Chinatown CTA Stop, Injures Others

Jamie G. Goldstein — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:56:38 GMT

Friday evening a truck drove into the CTA red line stop at Cermak-Chinatown. Two women, Elosia Guerrero 47 and Delisia Brown, 18 were killed at the scene of the collision. Another 21 people, including the truck driver, were injured. Video cameras at the station caught the collision on tape and will likely be used to determine the cause of the collision.

Don Wells, the truck driver, was cited and held by the City of Chicago. His behavior is being reported as bizarre and not typical. At this time there is no indication alcohol or drugs were involved though it is being reported Wells had a prescription not prescribed to him with him at the time of the collision.

CTA accidents like this are rare, however, they must be investigated to determine who is truly at fault for this tragedy and in order to protect the millions of commuters using the CTA every year. There is an ongoing investigation into the Chicago collision to determine how Wells wound up crashing into the CTA stop. He may be held responsible for the injuries and deaths of those people involved in the accident.

If you or someone you know was injured or killed in this accident, contact an attorney. You may be able to bring a claim against the truck driver Don Wells, the company he was working for, White-Line Express and/or the CTA.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jamie G. Goldstein

Truck crashes into CTA el station

Barry Doyle — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:22:31 GMT

A truck speeding down the Cermak exit to the Dan Ryan expressway left the roadway and crashed into a CTA bus stop and el station at rush hour today. Commuters waiting for the bus and leaving the trains at the CTA's Cermak Red Line station were struck by the truck as it jumped the curb and plowed into pedestrians. Two commuters were killed and at least 20 more were injured, some critically.

Mass accidents such as this require more than a rush to action. Prompt action is certainly required, and victims and their families are advised to obtain legal representation as quickly as possible so that lawyers can begin securing evidence such as statements from witnesses, photographing the scene, and obtaining court orders to ensure the preservation of the truck and its component parts.

In cases such as this, even where there is a well-insured defendant like a trucking company, there may be insufficient coverage from the easily identifiable defendants to allow all of the victims of the accident to be fully compensated. This is because the large number of injured people results in many claims against an insurance policy with finite limits. The facts of this case speak to an apparent loss of control of the truck, which should raise questions about the maintenance of the truck and its component parts, including the trailer. The role of every entity involve din putting that truck and that driver on the road must be carefully examined to ensure proper compensation for the victims of this accident.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barry Doyle

Contaminated Heparin May Have Caused Deaths

Jamie G. Goldstein — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:09:09 GMT

Heparin, a blood thinner, may be linked to the deaths of at least a dozen people. The FDA recently reported a contaminant in the Heparin could be causing serious side effects, including death. It is believed the contaminated Heparin came from shipments from China. The shipments were sent to at least 10 countries.

The Heparin is causing serious adverse reactions due to an oversulfated chondroitin sulfate. The compound, made from animal cartilage, has been reported to cause side effects from nausea and vomiting to shortness of breath and substantial drops in blood pressure.

Heparin is a common blood thinner prescribed to patients. Blood thinners are prescribed for various reasons, but often immediately after surgery to reduce the chance of blood clots during the recovery period.

If you or someone you know is required to be on a blood thinner, make sure you discuss the type of blood thinner you are being prescribed and if there are safer alternatives. Heparin is not the only blood thinner available and depending on your circumstances may or may not be the best choice for you.

If you have had an adverse reaction described above while on Heparin, contact an attorney. You may be able to take legal action for the injuries caused by the Heparin.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jamie G. Goldstein

What Do Illinois Workers' Compensation Hearings And Social Security Hearings have in Common?

Mike Rom — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:31:26 GMT

What Do Illinois Workers' Compensation Hearings And Social Security Hearings have in Common?

During my three years of law school one of the many rules repeated over and over was, never ask a question at trial if you do not know the answer. When conducting a cross-examination in an Illinois workers' compensation hearing or social security hearing an attorney is often forced to ask questions for which he does not have the answer. Unlike civil cases there is no discovery in Illinois workers' compensation hearings or in social security hearings.

Discovery is a procedure by which both sides of a case obtain information held by the other party before trial (known as pre-trial). This disclosure could include facts, documents, witnesses, witness statements or any number of other documents or information.

Without discovery an attorney conducting a cross-examination must process new information immediately in order to form questions based on that information. It is important to have an attorney who is experienced, able to think on his feet and develop questions on the spot.

It is essential that an injured worker or claimant provide as much information as possible to his/her attorney including: prior claims, injuries, fractures, surgical procedures, union affiliation or potential witnesses. I frequently ask my clients to send me every document (medical records, medical bills, letters from the workers' compensation insurance carrier) that they have in their possession that is even remotely related to the claim. In addition, a thorough initial interview with the client is essential to gather as much information as possible. All of this information is used to anticipate possible defenses and/or witnesses and avoid costly surprise.

Both law school and years of practice have helped me prepare for the unexpected at trial. The need for such competency is heightened in Illinois workers' compensation claims and social security claims due to the lack of discovery rules.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Rom

The safety of Illinois construction workers to be debated by the Illinois Legislature.

Steve Smalling — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:12:15 GMT

One would assume that safe work practices on construction sites would be the top priority of everyone involved in the industry. Few occupations pose the risks and hazards of those encountered by workers involved in the construction of buildings, bridges and other structures. These safety concerns were recognized in 1907 with the passage of the Structural Work Act which allowed seriously injured workers to seek damages from those entities in the best position to implement and enforce safety rules and regulations. This law was repealed by a Republican dominated legislature in 1995 at the urging of business and insurance interests who viewed it as a financial burden. The issue of protecting workers and construction safety is once again before lawmakers and we can anticipate vigorous debate on both sides of the aisle.

Under the direction of House Speaker Michael Madigan, House Bill No.: 2094, entitled the Construction Safety Act of 2008, was scheduled for hearing last week before the House Civil Judiciary Committee chaired by State Rep. John Fritchey, D-Chicago. The bill recognizes the need for additional protection of workers in the construction industry given the disproportionate number of deaths and serious injuries which occur. It is patterned after the defunct Structural Work Act and specifically acknowledges the legislature's intention that it should be interpreted consistently with precedent and court decisions interpreting that Act.

As expected, introduction of the bill was met with resistance by the business community and special interest groups such as the Illinois Manufacturers' Assn. ChicagoBusiness.com characterized the bill as being a "contentious work rule" and pointed out that the prior law had drawn the ire of the business community which said it subjected businesses to more lawsuits and escalated insurance costs. Rep. Fritchey is quoted as saying "he was bracing for opposition to passage of the act" and that "Any piece of legislation should be able to withstand vigorous debate, and this one is no different."

When it comes to the issue of protecting the lives and well being of construction workers and their families in Illinois, it would seem that there would be little room for disagreement. Unfortunately, this debate will once again boil down to worker safety versus economic profit. Expect to hear the same opposition and arguments to the proposed law that led to the Structural Work Act's repeal and attempt to revive it in 2003. Let's hope that the current legislature gives priority to workplace safety over the profit margins of big business and insurance companies.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Smalling

Think Twice Before Firing An Employee For Filing A Workers' Compensation Claim - Local Governments Not Immune From Retaliatory Discharge Lawsuit in Illinois

Nick Avgerinos — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:41:59 GMT

In a decision that is good news for governmental employees, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that local governments are not immune from lawsuits from employees claiming retaliatory discharge for the filing of a workers' compensation claim.

In the case decided by the Illinois Court, a park district employee suffered a work-related injury for which he filed a workers' compensation claim. When he returned to work, the local public entity claimed it had reasons for requiring him to take a drug and alcohol test. When he refused to take the test he was fired.

The local park district argued that an Illiinois law provided it with immunity when its employees could not be held liable for the actions that caused the injury. In siding with the injured worker, the Illinois Supreme Court reasoned that the immunity did not apply because the employer and not the employee ulitimately caused the injury. The Court also relied on a section of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act prohibiting discharge of an employee for exercising his/her rights under the Act.

It is encouraging in this political climate to see judicial decisions that uphold the rights of injured workers to exercise their rights.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Chicagoans: How Safe Is Your Lake Michigan Drinking Water?

Nick Avgerinos — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:41:42 GMT

Today Chicago area citizens have to be asking themselves, "Is our drinking water safe?"

In today's Chicago Tribune it was reported that "Chicago officials have never tested the city and suburban water supply for pharmaceuticals and other unregulated chemicals." For that reason, the Tribune conducted its own testing, and the results are cause for concern and further investigation.

According to the reporters, the tests revealed "tiny amounts of an anti-seizure drug, a common painkiller, caffeine and two chemicals used to make Teflon and Scotchguard" from a sampling taken from Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for many Chicagoans.

The Tribune reported that while the tests do not show the drinking or tap water is unsafe, the results raise questions about the long-term exposure to drugs in the drinking water. The article further noted that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that there does not exist conclusive evidence that pharmaceuticals in drinking water affect human health.

For consumers of bottled water, and bottled water companies the test results were encouraging. Tests conducted on bottled water samples from the three best-selling brands in Chicago did not contain any of the chemicals for which tests were conducted, and serve to support the claims from the bottled water industry that their water is clean and safe.

Governmental oversight of the bottled water industry is somewhat different from oversight of public drinking water. Bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration but is not subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act which requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish national drinking water standards, called maximum contaminant levels, with respect to public drinking water.

Cities and local governments should notify their citizens of those chemicals and contaminants that are tested by their water departments, those that are not tested, the results of the testing, and what steps are being taken to ensure the safety and quality of their drinking water.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Death Benefits In An Illinois Workers' Compensation Case

Nick Avgerinos — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:00:00 GMT

When the unimaginable occurs and a family member suffers a work-related fatality, the survivors are forced to consider how the family will support itself and make ends meet. While no amount of money will ever replace the loss of a mother or father or other family member, the Illinois Workers' Compensation system provides one of the fairest programs in the country for compensating a family for its loss of income.

Legislative changes made to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act in 2005 have made it possible for the surviving spouse of an employee who has died as a result of a work-related injury or disease to (depending on when the accident occurred) receive a weekly workers' compensation benefit for a period of 25 years or $500,000.00, whichever is greater. Again, depending on when the accident occurred, the minimum weekly rate of compensation is $441.93, and the maximum rate is $1,178.48. Therefore, the minimum annual amount that can be received is $22,980.36 while the maximum annual recovery of death benefits is $61,280.96.

Prior to the 2005 change in the law, the death benefit to the surviving spouse would have been $250,000.00 or 20 years, whichever was greater. It is obvious that the recent changes have benefited the working people - a development that likely comes as a surprise given the anti-union sentiment that has characterized the current administration in Washington, D.C. and the misdirected tort reform (or, more accurately, tort deform) movement that continues to undermine the efforts of organized labor, public interest groups and the like to protect and speak for those who have been seriously injured at the workplace.

NOTE: If a widow or widower were to remarry before the maximum death benefits have been paid, the workers' compensation insurance company or employer would then pay the surviving spouse a lump sum equal to two (2) years of benefits, but nothing further. However, even in the event of remarriage, there may be instances where there are minor children or dependents involved in which case the lump sum payment does not necessarily cut off future benefits.

In an upcoming blawg, I will talk about the death benefits that are available in Iowa.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos