OSHA Releases Updated Workplace Safety and Health Voluntary Practices

To help medium and smaller-size businesses initiate effective safety and health programs, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration today released Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs, an update of its 1989 guidelines, reflecting changes in the economy, workplaces, and evolving safety and health issues. The recommendations feature a new section on multi-employer workplaces and a greater emphasis on continuous improvement, OSHA said.

“Since OSHA’s original guidelines were published more than 25 years ago, employers and employees have gained a lot of experience in how to use safety and health programs to systematically prevent injuries and illnesses in the workplace,” Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health said in a statement. “We know that working together to implement these programs will help prevent injuries and illnesses, and also make businesses more sustainable.”

The recommendations include seven core elements for a safety and health program:

• Management leadership
• Worker participation
• Hazard identification and assessment
• Hazard prevention and control
• Education and training
• Program evaluation and improvement
• Communication and coordination for host employers, contractors and staffing agencies

Implementing recommended practices brings benefits to businesses that include healthier employees, fewer injuries and, ultimately, lower workers compensation costs:


  • Preventing workplace injuries and illnesses
  • Improving compliance with laws and regulations
  • Reducing costs, including reductions in workers compensation premiums
  • Engaging workers
  • Enhancing their social responsibility goals
  • Increasing productivity and enhancing overall business operations

Because management leadership is an important part of the equation, OSHA recommends that business owners, managers, and supervisors:

  • Make worker safety and health a core organizational value.
  • Be fully committed to eliminating hazards, protecting workers, and continuously improving workplace safety and health.
  • Provide sufficient resources to implement and maintain the safety and health program.
  • Visibly demonstrate and communicate their safety and health commitment to workers and others.
  • Set an example through their own actions.

To establish a program, OSHA said organizations need to create a written policy signed by top management that describes the organization’s commitment to safety and health. By creating specific goals and objectives, management sets expectations for the company’s managers, supervisors and workers. The goals and objectives should focus on specific actions that will improve workplace safety and health, OSHA said.

Workers Comp Lessons from Major League Baseball

NEW ORLEANS—Bringing workers compensation under central control and greater oversight has drastically changed the cost and efficacy of one of Major League Baseball’s biggest expenditures. Here at the final day of the RIMS conference, Anthony Avitabile, vice president of industry risk management for Major League Baseball, shared some of his insight on implementing a unified workers comp program to reduce expenses while offering better services. Although not every business has the high-profile brand or famous talent of a professional sports team, MLB’s example offers some valuable lessons for how large companies with different facilities or franchises can reduce workers comp spend and enhance treatment for employees.

Before 2003, clubs operated individually, placing workers comp insurance independently. To do so, they called upon varying philosophies related to program structure, medical provider relationships, and off-season indemnity for minor league players who were out of work during a key earnings period outside of the game. Every franchise was fending for themselves when it came to procuring coverage and securing treatment for players. Since 2003, the league has required compliance with a group policy, featuring group insurance purchasing, unified philosophies, and greater information sharing about injuries, expenses and treatment standards. In the year before Avitabile’s program was put into place, total costs incurred peaked in 2002 at about $26.3 million, while costs in 2013 were down to $14.8 million.

Critical components of the new program include a drastic effort to understand and review losses across all franchises, what he called a “relentless” effort to manage the process in every club, incentivizing good behavior and results, and instituting universal standards in the approach to coverage. The league made a unilateral decision to dedicate the greatest spend to best-in-class service providers, for example, concluding that return to maximum medical improvement offered the biggest long-term savings. Seizing on the competitive nature shared throughout the league, Avitabile also issues one-page annual scorecards for the CFO and other executives in the individual clubs and review at an organizational level. These show performance relative to other clubs, highlighting top cost drivers and key ways to improve. A workers compensation quality council was also formed to focus on provider agreements, review complex questions regarding released players, and evaluate and implement in-house physical therapy and rehab operations.

Leveraging the full size and reputation of the league also offered substantial savings in negotiating with providers, which Avitabile cited as one of the biggest areas of savings when managed in advance of any injuries. Partially thanks to volume and ensured prompt payment backed by the organization, these pre-negotiated rates are typically below workers comp state medical fee schedules. Some of his tips for negotiating these provider agreements include:

provider agreement negotiation

Bringing some services in-house also offered considerable savings while maximizing reliable access to top treatment and consistent protocols. The league-wide move to in-house physical therapy instead of third-party treatment, for example, brought total incurred PT and rehab costs down from about $1.6 million in 2002 to approximately $340,000 in 2012.

New in Workers Comp: “Lifestyle Risk” and the Dangers of Telecommuting

NEW ORLEANS—While controlling workers compensation costs often focuses on mitigating the risk of slip-and-falls or ensuring employees have proper safety gear, some notable exposures exist in employees’ everyday personal lifestyle choices. In the Thought Leader Theater at RIMS 2015, Fred Hubbs, a partner in the lawfirm Hall Booth Smith, P.C., discussed how different trends—from the obesity epidemic to telecommuting—can increase risk exposure in the workplace.

As the workers comp system is based on principles of no fault and no personal responsibility and there are broad state definitions of what is medically necessary or what an employer is responsible for, employers are often vulnerable to what Hubbs calls “lifestyle risk.” Obesity, smoking, non-compliance with treatment for diabetes, and telecommuting can all put employees at risk, and either contribute to a compensable event or complicate the recovery process.

Obesity, which affects approximately 37% of Americans and is expected to his 50% by 2030, is a well-documented factor in workers comp, with obese workers filing twice as many claims that tend to be up to seven times more expensive and see these workers missing thirteen more days a year, while indemnity benefits paid can be five times higher. And some states have ordered employers to pay for weight loss that is medically necessary to facilitate recovery.

Smokers are also drastically more likely to be injured at work, and smoking while on the job can lead to specific accidents in the workplace that are compensable. In fact, courts have ruled that, if smoking is only a slight deviation from job duties, an accident that occurs while a worker is on a smoke break is compensable. In at least two states, employers are also now required to pay for smoking cessation programs if doctors deem it necessary to help with recovery from surgery.

For diabetic employees, a refusal to comply with treatment can expose employers, whether because of the increased risk of seizure, making a minor injury worse, or delaying recovery. Some treatments for injuries sustained on the job can also aggravate pre-existing diabetes, which can be a compensable event.

For all of these issues, Hubbs recommended that employers get more proactive to help employees be healthier, reduce workers comp costs, and even benefit from some incentives from new healthcare laws. Stop-smoking campaigns and weight-loss or activity-boosting initiatives can all aid in these efforts, and these employee-sponsored wellness programs are promoted under new healthcare laws, which may offer direct incentive to businesses that introduce them. Ensuring that employees are complying with doctors’ orders regarding these required efforts is also important, and may be actionable if employees are refusing. There are laws that require employees to comply if they are receiving workers comp benefits, Hubbs said, and employers should seriously examine their legal ability to stop compensation if an employee refuses to submit to a reasonable examination or treatment.

Finally, Hubbs cautioned that many employers should be more cognizant of the risks of telecommuting. While working remotely is certainly nothing new, it is continuing to grow, especially after President Obama signed the Telework Enhancement Act requiring government agencies to establish policies for working outside the office. These arrangements can severely complicate workers comp questions, however, as the lines blur surrounding whether an accident that occurs in the home is compensable and whether an employee is on or off the clock at any given time. To mitigate some of these risks, he recommended that employers:

  • Visit the “jobsite” to evaluate where employees will be working
  • Email or otherwise communicate when an employee is on or off the clock
  • Create a written and signed agreement that designates hours and breaks, designates rooms in the house as “office” space, specify what duties are included in the telework, designate “personal comfort” areas, and attach panel of physicians in states where appropriate

The End of the Florida Workers Compensation System?

Workers Compensation Florida

A recent development in Florida has jumped that state to the front of the age old workers comp debate between employers and their workers. On August 13, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jorge Cueto declared the state’s workers’ compensation exclusive remedy statute (440.01 et seq.) unconstitutional on the grounds that the benefits given to injured employees by the law no longer provide a fair exchange for the surrender of an employee’s right to sue the employer for negligence damages. “The benefits in the act have been so decimated that it no longer provides a reasonable alternative,” said Judge Cueto.

For years, workers rights attorneys in Florida have been asking judges to strike down the Florida workers compensation law. They argue that successive state legislatures have continually eroded the benefits that injured employees receive under the workers comp system. Employers and some legislators counter that high workers comp insurance premiums have those changes necessary in order to stabilize the state’s economy.

For now, Judge Cueto’s ruling will not impact areas outside of Miami-Dade’s judicial circuit. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has received criticism for not directly intervening in the Miami-Dade case on behalf of the state, has filed an appeal to Judge Cueto for a rehearing. If that appeal is denied, as seems likely, then the case could eventually make its way to the Florida Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court uphold Judge Cueto’s ruling then workers throughout the state will be able to settle their workers compensation claims, then file a civil claim to recover additional benefits.

This case will join other cases challenging parts of Florida’s workers comp statutes. The state Supreme Court is considering an appeal from an injured firefighter who was left with no income after his temporary wage-loss benefits expired.