The Nuts and Bolts of Workplace Injury Rights

Featured Post

We recently talked about what you should do if you find yourself injured at work. In the minutes and hours that follow your injury, there are a number of things you must make sure get accomplished. These include documenting the accident and speaking with a qualified legal representative. It’s good to prepare to do these things before you ever get injured, in fact. Being prepared can make terrible situations like these go much more smoothly.

But there is another bit of knowledge that will be helpful if you ever find yourself injured on the job. There are certain pieces of legislation that guarantee your rights, should you ever be hurt while working for an employer. If you know your rights, you’ll be a lot more certain of getting beneficial resolutions to your workplace injury claim. We’ll briefly cover a couple of these specific rights in the following. It’s important to note that there is a lot of diversity from state to state when it comes to workplace injury laws. The following are nationwide characteristics that you can generally rely upon wherever you happen to be injured at work, despite the specific laws found in your state.

• You always have a right to leave work to see a doctor for treatment of your injury.
• You have the right to put forward a formal claim about your illness or injury. Your case will be seen in a workers’ compensation court or an industrial court run by the state.
• If you go to the hospital after an injury and are released, you have the right to go back to work. You can’t be sent home.
• If you are so badly hurt or ill that you can’t go to work, regardless of the duration, you have the right to disability compensation of some kind. This will vary a lot state to state, but there will always be some kind of compensation available to you.
• You can appeal an employer’s decision regarding your worker’s compensation claim. You can also appeal the ruling of the compensation court.
• You have a right to legal counsel and representation throughout every step of the injury claim, compensation, and appeal process.

There are some states that are more generous towards injured claimants than others. It’s important for you to understand the general political climate of your state with regard to workers comp claims. This is especially true if you have a risky job, one where you come in contact with sick people, or if you perform any kind of manual labor. It is useful for every American worker to be equipped with this information.

It is also helpful to know to whom these rules do not necessarily apply. If you are self employed or are marginally employed through various non-traditional means, you won’t be able to hang your hat on any of these rights. If you are likely to be injured at your work in a role such as this, it is worth your while to consult with an injury lawyer ahead of time to understand your specific rights in the event of an injury.

We hope this helps, and that you will enjoy many injury-free years at work!

HSE uses intervention powers to inspect workplace cooling towers

Sponsored Post

In recognition of the risk of Legionnaires’ disease associated with workplace cooling systems, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) plans to inspect around 5000 sites with such systems over the next 6 months.

A cooling system may consist of a cooling tower, evaporative condenser or other cooling element, together with the associated pipe work, heat exchanger, pumps, supply tanks and pre-treatment equipment.

Legionellosis is the collective name given to the pneumonia-like illness caused by legionella bacteria. This includes the most serious Legionnaires’ disease, as well as the less serious Pontiac fever and Lochgoilhead fever. Legionnaires’ disease is a potentially fatal form of pneumonia and everyone is susceptible to infection. However, people over 45 years of age, smokers, heavy drinkers, those suffering from chronic respiratory or kidney disease and anyone with an impaired immune system are at the greatest risk.

The bacterium Legionella pneumophila and related bacteria are common in natural water sources such as rivers, lakes and reservoirs, but usually in low numbers. They may also be found in purpose-built water systems such as cooling towers and evaporative condensers.

There is a reasonably foreseeable legionella risk in water systems which:

• have a water temperature between 20–45 °C
• creates and/or spreads breathable droplets, e.g. aerosol created by a cooling tower, or water outlets
• stores and/or re-circulates water
• is likely to contain a source of food for the organism, e.g. presence of sludge, scale or fouling

As a result, the conditions found in workplace cooling systems can allow naturally-present bacteria to grow considerably, thereby increasing the risks of Legionnaires ’ disease. Consequently, it’s vital to take precautions to manage the risk of a serious bacteria outbreak developing.

The HSE’s intervention programme has come about as a result of concerning numbers of Legionnaire’s outbreaks over the last decade. Fostering greater awareness of the risk associated with workplace cooling systems is very much at the heart of the programme.

The HSE advises workplaces which have cooling towers or evaporative condensers to should put in place suitable measures mitigate the risk of legionella. Information on the way to manage these risk are described in Legionnaires’ disease: The control of Legionella bacteria in water systems.

This document outlines the requirements for all workplaces to follow in respect of their cooling systems which present a Legionnaires’ risk. It includes information on the commissioning, operation and maintenance of cooling systems, what steps can be taken to combat the presence of high levels of legionella bacteria, and details suitable monitoring systems and processes which can be deployed.

Remedial measures taken to guard against Legionnaire’s disease do not necessarily mean the relevant cooling system must be replaced.  For example, Covac's Tank Relining allows for an existing water tank to remain in use and brings with it the assurance of the Covac brand.

Fears of rising compensation culture drives a lack of compensation for injured workers

Guest PostFor many years, successive governments have been claiming that employers are in the grip of health and safety rules and regulations amidst rising compensation claims. Additional fears have been of a rising health and safety culture, and an increasing litigation culture.

Indeed, last year David Cameron was prompted to highlight the fact that “it is simply much too easy for no-win-no-fee lawyers to encourage trivial claims against businesses, which end up settling out of court because it is too expensive to fight the case,” alongside a statement that Britain’s compensation culture was “spiralling out of control.”

A recent Trades Union Congress (TUC) commissioned report paints a different picture, however. According to the report, the number of people actually receiving compensation for workplace injuries or related actually fell from 219,183 in 2000/01 to 87,655 in 2011/12.

Furthermore, the report, published in health and safety journal Hazard, highlights a more serious matter. The figures show that there in excess of 4,000 deaths per year as a result of work-related chronic bronchitis, emphysema and similar diseases. Only 59 such cases received any form of compensation last year. Last year saw 221,000 cases of work related stress, anxiety, depression and similar, with only 293 being compensated. Other figures show that the chance of getting a payout for an occupational cancer is lower than one in 50.

Overall, less employment related compensation claims are being brought, and less compensation is being paid. The number of such successful claimants has fallen by 60% over the last decade- with nine out of ten injured workers never getting compensation- hardly a rising litigation culture.

For every statement and point of view, there is an alternative viewpoint. Following the publication of the report, the TUC and other commentators find the idea that the government is highlighting a growing compensation culture actually somewhat absurd.

According to the report’s author, Professor Rory O’Neill, occupational health professor at Stirling University and the editor of Hazard, “the Government’s cynical promotion of a compensation culture myth means many workers who are dying in pain are also dying in poverty.”

In support, the TUC has long fought against the notion that there is a spiralling compensation culture in the UK. As far back as 2005, the TUC was critical of the idea that employers’ liability insurance was just another burden on businesses. In the wake of this 2013 report, the TUC is still fighting against this concept; “the true government motive here is to weaken health and safety laws and make it harder to for victims to pursue claims. Unfortunately the end result is likely to be a much higher rate of workplace accidents.”

The above comment from Frances O’Grady, TUC General Secretary, refers to the fact that the coalition cut both the scope and budget of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, and eliminated strict liability claims (where there has been a breach of health and safety legislation, but employer negligence is not proven). The TUC stresses that the overly cautious health and safety culture that the government claims has arisen does not exist; an example cited is that, contrary to popular opinion, few businesses are confronting a rising tide of constant risk assessments. According to TUC figures, in 2012 there were two million UK employees with workplace related injuries- most of which were preventable by taking common sense precautions.

By emphasising the rising compensation culture, the regulations subsequently imposed, and the onerous legal process now involved, makes it harder for genuine claimants to successfully pursue a claim against a genuinely negligent employer. As Jim Sheridan MP plainly summarised, coalition policies are “simply undermining the important issue of health and safety at work,” and the government’s “approach to health and safety encourages [negligent] employers.” Supporting such a withering criticism of government policy is the simple fact that recent changes to legal aid now make it harder to bring a compensation claim in some cases.

In defence of its stance on this matter, a government statement referred to the fact that “the burden of health and safety red tape had become too great,” and that efforts have been made and will be made to ensure that health and safety at work remains a priority, but without excessive paperwork and unnecessary over-caution. Doubtless thinking ahead to 2015’s election, the prospect of an EU referendum, proposals include repatriating some employment and health and safety measures from the EU over time, to make such matters easier more straightforward for businesses.

Whether there is a compensation culture in the UK or not, the recent TUC report does highlight one significant matter. There are many thousands of UK employees who have been injured at work, and who are quite simply not receiving the compensation that is deserved. Whether this is due to government policies, legal technicalities, unscrupulous employers, or other factors is, for those injured, somewhat irrelevant. Essentially, a great many injured employees are unable to get compensation or justice for their workplace injuries; that is the most serious matter here, and needs to be addressed.

Guest article provided on behalf of CompensationClaims.co – specialists in accident and injury compensation claims.

Employers need to be doing more to prevent industrial diseases

Guest PostRecent figures show that dangerous workplace occurrences remain prevalent, implying that employers could do more to protect workers from occupational diseases.

Roberts Jackson solicitors handle claims on behalf of employees suffering from occupational diseases on a daily basis. Based on the cases our legal team frequently have to handle, we firmly believe that many employers could be doing more to protect the health and safety of their staff members.

Statistics from the Health and Safety Executive, a national watchdog for work-related health, safety and illness confirm our concerns.

Annual figures from HSE show that 452,000 new work-related illness and occupational disease cases were started in 2011/2012. While these statistics are lower than previous years, it suggests that there are still a staggeringly high number of people being diagnosed with occupational illnesses and diseases.

New cases from past exposure

Work-related illnesses and diseases such as asthma, asbestosis and mesothelioma can take years to develop. So, a number of the new cases recorded in 2011/2012 are likely to have been down to previous exposure to hazardous substances at work.

For example, deaths from asbestosis and mesothelioma have risen greatly since 1974. As the diseases can take between 30 and 40 years to develop, the increasing number of new diagnoses may have been caused by people working in unsafe environments in the 70s.

Current dangers causing occupational illnesses

While a number of occupational disease cases recorded in 2011/2012 are likely to have been caused by hazardous workplace conditions from years gone by, there is still evidence to suggest that current workplaces are causing people to suffer from diseases, injuries and illnesses.

According to data recorded by RIDDOR outlining the dangerous occurrences reported to all enforcing authorities, the number of workplace hazards has been similar between 2007 and 2012.

While the total amount of reported dangerous incidents has fallen from 9532 to 6875 across this period, there has been an increase in the following:

• Release or escape of biological agents
• Breathing apparatus failures
• Uncontrolled release or escape of a dangerous substance

The growing presence of these hazards in the workplace could be having a serious impact on employees at present, particularly with regards to their breathing. For example, contact with air-borne substances without wearing correct breathing equipment can lead to the onset of occupational asthma symptoms or another respiratory disease.

Also, as exposure to dangerous substances and incidents in the workplace remains prevalent, we could start to see further new cases of work-related asthma and breathing conditions in the future as people start to develop symptoms as a result of their current contact with hazards.

Reducing present dangers to employees

The number of dangerous occurrences and new work-related injury and illness cases that have recently been recorded implies that a number of employers could be doing more to protect the health and safety of their employees.

By carefully following the regulations put in place to prevent or reduce hazards in the workplace, employers can gain greater control over possible hazards. If more chose to properly adhere to their legal obligation to protect employees at work, this could in turn help to reduce the number of dangerous incidents and occupational diseases currently being recorded.

Why is there a rise in certain types of personal injury claim?

Guest Post Whiplash claims and industrial illness have been major personal injury talking points of late, and it's vital to know what to do if you wish to make a claim.

In recent weeks, a number of stories have appeared in the mainstream media that focus on certain types of personal injury compensation claims.

Personal injury solicitors have become embroiled in a dispute with insurers over a sharp increase in accident claims, while the recent Queen's Speech could also prompt a flurry of industrial disease claims. We consider these two areas in more detail below:

Whiplash claims
At the start of this year, many GPs reported experiencing a large number of cases in which patients appeared to be seeking treatment for whiplash injuries sustained in road traffic accidents that were either greatly exaggerated, or simply did not exist.

This in turn has reportedly led to an 80% rise in motor insurance in the last five years. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) was drawn into an argument with prominent insurance company Aviva over how whiplash claims should be handled.

Aviva asserted that, with a 32% rise in whiplash compensation claims since 2009, it would be best to let insurers of the 'at fault' driver handle these claims directly. It suggested this would take £1.5 billion off the average annual insurance amount paid by UK drivers.

APIL countered that leaving the case in the hands of representatives of the 'at fault' party would leave the victim in a vulnerable position and pose a serious risk that they would not receive adequate compensation for their injuries.

Its Whiplash Report 2012 was designed to encourage greater cooperation between both parties in these cases, and also sought to disprove the claim from insurers that solicitors are often to blame for encouraging less worthy whiplash claims. The study spoke to 4,000 claimants, and found that 28% of them were pursuing compensation on the advice of an insurer, compared with just 21% who took their cue from a personal injury solicitor.

Both sides have been strongly advised to find an amicable resolution to this debate, in order to ensure only genuine victims are put forward for whiplash compensation.

Industrial illness
At the recent state opening of Parliament, the Queen's Speech covered many areas affecting large portions of the UK population. However, the section that will have provided most interest for personal injury lawyers was the mention of a Mesothelioma Bill.

Mesothelioma is a particularly serious type of cancer that is often caused by exposure to asbestos in the workplace. The government appears to be putting measures in place to assist victims of this industrial disease, with Her Majesty announcing: "Legislation will be introduced to ensure sufferers of a certain asbestos-related cancer receive payments where no liable employer or insurer can be traced."

This will allow sufferers to be compensated for their illness even if they cannot trace the condition back to a specific employer or employer's liability insurer. The plans are set to come into force in 2014, and with any mesothelioma victim diagnosed after 25 July 2012 eligible to claim under the new Bill, it is sure to spark a great deal of interest.

Of course, the Bill still has a long way to go before a final version can be released, with its current wording to be scrutinised by the House of Lords, House of Commons and a government committee before it can be passed into law.

All of these debates and pieces of legislation can be confusing for victims during what is already a stressful time. The best thing to do would be to speak to experienced personal injury solicitors about your claim. They will be able to advise you on the likely success of your case, and provide professional support throughout the process to secure you the appropriate compensation.

Don't Be a Victim after an Accident at Work: Show Initiative

Sponsored Post
Have you been harmed at work and the incident wasn’t your fault? When a business is liable for a personal injury accident, they’ll do all they can to mitigate costs – that means attempting to con you out of the compensation you deserve. Don’t be a victim twice. Avoid silly mistakes by getting law advice as soon as possible and wise up to their tricks.

Get a Lawyer

Handling your claim by yourself will lead to you getting less compensation – it’s as simple as that. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise (especially your employers), as it’s statistically proven to be true.

You may be asked to make statements for insurance purposes, but don’t approach these without the help of a lawyer. The business is hoping that you’ll say something damaging, so they can hold it against you in court. Don’t sign a thing until your lawyer has given it a once-over and the appropriate personal injury advice.

Collect Evidence

Remember who saw your accident and take down their details, so you can use their support in the future. Witnesses are crucial for gathering evidence. Also try to take photographs of the scene and write key notes about your accident. Jot down your account of events while they’re still fresh in your mind, so you don’t muddle the facts.

Get Medical Attention

Even if your injuries are minor, go straight to a doctor – don’t delay. Leaving medical attention until later can be considered an intentional exacerbation of your injuries and will count against you in court. This examination can add to your portfolio of evidence.

Also, you may be more injured than you first think; get a medical opinion for the sake of your health. Routinely follow any treatment you’re given and go to every subsequently arranged appointment. Again, if you neglect to do this, it’ll reduce the amount of compensation you’ll receive.

Some injuries can become worse over time, so don’t make a settlement on minor damages, unless your doctor has assured you that you’ll make a full and speedy recovery. Even then, don’t move hastily. You never know if your accident will turn into a nasty condition later down the line.

Keep Records Religiously

Store away any documents regarding injury-related expenses – that means lost wages, medical costs, and changes to lifestyle. You can be compensated for this later, so become more organised with your filing system and claim these figures back. You may even be able to apply for estimated losses in the future, if your injury has long-term ramifications.

Immediately Seek Legal Help

The longer you leave the case, the colder the trail goes. Evidence and witnesses are hard to come by and it can harm your case if you leave everything to the last minute. It’s likely you’ll end up leaving with far less compensation than you deserve, unless you immediately get your compensation claim going. Leave it for over three years and you’ll lose the case altogether.

Composed for personal injury solicitors Jigsaw Law who offer insight into the personal injury sector, supporting those affected every step of the way to a resolution. Either visit their site or contact them for any assistance at the following address: Jigsaw Law Ltd, Pioneer House, Pioneer Business Park, North Road, Ellesmere Port, CH65 1AD

Workplace chemicals and occupational dermatitis claims

Sponsored Post

An employer is responsible for protecting workers from occupational dermatitis. A breach can affect workers' health and lead to industrial disease claims.

Employers have a legal obligation to assess the risks presented by chemicals in the workplace and then eliminate hazards or provide employees with a less dangerous alternative.

Industrial disease solicitors deal with people who have suffered as a result of employers breaching this duty of care. When individuals contract the skin condition through their workplace, they are eligible to make occupational dermatitis claims against the business in question.

However, through adhering to health and safety regulations regarding chemicals, businesses can avoid such costly and time-consuming law suits and also defend themselves should one arise.

An employer's legal obligation
All industries need to protect employees' skin from occupational dermatitis. For example, construction workers are exposed to cement, healthcare staff work with disinfectants and hairdressers use peroxides and dyes on their clients. Regardless of the chemical or substance, it is important that businesses take the appropriate measures to completely eradicate hazards.

When following Control of Substances Hazardous Health Regulations, employers need to carry out a risk assessment on tasks involving chemicals and other substances, implementing ways to eliminate or reduce exposure to the skin. Such measures include:

· Substitution - replacing a substance with one that is safer for employees to use.

· Personal protective equipment- handing out hard hats, goggles, gloves and more to protect the skin from irritation.

· Control, training and monitor- ensuring that employees are supervised when using hazardous substances. They can also provide training on the safe use of chemicals and what to do in the event of an accident.

· Health monitoring- surveying a workforce for symptoms of ill health. This allows employees to identify the beginning of dermatitis and intervene should a worker develop the skin condition.

Dermatitis claims
If an employer is negligent or fails to stick to their legal obligations, which then results in an individual developing the skin disease, the worker could be entitled to make a claim for dermatitis compensation.

Within such industrial disease cases, it is vital that the claimant is able to prove that they have developed occupational dermatitis as a result of their workplace. Medical evidence is required and the substance used must be deemed as potentially harmful to the skin.

During an occupational dermatitis claim, there are two types of compensation available. Firstly, claimants can receive a settlement for loss of amenity as the pain and suffering has resulted in the individual being unable function as they did prior to the skin condition. Also, compensation can be awarded for the losses endured as a result of dermatitis or if the individual has been unable to continue to work.

The employee's duty
If an employer has put all the appropriate measures in place to protect their workers from occupational dermatitis, employees are then responsible for following the processes and making full use of the protective equipment.

Employees can further protect themselves from the skin condition through barrier creams. Using mild cleansers and soaps to wash the skin after work is also effective, while an emollient cream can help replace moisture loss. Organisations could even provide their workforce with such ointments to prevent them from developing dermatitis, further protecting their business from occupational dermatitis claims.

Asbestos dust and the corporate veil… revisited

From the Metro 17/01/12:

When Korah Leah came home from his job clearing asbestos his children would fling their arms around him the minute he arrived.

As a worker in the 1930s he had no idea he was putting their lives at risk when he hugged the youngsters in his dust-caked overalls.

But now, long after his death from cancer in 1968, two of his children have died from asbestos-related illnesses and a further six have irreversible lung damage.

‘It’s a terrible thing to happen to one family,’ said Maureen McGeogh who lost sisters Marjorie, 67, and Cecelia, 77, within six months of each other.

She said her father would be ‘covered in dust’ when he came home from work as a foreman in Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire.

‘We’d all crawl all over him and hug him. I remember my mother shaking his overalls and dust going everywhere. We didn’t realise it was dangerous,’ added Mrs McGeogh, 73, of Luddenden, West Yorkshire.

Her only two siblings not affected by pleural plaques – which can develop into malignant mesothelioma – were born after their father left Cape Asbestos in 1958.

The family has been denied compensation for years as none of them worked directly with asbestos.

I came across this story in the Metro a couple of weeks ago which reminded me of a rather poignant article I read during my LLM. (Yes, I know: I surprised myself, too).

I remember it formed part of our rather painful and protracted analysis of the methods, means and history of piercing the corporate veil under English law. Those early weeks seemed entirely taken up with reading a shedload on the Adams v Cape Industries litigation - all that toxic tort (quote-unquote) stuff made for such cheerful reading. In fact, if memory serves, it formed the first formative assessment we had to prepare for the company law module.

The article itself was a subtle (and not-so-subtle) indictment of the way the corporate form could be legitimately abused utilised in managing the threat of multi-billion dollar lawsuits from hazardous business activities. The fact the threat was being ‘managed’ decades after the hideous risks came to the surface (which were supressed with the effectiveness with which a certain group of modern newspapers might be proud) was something of a fly in the ointment that their Lordships had to grapple with once the case reached the House of Lords. 

But what always struck me as so chilling was the fact it wasn’t just the mine and factory workers who were struck down by deadly asbestos dust  Day to day contact with the Cape workers (and the dust on their clothing) meant that their families became even more unwitting victims too.  And it wasn’t just the ‘shop floor’ workers who were affected; it was many of the Cape executives who were responsible for supressing those deadly facts for all those years.

If you fancy reading more (just in case January hadn’t depressed you enough already) here are the details:

G. Tweedale and L. Flynn, ‘Piercing the Corporate Veil: Cape Industries and Multinational Corporate Liability for a Toxic Hazard 1950-2004, (2007) 8 Enterprise and Society 268-296.