Category Archives: Legislation

OSHA-Logo

Let OSHA Do Its Job

OSHA is being prevented from fulfilling its mission.

In 1970, Congress passed the Occupational Safety & Health Act (the Act), which created the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Among other things, the Act requires every employer to provide a safe workplace. To help employers reach this goal, OSHA promulgated hundreds of rules in the decade after it was created. OSHA’s rulemaking process has, however, slowed to a trickle since then.

While the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health recently identified over 600 toxic chemicals to which workers are exposed, in the last 16 years OSHA has added only two toxic chemicals to its list of regulated chemicals. This is because Congress, Presidents and the courts have hamstrung OSHA. For example, in March 2001 the Bush Administration and a Republican Congress effectively abolished OSHA’s ergonomics rule, a rule the agency had worked on for many years.

These delays and inactions have caused more than 100,000 avoidable workplace injuries and illnesses.

These delays and inactions have caused more than 100,000 avoidable workplace injuries and illnesses. Workers are being injured and killed by known hazardous circumstances and OSHA can’t act.

Congress and the President need to break this logjam – we need to free OSHA to do its job of safeguarding workers.

caregiver1

Injuries to In-Home Care Providers: Compensable?

Today’s post comes from guest author Charlie Domer from The Domer Law Firm.

A growing segment of the workforce involves individuals providing in-home medical care and assistance to private individuals. The assistance can range from a few hours per day, to 24/7 medical and domestic care for incapacitated individuals.

If the in-home care provider gets hurt while performing work duties, does this entitle the care provider to worker’s compensation benefits?

In a previous blog post, we discussed nannies, baby-sitters and domestic servants. “Home care providers” are treated differently (though an argument could be made that the care recipients from a nanny or from an in-home care provider are equally dependent — a baby and an elderly individual often have similar needs). The Commission held that persons providing personal/medical care to an “invalid” are not domestic servants (and thus, not statutorily exempt from the Act’s coverage). (Ambrose v. Harley Vandeveer Family Trust, WC Claim No. 86-39393 (LIRC Feb. 28, 1989); Winkler v. Vivian Smith, WC. Claim No. 1998059089 (LIRC Jun 29, 2000))

The Department generally considers that persons hired in a private home to give primary care to an individual whose duties involve assisting  in walking, bathing, preparing meals and special diets, supervising use of medications and exercise therapy and other duties commonly associated with the meaning of primary-care giver, meet the definition of home-care provider.

 If the domestic servant exemption does not apply, the question is: are home care providers to be considered as employees of the cared-for individual?

Interestingly, another statutory exception which may apply involves that of the cared-for individuals enterprise, as the person providing personal/medical care does not perform these services as part of the trade, business, occupation or profession of the cared-for individual (102.07(4)(a)2). Since the cared-for individual is not in the business of providing in-home care, there would be no worker’s compensation coverage, unless the cared-for individual elects to award these. Thus, the Department, based on this statutory exception, suggests that no employer-employee relationship exists under the Act.

As the Commission has left this issue largely undecided in the case of a private cared-for individual hiring their care provider, arguments exist both for and against coverage. Alternatively, if a county referred the home care provider to the individual and the county set the provider’s rate of pay, the county is the employer for worker’s compensation purposes. (See Cobb v. County of Barron, WC Claim No. 2006-043003 (LIRC Dec. 11, 2008); Nickell v. Kewaunee County, WC Claim No. 94064155 (LIRC Sept. 24, 1996)).

 

NIOSH_Latex_Facts

NIOSH Acts To Prevent Lifting Injuries For Home Healthcare Workers

Today’s post comes to us from our colleague Jon Gelman from New Jersey.

The National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH has published educational information to prevent musculoskeletal injuries at work. Injuries caused by ergonomic factors have been a major issue of the Federal government for decades and have been the basis for repetitive trauma motion claims for workers’ compensation benefits. While the Clinton-Democratic administration had advocated strongly for ergonomic regulations, the Bush-Republican administration took action to reject the reporting of ergonomic injuries to OSHA.

A work-related musculoskeletal disorder is an injury of the muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, joints, cartilage, bones, or blood vessels in the arms, legs, head, neck, or back that is caused or aggravated by work tasks such as lifting, pushing, and pulling. Symptoms include pain, stiffness, swelling, numbness, and tingling.

Lifting and moving clients create a high risk for back injury and other musculoskeletal disorders for home healthcare workers. Continue reading