The answer is, “Yes.” It’s all about proper ergonomics.

The sitting position flattens the small of the back, increasing the pressure on the discs in the spine. When a person sits, the discs may not be able to handle the vibrations coming from a moving vehicle.

Also, the ligaments in the back that help hold the spine together can stretch and slacken when the body is in a sitting position for a long time. And the ligaments can stay that way for a while, even after the driver stands.

The stresses on employees’ discs and ligaments can increase their risk for back injury.

Who’s at risk? Truck drivers, emergency medical technicians, mass transit drivers, delivery people, heavy equipment operators, farmers and forklift operators.

Here are some reminders you can give these workers to avoid injury from driving:

• Make sure you can reach the steering wheel without stretching your arms
• Adjust the seat so you can press the foot pedals without moving your lower back forward off the seat back
• Tilt the seat cushion until your thighs are supported along the full length of the cushion without pressure at the back of your knees
• Tilt your seat a notch or two back and forth every half hour to change the direction of vibration on your body
• Keep the vehicle’s suspension in good working order
• Use a lumbar support (or a rolled up towel) to help you fit the back rest to your back
• Use good posture, and
• Take regular stretch breaks for several minutes every hour or two.

Click here for more information.

Let’s use a sports analogy. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal asks the question, “Is it time to retire the football helmet?”

The reason behind the suggestion: While helmets reduce the chance of death on the field, they also create a sense of invulnerability that encourages football players to collide more forcefully and more often, according to the article. If they weren’t wearing helmets, they’d be less likely to have head-on collisions with other players.

And research shows that, in the cases of these football players, brain damage isn’t necessarily the result of any one trauma, but the accumulation of thousands of seemingly minor blows to the head.

No one is really suggesting the NFL do away with helmets.

What is being suggested is changing some of the rules of football to make head-on collisions among players less likely.

Now, let’s apply this to workplace safety.

Here’s one example: Will fall protection equipment absolutely prevent a worker’s injury or death if that person is taking too many risks while wearing the equipment? Of course not.

Safety pros know that, but some workers don’t get it. Here’s a message workers have to hear every so often: Safety gear doesn’t make you invincible. Avoiding injury also requires proper use of the PPE, employees sticking to safety rules, not taking unnecessary risks, etc.

One of the most effective ways to counter workers’ thoughts that they’re invincible is to show them how others have been injured at work. Invite someone who suffered a serious — and possibly debilitating — workplace injury to speak at a safety meeting. Ask the person to explain in detail how the injury has affected his or her life — how everyday activities can no longer be taken for granted.

How have you dealt with employees who feel an injury “won’t happen to me”? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Injuries and illnesses occurred at a rate of 3.9 cases per 100 equivalent full-time workers. The 2007 rate was 4.2, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

There were 3.7 million total nonfatal injuries and illnesses in 2008 compared to 4 million in 2007.

Occupational injuries and illnesses have declined significantly each year since 2003.

The injury and illness rate was highest among mid-size companies with 50 to 249 employees, and lowest among small companies with fewer than 11 workers.

U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis said she was “cautiously optimistic” about the injury rates. But she also noted that OSHA has launched a National Emphasis Program on Recordkeeping that will help assure the accuracy of injury and illness data reported by employers.

An employee is injured while playing volleyball. He files for workers’ comp, saying it was part of his job. His employer disagrees, saying it wasn’t part of his tasks. Does the employee in this case get comp?

Here are the details:

Sean Murphy worked at a fitness facility as a fitness supervisor.

One day while at work, a co-worker asked him to participate in a game of wallyball (volleyball on a racquetball court).

At first he declined, but the co-worker, who wasn’t his supervisor, insisted, saying without him, the game couldn’t go forward “because they didn’t have enough people to participate.”

He agreed to play, and when he jumped up to block a shot, he came down and injured his right leg.

He underwent surgery to repair a fracture.

Since one of his duties was to promote and implement the classes and programs that his employer offered, he filed for workers’ comp.

An arbitrator awarded him comp benefits. The employer appealed for these reasons:

• Murphy had no duties in the racket sports department
• Wallyball wasn’t within Murphy’s responsibilities
• His supervisor never ordered or directed him to play or participate
• The center had a policy prohibiting employees from playing while they were on duty, and
• Playing wallyball was a voluntary recreational activity.

A state court upheld Murphy’s comp benefits, saying his participation in the game “clearly benefited the business of operating a health facility and [Murphy] clearly believed the activity was part of his work duties.”

The court said Murphy’s situation was similar to that of a pro athlete: Recreational activity was part of his job.

What’s your opinion of the court’s decision? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Elmhurst Park District v. Sean T. Murphy, Appellate Court of IL, No. 07-MR-947, 10/6/09. (PDF)

A worker at David’s Cookies was assigned one day to pack biscotti into boxes after they passed through a chopping machine. Sometimes small bits of cookie caused the machine to get clogged.

The employee had worked at the cookie production plant for a year, but never near the biscotti machine. She didn’t speak or read English.

The biscotti machine got clogged. While it was still running, the employee reached her hand under the machine’s guard. Her hand came into contact with the blade, and its chopping motion caused her significant injuries.

The worker sued her employer for intentional harm.

David’s Cookies pointed out that the machine had a proper guard and a sign with a pictogram that showed workers they shouldn’t stick their hands into the machine. Workers’ comp should cover this case, the employer said.

The employee argued she’d never been given training on the biscotti machine.

The company won when the court threw out the lawsuit. The judge wrote an employer “could … assume that a rational person is not gonna stick his hand in a machine that’s being operated by electrical power” but would “call somebody or pull the plug or disengage the machinery.”

Cite: Cong Su v. David’s Cookies, Superior Court of NJ, 8/10/09.

Capanna worked for a contractor that had been hired by an oil refinery in Paulsboro, NJ.

Oct. 5, 1979 was his last day on the job there. He’d been concerned about some other injuries that had occurred at the refinery.

The final job: Remove an old water pump. The bolts that held the pump in place were so rusted they couldn’t be moved. So Capanna got the OK to use an acetylene torch to burn the bolts off.

He was burning off the last bolt when there was an explosion and flash fire.

Turns out, the pump wasn’t for water, it was for crude oil. Capanna was covered in crude oil, and he burst into flames.

The flash blinded him, but he managed to get out of the building that housed the pump. His flesh was engulfed in flames, and he fell.

Two other workers patted the flames out.

Capanna continued to burn for hours because the hot crude oil had stuck to him.

Through all this, he never lost consciousness. He felt everything, and burns are some of the most excruciating injuries because they leave nerves damaged and exposed.

As part of his treatment, his eyes were sewn shut for three months so his eyelids would not shrink while awaiting a skin graft. A pair of glasses worn during the blast saved Capanna’s sight.

In 1979, psychological treatment for severe burn patients was different than today. There were no mirrors anywhere in his hospital room where he could see himself. Even spoons were plastic so he couldn’t see his reflection in them.

One day while he was away from his room working with a physical therapist, Capanna slipped into a public restroom to look in the mirror.

The site of his own face made him throw up. He wasn’t prepared for what he saw in the mirror: missing ears, lips and nose.

“I was devastated,” Capanna said.

Over the course of 20 years, Capanna had 75 surgeries to close his skin and reconstruct his nose, ears and lips.

But reconstructive surgery has its limitations. Children would look at him and say, “Look mommy, a monster.” Adults would turn away from him.

Today, Capanna works with the Phoenix Society, a national organization that works with people who suffer burn injuries.

He recently told his story to The Pocono Record. It’s a story that’s sure to have an impact on workers.

A casino dealer at Harrah’s Metropolis Casino in Illinois claimed she hurt her back while dealing a stand-up card game.

She said she had to twist her upper torso to take the cards in her left hand from the card dispenser located to her right.

Her doctor said she aggravated a prior back injury which was caused by repetitive bending and twisting as a card dealer.

The casino argued that the work incident was only a minor contributing factor.

Result: The Workers’ Compensation Commission ruled that the employee established her accident arose out of and in the course of employment. She’ll get comp benefits.

Does your company teach proper lifting to any employees performing mostly service functions? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Britton v. Harrah’s Metropolis Casino, Ill. W.C. Comm. 2009.

When SafetyNewsAlert.com reported on the OSHA recordkeeping inspection program, readers responded with their best safety incentive ideas that don’t discourage injury reporting:

• Bill B.: True safety incentives are a positive reinforcement of the safety culture. We have set up a program for “on the spot” recognition for above and beyond safety actions. Seems to be working on our construction site with 20 contractors and over 70 workers.
• Dave B.: Supervisors should reward safe practices like wearing PPE, reporting hazards or developing safe solutions. When the employees wearing proper PPE and following safety procedures get all the free stuff, it doesn’t take long for the other employees to join in.
• Safety Sam: I developed a plan to base incentives on employee participation instead of simply not getting hurt. I made a list of things that I wanted to get done, and then presented that to the employee safety committee with the mandate to base getting the incentives on getting this stuff done. It was hugely successful and took away any edge that OSHA might have had in using our incentive plan against us. (Sam is at an OSHA Voluntary Protection Program site.)
• Tim H.: (1) Base the incentive on behavior (individual and collective) not injury reports, and (2) Structure a supervisor’s performance review so that a failure to make a required injury report is a negative.
• Alex: (Our plan is) based on proactive activities reported to and recorded and audited by the safety department. Measurements include number of near-misses reported, job/task observations, area inspections, safety team meetings, completion of compliance and awareness training, and monthly safety topics.

Even more comments had this general theme: Reward positive safety behavior, not a lack of injuries.

You can take our Quick Poll on safety incentive programs on our home page.

A tow-truck operator in Connecticut is dealing with a bizarre twist on workplace violence. Her pet chimpanzee went nuts on an employee, ripping off her hands, nose, lips and eyelids, according to an Associated Press story. Eight months later, the employee remains hospitalized.

And her family wants to sue the chimp’s owner for $50 million.

But the owner is claiming that workers’ comp should be the exclusive remedy, insisting that the chimp was an integral part of the business. The proof? His picture was on the wrecker and he regularly made promotional appearances.

Further, the house where the attack happened is a business office. And the employee’s duties included cleaning the chimp’s play area and picking up his supplies, says the company’s lawyer.

If the courts agree, the employee will have her medical bills paid, and will get some sort of wage replacement, but zilch for pain and suffering.

It’s an interesting strategy for the employer, and one that creates a quandary for the victim, the story points out. She has only one year to file a comp claim. If she chooses not to, and the lawsuit is eventually tossed, she could be left with nothing.

Is the employer unfairly trying to exploit the system? Or is the strategy simply a fair response to existing laws?  Let us know in the comments box below.

Now with just a couple mouse clicks, the whole world can see which U.S. companies had an employee fatality in the previous week.

Example: For the week of Aug. 28, 2009, OSHA’s Weekly Fatality Report lists 18 incidents. First on the list is an incident involving Tri-State Electrical Contracting, Inc., Bay Terrace, NY. The Web page lists Nature of Incident as “victim was operating a knuckle boom truck and was crushed between the boom and the controls.”

That’s all the information given.

While the Web page explains how OSHA receives the incident information, there’s no word (at least as of the writing of this article) on what purpose the agency thinks posting this information will serve.

So, we have two guesses:

1. OSHA hopes employers use the information in safety training to show workers the real-life consequences of various workplace hazards, or
2. OSHA is posting the information to call attention to companies that just experienced a worker fatality or other catastrophe.

There are two potential problems with either of these uses. If these are meant to be used as teaching lessons for employees, the items are light on detail. If this is meant as a Wall of Shame for the companies involved, OSHA is posting the information before investigations can be completed, and before exact cause for the incident can be determined.

One more note: When the page for the Weekly Fatality Reports first appeared on OSHA’s Web site, many may not have found it. To access it, you had to find a one-line clickable link among everything on OSHA’s home page. A few days later, OSHA made it highly noticeable, front and center, in a bright blue box in the middle of its home page.

While safety pros can agree that sharing information about workplace fatalities can help prevent similar incidents from happening, it’s not entirely clear what OSHA’s intention of posting the information is.

What do you think? Is this useful information for safety training? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

In some states, when workers are placed on permanent partial disability, it’s expected that injured employees will make a “good-faith effort” to find alternate employment they can perform. However, one state court just found a reason to overturn that 15-year precedent and allow a worker to keep collecting.

Carolyn Bergstrom worked for Spears Manufacturing Co. as a production janitor. One day, after lifting a garbage can and setting it back down, she felt pain in her back.

The next day the pain became severe, and she was reassigned to sorting parts. She was unable to do that because standing in one place caused her too much discomfort.

An orthopedic surgeon directed her to stop working and file for disability benefits. Initially, she was awarded permanent total disability by an administrative law judge (ALJ).

But the state workers’ comp board set aside that decision, and the ALJ suggested Bergstrom try to return to work. She did, and she was again assigned to the parts sorting job.  She said she wasn’t able to perform the job for more than 3 hours because of pain and went home. The company fired her.

Then her award was reduced to permanent partial disability. The state’s workers’ comp board found that Bergstrom “didn’t exercise good faith” when she failed to perform alternate job duties that her company offered her after her injury.

Bergstrom appealed.

An appeals court upheld the reduction of her award based on the “good-faith effort” doctrine that appeals courts in Kansas had applied to such cases for 15 years. In other words, a workers’ comp award could be reduced if the injured employee didn’t make a good-faith effort to seek out and accept alternate employment.

But a majority on the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state’s workers’ comp law contained no such good-faith provision. It ruled that appeals courts in the state had ruled incorrectly for years on the matter. So in this case, it reversed the lower court’s ruling and sent it back for further consideration.

The upshot: It appears until this is corrected by an act of the Kansas legislature, employees can decide they suffer too much pain after a workplace accident, leave their job and collect benefits without looking for alternate employment.

Let us know what you think about this case in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Bergstrom v. Spears, Supreme Court of KS, No. 99,369, 9/4/09.

Police in Port Panama City say the explosion happened in two dust collectors. An investigation will determine what triggered it.

Authorities say it started in an area where a coating is put on pipes.

The facility will be shut down for several days while OSHA investigates.

After going from three shifts to one and briefly shutting down in December, Monday — the day of the blast — was the first time that all three shifts were up and running again.

Federal statistics show, in a 25-year period, 281 combustible dust explosions and fires killed 119 workers and injured 718.

This week, our SafetyNewsAlert.com Quick Poll was on combustible dust. We asked: Do you think OSHA needs a new standard on combustible dust?

• 51% said no, OSHA should use its existing regulations, and
• 49% said yes, current regulations aren’t enough.

A total of 430 readers voted. Check our home page for a new poll later this week.

Workers were cleaning and dismantling old gasoline storage tanks at a Miami, FL, convenience store when the explosion occurred.

Rescue workers rushed the 38-year-old man to the hospital in hopes doctors may be able to reattach the leg, which was severed below the knee.

Two workers were cleaning and dismantling two 3,000-gallon gas tanks after they were dug up at the store.

While cutting through one tank, a spark from a saw ignited fumes. The tanks hadn’t been used for 20 years.

Part of one tank struck the one worker’s leg.

Last week, OSHA announced a National Emphasis Program (NEP) on recordkeeping.

The agency wants to find out whether the nation’s workplace injury rate is really at its lowest point ever as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

BLS uses reports issued by employers to tabulate the injury rate.

OSHA’s targets in this NEP: Facilities in high-injury industries that have much lower-than-average injuries. The theory: Some of these employers are under-reporting injuries.

OSHA told it’s inspectors on this NEP to ask employees about their company’s safety incentive programs, specifically if they may discourage reporting of injuries. The inspectors will interview a minimum of 10 employees, more if the facility has over 100 workers.

Inspectors have been told to obtain copies of these incentive programs and note their existence in their reports.

While the guidelines say most recordkeeping violations uncovered through this NEP will be classified as “other-than-serious” violations, the citations may also be raised to the willful level when inspectors can document deliberate under-reporting.

Existence of incentive programs may be used to back up raising a recordkeeping violation to the willful level.

What’s your theory on safety incentive programs? How can a company develop an incentive program that reduces injuries yet doesn’t discourage reporting of incidents? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

Our current Quick Poll asks about safety incentive programs. You can take our Quick Poll on our home page.

The Chamber sent a letter to the chairs and ranking members of two Senate committees, asking for hearings on David Michaels’ nomination.

Michaels is a professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health.

In the letter, Chamber President Bruce Josten notes that Michaels’ book, Doubt is Their Product, criticizes industry groups that raise questions about various regulations and the science underlying them.

Josten cites the ergonomics standard that was enacted at the end of the Clinton administration but overturned by Congress in 2001.

The letter states, “Instead of acknowledging that the scientific and medical record relied upon for this regulation left many questions necessary to issue a regulation unanswered … he described the science as settled and the efforts by business advocates to raise concerns about the science as nothing more than a delaying tactic.”

Josten also questions the way Michaels views the role of compliance assistance in workplace safety. And the Chamber wants Michaels to state whether he accepts data showing that workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities are at all time lows.

OSHA just started a National Emphasis Program on recordkeeping which will send inspectors to facilities with low injury rates that are in high-injury industries. Reason: OSHA wants to check whether companies are under-reporting injuries.

Jordan Barab is acting OSHA administrator. When a permanent head is named, he’ll assume the No. 2 position at the agency.

If one of your employees was injured in an exercise class, you wouldn’t expect that to be covered by workers’ comp. But that’s not how one court saw it.

Frank Torre worked for Logic Technology, a company that performed on-site contracting work for General Electric.

Torre suffered a spinal cord injury while participating in an exercise class at the G.E. fitness center during work hours.

A workers’ comp law judge ruled that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.

Torre was off duty when he took the class and wasn’t compensated for nor required to take it.

So to receive workers’ comp, he’d have to prove that his employer sponsored the activity, which required “an affirmative act or overt encouragement by the employer to participate.”

It turns out Torre was encouraged by his employer to have a gym membership. Logic Technology offers reimbursement to its employees for half of their G.E. fitness center membership fees. But in this case, Torre didn’t even seek reimbursement for the membership.

Another factor: Torre’s job required him to develop contacts with current and prospective clients, and the company president stated that participating in the fitness class helped do that.

Not only did the comp board rule in his favor, but on appeal, the Supreme Court of New York did also.

Do you agree with the court’s decision? Since Torre was encouraged to make business contacts at the gym, did that make his workouts part of his job? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Torre v. Logic Technology, Inc., Supreme Court, New York, No. 506423, 7/2/09. (PDF)

Clearwater Management, Inc., dba Splash Handwash, faces $62,500 in fines after an employee was injured at the company’s Fairfield, CT, carwash.

The worker suffered foot and ankle injuries after he became caught in an unguarded opening on the operating conveyor track that moves vehicles through the carwash.

OSHA issued 11 serious citations, including:

• an unguarded conveyor opening
• uncovered electrical outlets in wet areas
• misused extension cords
• a locked emergency exit, and
• lack of an emergency eyewash for employees working with corrosive cleaners.

The company also faces three repeat citations for lack of eye and face protection for a worker spraying chemical cleaners and for not training workers on chemical hazards and required PPE.

This case is another example of OSHA extending its use of repeat citations to cover violations at different locations owned by the same company. OSHA had cited the company for similar hazards at two of its other carwash locations.

The company has 15 days to decide whether to contest the citations.

And the rulemaking process is moving along.

OSHA has submitted the proposed regulation to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

That news comes in the wake of the Chemical Safety Board’s recent release of its investigation into the explosion and fire that killed 14 and injured 36 at the Imperial Sugar plant in Wentworth, GA.

In a 25-year period, 281 combustible dust explosions and fires killed 119 workers and injured 718.

A number of OSHA standards address aspects of combustible dust control, including those on housekeeping, emergency action plans, ventilation, spray finishing, permit required confined spaces and electric power generation.

Do you think a separate OSHA standard on combustible dust is necessary? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below, and take our Quick Poll on our home page.

In its final report on the explosion, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) said ongoing releases of sugar from poorly designed and maintained dust collection equipment, conveyors, and sugar handling equipment led to the blast.

Inadequate housekeeping allowed highly combustible sugar dust to build up throughout the plant’s packing buildings.

A conveyor had been enclosed, creating a confined, unventilated space where sugar dust could accumulate to an explosive concentration. It’s likely the dust was ignited by an overheated bearing.

The initial explosion caused a cascade of secondary dust explosions in adjacent packing buildings.

On top of these problems, the CSB said Imperial hadn’t conducted evacuation drills for its employees and that the explosions and fires disabled most of the emergency lighting, making it difficult for workers to escape.

A 2006 CSB study identified 281 combustible dust fires and explosions between 1980 and 2005 that killed 119 workers and injured 718, and extensively damaged industrial facilities. In April, OSHA started development of a combustible dust standard. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has recommended practices for preventing dust fires and explosions.

Men’s Health magazine has ranked 100 U.S. cities from least to most accident prone.

The most accident-prone: Charleston, WV, followed by Jacksonville, FL, and Corpus Christi, TX.

Safest cities: Rochester, NY, Burlington, VT, and Los Angeles.

The magazine also provides break-outs by category. Most fatal workplace accidents: Cheyenne, WY, Bangor, ME, and Modesto, CA. Highest number of fatal falls: Charleston, WV, Denver and Baltimore.

Men’s Health used stats on fatal workplace accidents (Bureau of Labor Statistics); deaths from car crashes, poisoning, drowning, falls and fires (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention); emergency-room visits (American Hospital Association); and bandage sales.

Check stats for your city, here.

The workers’ comp premium rate in Oregon will decrease 1.3% for 2010. The state had 21,660 accepted disabling claims in 2008, a decrease of 1,773 from 2007. The claims rate is 1.2 per 100 workers, down from 1.3 in 2007.

The report from Oregon also notes that 30.4% of claims were filed by workers in the first year with their employer.

The average age of workers making claims was 41. If you assume most workers are between the ages of 18 and 64, 41 is the average age of workers overall.

So it’s not how old workers are that matters, it’s how long they’ve been with your company.

Some other statistics from Oregon’s report:

• The most common injuries were sprains, strain and tears (47%); fractures, 12%
• The top events causing injuries: overexertion (24%); struck by or against an object (14%); and bodily reaction (14%)
• The biggest sources of injuries: bodily condition or motion (24%); floors, walks or ground (17%); and containers (8.5%), and
• The body parts most commonly affected: back (21.5%); trunk, except back (16%); and knees (11%).

Workers’ comp boards and courts draw a fine line between what is and what isn’t a work-related injury that qualifies for benefits. See if you can guess how the court ruled in this case:

Michael Haley worked in a shipping yard which handled arriving and departing tractor trailers and the loading and unloading of the trucks. Part of his regular duties included climbing into and out of truck cabs.

One day at work, when he stepped into the cab of a truck, he felt a spasm in his left leg.

Haley didn’t climb the step in an unusual or awkward way, and there wasn’t anything strenuous about stepping up a total of 16 inches.

After the spasm, Haley had no strength in his leg and had trouble moving it.

Doctors diagnosed a ruptured quadriceps tendon and performed surgery quickly thereafter. Complications soon developed, causing Haley to walk with a cane for some time after the injury.

He applied for workers’ comp. The state comp commission found that he hadn’t proven his injury “arose out of” his employment and denied his claim for benefits. Haley appealed.

A state appeals court upheld the comp commission’s decision, so Haley didn’t get benefits.

Haley had argued that the 16-inch step was higher than a normal step that most people would encounter outside of work, and for that reason, he should get comp.

However, the court noted that doctors weren’t able to explain any link between Haley’s work duties and the rupture. All they were able to say is that the injury occurred at work.

“At work” isn’t necessarily good enough to qualify for workers’ comp. Case closed: The company won.

Do you think the court made the right decision? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Haley v. Springs Global U.S., Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Co., Court of Appeals of Virginia, No. 2841-08-3, 8/18/09.

The 20-year-old tradesman was hammering in a nail at a construction site in Melbourne, Australia, when the nail flew into his eye. No word on whether he was wearing any eye or face protection.

He then pulled the 40 mm nail from his eye before paramedics could arrive.

The attending paramedic said the man had some blurred vision, but appeared to have escaped serious injury to his eye.

“If someone has something go into their eye like a nail, they are probably best to leave it in there to reduce further damage, allowing the object to be removed [at a] hospital,” the paramedic advised.

Andrew Holcombe of Bath, England, has been sent to jail for 18 months for dealing crack.

The 54-year-old said he bought the drugs after receiving compensation for a workplace accident. He claims he was just sharing the drugs with his friends.

Police found almost 22 grams of cocaine, weighing scales and £2,800 cash ($4,600) in Holcombe’s house.

His lawyer claims Holcombe turned to cocaine after suffering a serious workplace accident and becoming listless when he was laid up for six weeks.

He’d received £9,300 ($15,350)  for the workplace accident.

Imagine this: An employee, who happens to be morbidly obese, is injured at work. Doctors say, before he has surgery to correct the workplace injury, he needs weight-loss surgery.

And, in two separate cases, courts rule that comp must cover the weight-loss surgery!

First, the case of Adam Childers. While working at Boston’s Gourmet Pizza in Indiana, he was struck by a freezer door, injuring his lower back. At the time, Childers was six feet tall and weighed 340 pounds.

A doctor said before Childers could have back fusion surgery, he needed lap-band surgery to lose weight.

A workers’ comp panel awarded him benefits to have the weight-loss surgery. His employer appealed, arguing that Childers suffered from a pre-existing health condition of morbid obesity.

However, the court said the restaurant couldn’t prove that Childers had a weight problem that impaired his health and/or required medical intervention. Case closed, he gets the surgery paid for by comp.

In the second case, Edward Sprague injured his knee at work in 1976 and reinjured it in 1999.

During that time span, Sprague’s weight went from 225 to 350 pounds.

Doctors told Sprague his weight would prevent successful treatment of the knee condition, so he sought workers’ comp benefits for weight-loss surgery.

His insurance carrier argued that the claim wasn’t compensable because the obesity wasn’t caused by his 1976 accident.

Last year a state court ruled Sprague’s bypass surgery should be paid for by workers’ comp. The court said the injury was more than a minor cause of Sprague’s need for gastric surgery.

Now, the Oregon Supreme Court has issued the last word in this case. It agrees that comp should cover the weight-loss surgery.

Should state comp laws be amended to prohibit employees from getting workers’ comp benefits to pay for weight-loss surgery in cases like these? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

Now there’s a way for legally removing these people from the workplace.

Some companies conduct fitness for duty (FFD) evaluations in these situations. They’re similar to post-offer, pre-hire physical exams to determine ability to do the job. But FFDs can be done any time during employment and are broader: They determine physical, mental and emotional fitness.

A comprehensive FFD program would include:

• pre-placement medical evaluations, often done with safety-sensitive jobs
• absence management, including people who call in sick Mondays and Fridays and presenteeism, people not fully productive under stress from family issues or medication
• for-cause drug and alcohol testing, based on credible report of impairment, and
• pre-assignment clearance to new tasks or after leave due to injury or FMLA.

An FFD would withstand legal challenges if a company:

• administers it fairly across the board
• makes tests reasonable and job-related
• doesn’t make decisions on past health records, such as cancer history
• keeps test results confidential, and
• gives a disqualified employee the right to submit his or her own evidence as to fitness for duty.

For more information on FFD evaluations, click here.

Does your company use FFD evaluations? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

What do you do with employees who have a history of injuries? Fire them and they may sue, but leave them on the job and they might harm themselves or others.

Now there’s a way for legally removing these people from the workplace.

Some companies conduct fitness for duty (FFD) evaluations in these situations. They’re similar to post-offer, pre-hire physical exams to determine ability to do the job. But FFDs can be done any time during employment and are broader: They determine physical, mental and emotional fitness.

A comprehensive FFD program would include:

• pre-placement medical evaluations, often done with safety-sensitive jobs
• absence management, including people who call in sick Mondays and Fridays and presenteeism, people not fully productive under stress from family issues or medication
• for-cause drug and alcohol testing, based on credible report of impairment, and
• pre-assignment clearance to new tasks or after leave due to injury or FMLA.

An FFD would withstand legal challenges if a company:

• administers it fairly across the board
• makes tests reasonable and job-related
• doesn’t make decisions on past health records, such as cancer history
• keeps test results confidential, and
• gives a disqualified employee the right to submit his or her own evidence as to fitness for duty.

For more information on FFD evaluations, click here.

Does your company use FFD evaluations? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

If you’ve read up on workers’ comp cases, you may have already guessed that the answer is yes, he did get comp.

And it’s cases like this one that are prompting states to rewrite their comp laws. Tennessee just did.

In this particular case, Robert Powell, a Cedar Rapids Gazette employee, was one of 75 workers who participated in a family night of bowling sponsored by his employer.

The day after the event, he felt pain in his back and left leg. He underwent two rounds of surgery. He was placed on disability, but later lost his job because of a dispute over whether he was able to work, according to an article in the Des Moines Register.

Four years later, the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner awarded Powell more than $100,000 in benefits.

The commissioner pointed to a Supreme Court ruling that says if activities that led to an injury were for the benefit of the employer, or for the mutual benefit of the employer and worker, they should be treated as work-related.

So, should you cancel that employee picnic or your softball team? Employers get in trouble when:

• employee attendance is expected
• the event takes place during normal work hours
• uniforms promoting the company are worn, or
• transportation is provided to the event.

About one in four states have taken legislative action to limit workers’ comp awards for injuries that happen at company-sponsored events.

Tennessee’s governor signed one such piece of legislation into law in June. The new law states, “No compensation shall be allowed for an injury due to the employee’s voluntary participation in recreational, social, athletic or exercise activities (including, but not limited to, athletic events, competitions, parties, picnics and exercise programs) whether or not the employer pays some or all of the costs thereof.”

There are four exceptions:

• required participation
• participation that benefits the company in ways other than employee health or morale
• events during work hours that are part of work duties, and
• injuries due to an unsafe condition during voluntary participation using facilities designated by, furnished by or maintained by the employer, and the company had knowledge of the unsafe condition.

Should employers have to pay for employees’ injuries during company-sponsored recreational events? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Imagine this: A company sponsors a Family Fun night of bowling for its employees and their families to improve morale. One employee injures his back while bowling. Does he get workers’ comp because this was an employer-sponsored event?

If you’ve read up on workers’ comp cases, you may have already guessed that the answer is yes, he did get comp.

And it’s cases like this one that are prompting states to rewrite their comp laws. Tennessee just did.

In this particular case, Robert Powell, a Cedar Rapids Gazette employee, was one of 75 workers who participated in a family night of bowling sponsored by his employer.

The day after the event, he felt pain in his back and left leg. He underwent two rounds of surgery. He was placed on disability, but later lost his job because of a dispute over whether he was able to work, according to an article in the Des Moines Register.

Four years later, the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner awarded Powell more than $100,000 in benefits.

The commissioner pointed to a Supreme Court ruling that says if activities that led to an injury were for the benefit of the employer, or for the mutual benefit of the employer and worker, they should be treated as work-related.

So, should you cancel that employee picnic or your softball team? Employers get in trouble when:

• employee attendance is expected
• the event takes place during normal work hours
• uniforms promoting the company are worn, or
• transportation is provided to the event.

About one in four states have taken legislative action to limit workers’ comp awards for injuries that happen at company-sponsored events.

Tennessee’s governor signed one such piece of legislation into law in June. The new law states, “No compensation shall be allowed for an injury due to the employee’s voluntary participation in recreational, social, athletic or exercise activities (including, but not limited to, athletic events, competitions, parties, picnics and exercise programs) whether or not the employer pays some or all of the costs thereof.”

There are four exceptions:

• required participation
• participation that benefits the company in ways other than employee health or morale
• events during work hours that are part of work duties, and
• injuries due to an unsafe condition during voluntary participation using facilities designated by, furnished by or maintained by the employer, and the company had knowledge of the unsafe condition.

Should employers have to pay for employees’ injuries during company-sponsored recreational events? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

You hear it all the time: Sedentary, overweight and out-of-shape employees can be a huge drain when it comes to health insurance, workers’ comp and other costs. Whip ‘em into shape and you’ll save, save, save!

True, but be careful. A recent court decision offers a cautionary tale.

The bottom line: An employee who suffered a spinal cord injury while exercising at a gym was awarded workers’ comp.

Now, under most circumstances, employees who get hurt in voluntary off-duty activities aren’t entitled to comp. But there are three exceptions: Comp can be awarded if an employer requires the employee to participate, compensates him or her for doing so, or sponsors the activity.

In this case, the employee was neither required nor compensated for his gym membership — though he had the option to be reimbursed for half of his membership (he chose not to take it).

And the company didn’t exactly “sponsor” the activity.

What it did was encourage the employee to participate. Why? To help develop contacts with current and prospective clients.

In affirming a lower court decision, the state Supreme Court cited two factors:  (1) The company at least offered to pay half of its employees’ membership fees; and (2) it encouraged participation as a way to further business interests.

It did not say whether either factor alone would have been enough to carry the day.

What do you think? Should you worry about crossing a line when you urge employees to lead active, healthier lifestyles? Let us know in the Comment Box below.

A lawyer representing the three men said the message to businesses is clear: If a company employs an illegal immigrant and that person gets hurt on the job, the employer is still responsible financially.

All three were in construction but working on different projects.

An illegal immigrant from Mexico was scalded over large portions of his body by an exploding pipe at a Wall Street construction site and settled his case for $2.5 million.

A second undocumented Mexican worker suffered severe injuries to his left foot and other parts of his body when a beam fell on his lower body at a building site in Manhattan. The worker settled his case for $750,000.

The third worker, from Ecuador, was injured at a construction site in Queens when three 44×10-foot trusses, each weighing 200 pounds, fell on him. He suffered a fractured hip and other injuries. His settlement is for $600,000.

This worker said at a news conference, “The contractor tried to blame me.” When asked what message he would give to other workers, he said, “Don’t be afraid to talk to a lawyer.”

Joel Magallan of Asociacion Tepeyac, an immigrant advocacy group, said, “They [undocumented immigrants] have to know today that they have rights — the same rights as other workers who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.”

Let us know what you think of this story in the Comments Box below.

We polled our editors of safety publications at Progressive Business and came up with this list:

10. More research on dangers of nano-particles to exposed employees. Among the new studies, one that showed long, thin carbon nanotubes exhibited the same effects as long, thin asbestos fibers when injected into mice.

9. The National Institutes of Health says the superbug methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is no longer limited to hospitals. Outbreaks of one strain — community-associated MRSA — have turned up in athletes, prison inmates, the military, daycare attendees and those who live in communal conditions such as college dormitories.

8. MSHA proposes and enacts a flurry of new mining rules in the wake of previous years’ mining disasters, such as Crandall Canyon, including: a policy letter on underground communication and tracking devices; a new final rule that increases the pounds per square inch that pressure seals must withstand in an explosion; a proposal to test miners for drugs and alcohol; and a final rule requiring additional safety equipment for rescue teams at underground mines.

7. California gets serious with heat stress on the job. The company that hired a pregnant teen who died of heat stroke this spring after working in a vineyard without enough shade or water was hit with the highest fine ever issued to a farming operation in the state. Merced Farm Labor’s license was also revoked until Aug. 24, 2011 after the death of Maria Jimenez.

6. The employer payment for most types of PPE rule takes effect. OSHA started enforcing the new rule May 15, 2008. The only exceptions: non-specialty safety-toe protective footwear; shoes or boots with built-in metatarsal protection requested by an employee; logging boots; and everyday work or ordinary clothing used solely for protection from weather.

5. An explosion at an Imperial Sugar Refinery near Savannah, GA, kills 14 people and injures dozens more. The blast destroyed a packaging plant. The cause, ignition of dust, placed an emphasis on workplace ignitable dust hazards.

4. Amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act to place burden on employers. The revision may dramatically increase the number of employees who can legally qualify as disabled. Action step for employers and those in charge of safety: Instead of an open-ended light-duty assignment that might define a worker as disabled, re-assess the returning worker’s condition every two weeks.

3. Distracted drivers prove fatal and costly. A Sept. 12 collision between two trains in California killed 25 people. The National Transportation Safety Board is still investigating, but preliminary information shows the locomotive engineer of one train was using his cell phone to text within 30 seconds of the accident. In the wake of the crash, the Federal Railroad Administration enacted a new rule banning railroad employees from using cell phones (except in emergencies) and other electronic devices on the job. In another case, International Paper Co. agreed to pay $5.2 million to settle a personal injury lawsuit after one of its employees used her cell phone while driving for work. The employee hit another car, and its driver had to have an arm amputated as a result.

2. Now OSHA can multiply PPE and training fines by the number of employees. Under a new rule, OSHA can issue per-employee citations for those types of violations starting Jan. 12, 2009.

1. President-elect Barack Obama promises an “invigorated” OSHA. Obama supported the Protecting America’s Workers Act as a Senator. The bill would increase OSHA penalties. Obama has also called on OSHA to issue standards “in a timely and more effective manner.” While the financial crisis may delay some reforms the new administration may want, some changes can be made by just shifting existing funding.

Vote for your top safety story or nominate one of your own in the Comments Box below.

Employee Noel Collins was injured due to a fall while installing ceiling tile in a movie theater owned by West 13th Street Owners Corp. He sued, claiming he wasn’t provided with an appropriate safety device, in this case a scaffold.

Collins had constructed a makeshift scaffold consisting of one piece of plywood on top of an A-frame ladder with the other end of the plywood resting on a wall that was the same height as the ladder.

The company argued that Collins was the sole cause of his injuries because he didn’t use materials on hand to construct a proper scaffold.

But the court said expecting the employee to build his own scaffold from scratch “improperly shifted the responsibility for creating a proper safety device” from the employer to the employee.

Now a jury will decide on damages.

Cite: Collins v. West 13th Street Owners Corp., Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Dept., NY, 6/30/09.

In a study in the July issue of The American Journal of Preventive Medicine, researchers estimate there were nearly 10,000 emergency room visits for computer-related injuries in 2006, including cuts, bruises, sprains and fractures.

More than half of the injuries happened when people were moving their computers. The monitor was the piece of computer equipment most commonly involved.

Injuries have declined somewhat since 2003 with the sales of more and more LCD monitors.

Another hazard: trips and falls over computer wires.

Between October 1, 2008 and May 31, 2009, OSHA has conducted 24,075 inspections, according to data released at the American Society of Safety Engineers’ Safety 2009 conference. At that rate, OSHA should match the number of inspections performed in 2008: 38,450.

So far in the 2009 fiscal year, 63% of inspections have been the result of OSHA programs that target industries or facilities with high incident rates.

The rest, 37% are due to fatalities, injuries or an employee complaint.

Six out of ten inspections have been in the construction industry.

In 2008, 121 inspections resulted in fines of more than $100,000. From Oct. 1, 2008 through June 26, 2009, there have been 72 six-figure or larger fines.

Sometimes, OSHA inspectors don’t find any problems. That’s been the case 22% of the time so far in FY ‘09.

OSHA finds an average of 3.1 violations per inspection. Of those, it classifies 81% in categories that mean higher fines for companies: serious, willful, repeat and failure to abate.