By Jeryl L. OlsonKay R. Bonza, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: New Illinois Office of State Fire Marshall (“OSFM”) regulations, (42 Ill. Reg. 10476, 10662-667, June 15, 2018, effective October 13, 2018), require that periodic operation and maintenance include recorded “walkthrough inspections” for underground storage tank (UST) facilities. 

Under new OSFM rules, each Class A Operator, who has the primary responsibility of operating and maintaining the UST system, and Class B Operator, designated with day-to-day aspects of operating, maintaining and recordkeeping for UST systems “… shall perform walkthrough inspections of each storage tank system for which he or she is designated, and shall record the results of each inspection on a checklist to be maintained with the facility records.”  The walkthrough inspection requirement took effect on October 13, 2018, and replaces the previous requirement to conduct quarterly equipment inspections.  The rules under Part 35, Section 176.655 of the Illinois Administrative Code, require that at a minimum, a walkthrough inspection shall be conducted at least once every 30 days and include inspection of:

  • Release detection methods, including monitoring systems and all associated sensors;
  • The integrity of spill and overfill prevention and spill containment equipment and manholes;
  • Dispensers, hoses, breakaways and hardware for leaks and damage; and
  • Operational status of impressed current cathodic protection systems, including checking and recording that the power is on and that the voltage, amps and hour meter have the appropriate readings required under Section 175.510(f), with a log entry that shows date of inspection, initials of inspector, hour, volt and amp readings, and power on verification.

In addition, at least once per year the Operator shall inspect:

  • All containment sumps by: (i) checking for visual damage to the sumps, covers and lids; (ii) checking for the presence of regulated substances or any indication that a release may have occurred; and (iii) checking that the sumps and the interstitial areas for any double-walled sumps with interstitial monitoring are free of water, product and debris;
  • All UST equipment including emergency stops for the presence or absence of visible damage to any UST component;
  • Emergency stops to document they have been tested by the owner/operator or a contractor for interconnection and pump shutdown;
  • Shear valves to document they have been visually inspected by the owner/operator or a contractor;
  • All required signs to ensure they are fully visible and all communication systems in place and operational;
  • All daily, 30-day, monthly and annual inspections, testing, reporting and records required under 41 Ill. Adm. Code 174, 175 and 176; and
  • If applicable, the tank gauge stick or groundwater bailers, for operability and serviceability (manual tank gauging or groundwater monitoring).

To assist owners and operators with rule compliance and recordkeeping requirements, the OSFM provides a UST Operations and Maintenance Plan Template Form (OSFM O&M Plan Template).  As noted in the OSFM O&M Plan Template and in the rules, each Class A or Class B Operator “shall perform walkthrough inspections” of each storage tank system for which they are designated and shall record the results of each inspection “on a checklist to be maintained with the facility records.”  Specific 30 day inspection report forms and annual walkthrough inspection report forms are also available from the OSFM.  The OSFM also provides FAQs For Class A, B, and C Operator Training.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of Seyfarth’s Environmental Compliance, Enforcement & Permitting Team.

By Brent I. ClarkJames L. CurtisAdam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: Last month at the 2018 National Safety Council (NSC) Congress the speakers noted that “safety programs shouldn’t end when employees walk out the door and get into a vehicle to drive.”  The session was presented by Karen Puckett, the Director for the Center for Environmental Excellence Division of Enterprise Development at the University of Texas at Arlington, and Lisa Robinson, Senior Program Manager for Employer Transportation Safety, for the NSC. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics provided that in 2017 transportation deaths from crashes were the leading cause of workplace deaths in the USA.  These statistics are often lost on safety professionals because OSHA has no jurisdiction over transportation incidents on public roads.  Additionally, 2016 Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that 40% of employment fatalities were due to transportation incidents.

Puckett noted that the goal for the NSC’s program was to have considered the best practices for employees who drive for work.  This employment-based driving included not just fleet trucks and other vehicles, which are normally considered in company employee driving policies and training programs, but also any personally-owned employee vehicles and rental cars, vans, and other trucks that employees may use while doing company business.  Puckett explained that vehicles outside of the regular company fleet are often overlooked.

Puckett’s key takeaway was that the company’s personnel policy on driving and accident prevention and the related training materials and systems need to incorporate a recognition of these powerful statistics.  Employers need to build a workplace that promotes responsible driver behaviors, maintenance procedures and records, and effective training programs.

Robinson noted that the employer may also face considerable liability for any fatalities that come from employees driving on company business, however that is demanded by state law in the many states and localities the company may operate in.  Perhaps common sense behaviors for employee drivers to know are company policies prohibiting driving impaired by drugs or alcohol, driving while using a cellphone such as checking email, texting, or using the phone.  Many company policies do not incorporate these kinds of prohibitions.

Robinson concluded by illustrating numerous multi-million dollar jury verdicts and settlement agreements where employers were held responsible — even some where the employee was involved in activities or behaviors that some might reasonably suggest were not in the line of their employment.

For your further information, we have previously blogged on these related issues, including Drive Much? NIOSH Focus on Workplace Safety for Employees Who Drive for Their Job, President Declares “National Impaired Driving Prevention Month”, Asleep at the Wheel: Trucking Company’s Sleep Apnea Policy and Procedures Reviewed by Federal Courts, Impact of Driver Compensation on Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety, Eleventh Circuit Finds Insurance Carrier Responsible In Georgia For Harm Done by Intoxicated Employee, Employees Driving In Illinois? What Employers Need to Know, and Distracted Driving Leads to Employee Accidents and Fatalities.

Employer Takaway

For employers the key points from this session are that employee behavior on public roadways could have a big impact on the workplace.  The employer should have appropriate policies and training systems in place as part of a comprehensive safety program, with an aim to “improve your workplace driving safety culture.”

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) or Workplace Policies and Handbooks Teams.

By Brent I. ClarkJames L. CurtisAdam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: This week at the 2018 National Safety Council (NSC) Congress the speakers on this Executive Forum noted that “automation, wearables, augmented reality, virtual reality, drones, big data, machine learning, the Internet of Things – emerging technologies are now almost too numerous to keep track of.”  This Executive Forum offered an in-depth look at the tools and trends that organizations are beginning to adopt and provided some practical comments for EHS professionals who need to prepare themselves for a changing safety environment.  The session was presented by Michelle Garner-Janna, CSP, CPE, Executive Director – Corporate Health & Safety, at Cummins, and Lydia Boyd Campbell, MD, MPH, Chief Medical Officer, at IBM.

In her presentation Garner-Janna noted that Cummins is a global power leader with 60,000 employees spread around the world in 190 countries.  The company has worked to develop its health and safety programs for what she deemed “Industry 4.0”, advanced systems which incorporate (1) a secure network; (2) standard safety core systems; (3) Internet of Things (IoT) connectivity; (4) advanced technology mobile virtual reality (VR)/augmented reality (AR); and (5) big data advanced analytical systems.  An example of the Industry 4.0 at work is the company’s Powered Industrial Vehicle Positioning System, known as Essensium.  The Essensium System is an automated and augmented reality system used to move unmanned powered industrial trucks through warehouses in materials handling and storage functions.

Garner-Janna explained the Industry 4.0 systems being explored are exoskeletons and wearable technology.  The company is also currently trying out a VR system to provide health and safety training at a facility in China.

Campbell indicated that IBM has 380,000 employees.  Health and Safety personnel represent less than 6% of those employees onsite, and there is one H&S employee for every 1000 employees.  To compensate for reduced safety staffing, IBM’s H&S services group has been developing an integrated artificial intelligence system based on its “Watson” application.  With this system, the company has set-up a World-wide H&S call center in India that receives telephone calls and emails relating to safety and health concerns, translates the many languages, and routes the issues to “the right people” to work on resolution.  The Watson based system is also analysing the “tone” of callers’ voices to make sure that potentially high level of stress or problems are escalated appropriately.  The system is also now being reprogrammed to flag and handle personally sensitive data that employees may try to submit.

The emerging technologies and issues raised by speakers from Cummins and IBM demonstrate the changing nature of the safety environment and opportunities for safety professionals and employers to incorporate changing technology and big data into their approaches to protect employees.  These developments should be closely monitored by employers.

We have previously blogged on automation and issues related to the future of safety technology, including Future Enterprise – Workplace Safety Compliance Comes to the Forefront for Expanding Healthcare Industry, A Global Perspective on the Future of Wearable Technology, An Aging America and the Future of Paid Family Leave, and Robotics, Automation, and Employee Safety for the Future Employer.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) or Workplace Policies and Handbooks Teams.

By Mark A. Lies, IIJames L. CurtisDaniel Birnbaum, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  New Review Commission decision refines the definition of what OSHA must prove to establish a “Repeat” violation.

On September 30, 2008, OSHA issued a citation to Angelica Textile Services, Inc., a commercial laundry, alleging ten Serious and four Repeat items. Seyfarth represented the employer, Angelica Textile Services, Inc. After the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision affirming two of the Serious items and vacating the remaining twelve items, including the Repeat citations. The Secretary of Labor appealed, arguing that the judge improperly vacated two Repeat citations that alleged deficiencies of permit required confined spaces (PRCS) and lockout/tagout (LOTO) procedures.

On July 24, 2018, nearly a decade after the citations were issued, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) affirmed the previously vacated citation items, but characterized and reclassified them as Serious rather than Repeat violations, and issued a single reduced penalty of $7,000. See Secretary of Labor v. Angelica Textile Services, Inc., No. 08-1774.

Most importantly, the Commission refined the definition of what OSHA must prove to establish a Repeat violation. OSHA has traditionally taken the position that all the evidence it had to show to meet the “substantial similarity” standard was merely that the same type of equipment, process or regulation that was involved in the current violation was also involved in a prior final citation which served as the basis for the Repeat violation. In the Angelica decision, the Commission clarified that a showing of “substantial similarity” can be rebutted with a showing of “disparate conditions and hazards associated with these violations of the same standard.”

The decision also refined what defenses an employer may have to a Repeat citation based on the abatement actions it took to abate the earlier violation. Applied to the facts of the case, the Commission noted that the prior PRCS citation identified “critical deficiencies” in the employer’s compliance program.  However, in response to the prior citation, the Company “actively sought out and eliminated similar hazards,” including developing a PRCS program specific to the condition cited.

The majority in Angelica noted that the Company’s prior abatement efforts also resulted in reduced citations in the current matter.  Similarly, the Commission noted that the prior LOTO citation to the Company had identified a “comprehensive failure of compliance.”  However, the present case involved procedures established in the interim, as well as surveys completed for machines that the Company had undertaken in response to the prior violations.  Rather than lacking the previous comprehensive procedures as was the case in the earlier citations, there were only two discrete deficiencies in the employer’s current program.

Significantly, the Commission also remarked in a footnote that the Secretary had accepted the Company’s prior abatement method, thus giving no basis for OSHA to conclude that the Company knew that its interim safety precautions and corrective actions were not compliant.

After comparing the employer’s attempts at compliance with the prior and subsequent citations, the Commission reasoned that, while the prior citations had been based on a complete failure to comply, the current citations reflected only minimal deficiencies. In other words, “[the Company] took affirmative steps to achieve compliance and avoid similar violations in the future.”  Because of these interim abatement actions, the Commission concluded that there was no basis for a Repeat citation.

In light of the Angelica decision, it appears that OSHA’s burden of proof has been measurably increased to establish a Repeat violation and it will be more difficult for OSHA to prove Repeat citations against employers. Following the acceptance of a citation, employers should work with a team well versed in the concepts espoused in the Angelica decision so that it can take the appropriate steps to establish that it acted in good faith and took effective and documented action to correct the violation. Employers should “actively [seek] out and eliminate[] similar hazards,” or “[take] affirmative steps to achieve compliance and avoid similar violations in the future.”  As there is no mechanical way to avoid a Repeat citation, and the corrective actions taken will depend on the factual circumstances surrounding the citation, employers should consult experienced counsel for guidance on what constitutes abatement of the citation and how to properly document such actions. Most importantly, beyond the concern of legal liability, if an employer takes the interim actions endorsed by the Angelica decision, it will measurably enhance the safety and health of its workplace.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Benjamin D. Briggs, Patrick D. Joyce, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: OSHA has just reminded temporary staffing agencies and their clients (i.e., host employers) that they are jointly responsible for a  temporary employee’s safety and health in two new guidance documents relating to respiratory protection, noise exposure, and hearing conservation. Temporary agencies and host employers that use their services should review this guidance in carrying out their shared responsibility for temporary worker safety.

Nearly two years after the last bulletin, OSHA has just released two new temporary worker bulletins relating to respiratory protection, noise exposure, and hearing conservation.  See Temporary Worker Initiative (TWI) Bulletin No. 8 – Respiratory Protection, and Temporary Worker Initiative Bulletin No. 9 – Noise Exposure and hearing Conservation.

We have blogged previously about OSHA’s enforcement activities and guidance documents relating to temporary workers: “OSHA Releases Two More Temporary Worker Guidance Documents,” “New Guidance for ‘Recommended Practices’ to Protect Temporary Workers,” “OSHA Issues Memo to ‘Remind’ its Field Staff about Enforcement Policy on Temporary Workers,” and “OSHRC Reviews Employment Relationships.”

Under TWI Bulletin No. 8, OSHA notes that both the host employer and staffing agency are “jointly responsible to ensure workers wear appropriate respirators when required. While both the host and the staffing agency are responsible to ensure that the employee is properly protected in accordance with the standard, the employers may decide that a division of the responsibility may be appropriate. Neither the host nor the staffing agency can require workers to provide or pay for their own respiratory protection when it is required.”

Under TWI Bulletin No. 9, OSHA notes that both the host employer and staffing agency are jointly responsible for ensuring that “workers receive protection from hazardous noise levels when it is required under OSHA standards. Neither the host nor the staffing agency can require workers to provide or pay for their own hearing protection devices or require workers to purchase such devices as a condition of employment or placement. In addition, employees must be paid for the time spent receiving their audiograms, and the audiograms must be at no cost to the employee.”

Employer Takeaway

It is OSHA’s view that staffing agencies and host employers are jointly responsible for temporary workers’ safety and health. However, as the two newly published bulletin’s make clear, fulfilling the shared responsibility for temporary worker safety requires thoughtful coordination between staffing agencies and host employers. OSHA has previously acknowledged that a host employer may have more knowledge of the specific hazards associated with the host worksite, while the staffing agency has a more generalized safety responsibility to the employees. As a result, OSHA allows host employers and staffing agencies to divide training responsibilities based upon their respective knowledge of the hazards associated with the specific worksite. While host employers will typically have primary responsibility for training and communication regarding site specific hazards, staffing agencies must make reasonable inquiries to verify that the host employer is meeting these requirements.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Brent I. Clark and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recently released its results from a study conducted in 2016 and 2017 that looked at safety programs developed to prevent motor vehicle crashes.

The study included four focus groups conducted with thirty-three managers of employees that drive for work. The managers represented small businesses across four motor vehicle user groups: (1) first responders, (2) oil and gas workers, (3) light-vehicle drivers (e.g., workers who operate passenger vehicles for a variety of work purposes, such as salespeople, home health care workers, realtors, and food delivery workers), and (4) truck drivers.

NIOSH, in its Science Blog, related that vehicle crashes were a leading cause of workplace fatalities, with “1,252 deaths of vehicle drivers and passengers on public roads in 2016. In 2013, on-the-job crashes cost employers over $25 billion and led to 155,000 lost work days.”

The study found that the managers of truck and light vehicle drivers noted a range of minimal  approaches to safety, such as mandatory vehicle inspections. Of particular note on the topic of the effectiveness of training is that managers indicated that safety materials needed to be designed that take into account the limited time that they and their drivers can devote to safety training. “Drivers’ varied work schedules and intense workload limit opportunities for group discussions about roadway safety. Managers said they and their drivers prefer concise, highly visual, and interactive communication products, such as short videos and simulations.”

NIOSH concluded that despite the human and financial costs of crashes, safety programs developed to prevent motor vehicle crashes are unlikely to work unless they are designed with the employers’ needs and constraints in mind. “This is particularly true among smaller and midsize employers, which need additional resources and knowledge to be successful.”

For employers, it is important to have safety programs in place that protect company employees. Employers can be sure that, given a workplace accident, agency inspectors may well be reviewing the employer’s policy documents and training materials, and will likely interview the injured employee about her training and understanding of the materials.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team.

By Joshua M. HendersonIlana R. MoradyBrent I. Clark, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) recently held advisory meetings on the Agency’s draft rules for the Marijuana/Cannabis Industry and for the Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment.  It is seeking public comments.

Marijuana/Cannabis Industry Rulemaking

The advisory meeting on the DOSH Marijuana/Cannabis Industry Rulemaking was to “consider … whether specific requirements are needed to address exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke by employees at facilities where on-site consumption of marijuana is permitted under B&P Code section 26200(d), and whether specific requirements are needed to address the potential risks of combustion, inhalation, armed robberies, or repetitive strain injuries.” Public commenting is open. The advisory committee must present its finding and recommendations to the Standards Board by October 1, 2018, at which point the Board render a decision regarding whether to adopt the marijuana/cannabis standards.

Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment

The advisory meeting on the DOSH Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment was to “develop a proposed regulation for minimizing heat-related illness among workers in indoor places of employment.”  At the meeting, the public had an opportunity to provide input on a revised discussion draft developed in consideration of the comments received on a previous discussion draft. A side-by-side comparison table is provided along with options for an Amended Section 3395 (Option A) or Creating Standalone Indoor Standard (Option B).

The Cal/OSHA Advisory Committees are currently accepting comments on both of these topics.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team.

By Joshua M. HendersonIlana R. MoradyBrent I. Clark, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) recently held an advisory meeting on the Agency’s draft rules for Workplace Violence Prevention in General Industry.  It is seeking public comments.

The meeting was to seek input on the new draft proposal to address workplace violence in general industry. If adopted, California would become the first state to issue general industry workplace violence rules. Currently, Cal/OSHA can only regulate workplace violence hazards through its “general duty clause” which provides that employers have a general duty to keep their workplaces safe from recognized hazards.

The December 4, 2017 draft proposed rules defines “workplace violence” as “any act of violence or threat of violence that occurs at the work site.”  Specifically under the proposal workplace violence includes:

  1. The threat or use of physical force against an employee that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, injury, psychological trauma, or stress, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury.
  2. An incident involving the threat or use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, including the use of common objects as weapons, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury.
  3. Four types of violence:

Type 1 violence means workplace violence committed by a person who has no legitimate business at the work site, and includes violent acts by anyone who enters the workplace with the intent to commit a crime.

Type 2 violence means workplace violence directed at employees by customers, clients, patients, students, inmates, or visitors.

Type 3 violence means workplace violence against an employee by a present or former employee, supervisor, or manager.

Type 4 violence means workplace violence committed in the workplace by someone who does not work there, but has or is known to have had a personal relationship with an employee.

The proposal would require covered employers to develop a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan that includes procedures for:

  1. Obtain the active involvement of employees and their representatives in developing and implementing the Plan, including their participation in identifying, evaluating, and correcting workplace violence hazards, designing and implementing training, and reporting and investigating workplace violence incidents.
  2. Methods the employer will use to coordinate implementation of the Plan with other employers whose employees work in same workplace, where applicable.
  3. Effective procedures for the employer to accept and respond to reports of workplace violence, including Type 3 violence, and to prohibit retaliation against an employee who makes such a report.
  4. Procedures to develop and provide the training.
  5. Procedures to identify and evaluate workplace violence hazards.
  6. Procedures to correct workplace violence hazards in a timely manner.
  7. Procedures for post-injury response and investigation.

The Cal/OSHA Advisory Committee is currently accepting comments on the topic.

Note also that California healthcare employers are currently regulated under the Violence Protection in Health Care standard, and will be required, by April 1, 2018, to comply with those provisions for implementing a Violence Prevention Plan and for training their employees.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the author, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team.

By Brent I. ClarkAdam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has found a seven percent increase in 2016 fatal injuries reported over those reported in 2015. BLS noted that this was the third consecutive increase in annual workplace fatalities.  The statistics show an ongoing struggle for employers with a number of occupational safety and health health hazards.

By industry or workplace, BLS found that work injuries involving transportation incidents remained the most common fatal event in 2016, accounting for 40 percent of all industries.  Workplace violence and other injuries by persons or animals increased 23 percent, becoming the “second-most common work related fatal event in 2016.” For more information about workplace violence we have frequently blogged on the topic.  See for instance, Airport Active Shooter Incident — What Can Happen in Just 15 Seconds, and What Business Needs to Know, OSHA Updates its Enforcement Procedures Directive for Exposure to Workplace Violence, Proposed Rule for Prevention of Workplace Violence in Healthcare and Social Assistance Industries, and NIOSH Offers Free Training Program to Help Employers Address Safety Risks Faced by Home Healthcare Workers.

In addition, exposure to harmful substances or environments rose 22 percent.  “Workplace homicides increased by 83 cases to 500 in 2016, and workplace suicides increased by 62 to 291. This is the highest homicide figure since 2010 and the most suicides since Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) began reporting data in 1992.”

Stunnningly, overdoses from the non-medical use of drugs or alcohol while on the job increased from 73 in 2011 to 217 in 2016. “Overdose fatalities have increased by at least 25 percent annually since 2012.”  Fatal injuries in the leisure and hospitality sector were up 32 percent and reached an “all-time series high in 2016.”  BLS concluded that this was largely due to a 40-percent increase in fatal injuries in the food services and drinking places industry.

Occupations with increases greater than 10 percent in the number of fatal work injuries in 2016 include:

  • Food preparation and serving related occupations (64 percent);
  • Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations (20 percent);
  • Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations (14 percent); and
  • Sales and related occupations (11 percent).

Foreign-born workers made up about one-fifth of the total fatal work injuries. Thirty-seven percent of the workers were born in Mexico, followed by 19 percent from Asian countries.  Workers age 55 years and over had a higher fatality rate than other age group.

In response to the BLS Report, Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary for OSHA, commented that “[a]s President Trump recognized by declaring opioid abuse a Nationwide Public Health Emergency, the nation’s opioid crisis is impacting Americans every day at home and, as this data demonstrates, increasingly on the job.”  “The Department of Labor will work with public and private stakeholders to help eradicate the opioid crisis as a deadly and growing workplace issue.”

Employers in the industries identified in the CFOI Report, including oil and gas, construction, retail, mining, and others need to be mindful of OSHA’s and MSHA’s enhanced monitoring and inspection activities. Take steps to ensure that company safety and health policies and training are up-to-date and are being rigorously implemented. Be sure to have a plan in-place for when an agency inspector does come calling, so that the company is protected and any citations and liabilities are minimized.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the author, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By James L. CurtisDaniel Birnbaum, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: NIOSH reiterated last week that healthcare workers are exposed to a wide range of hazards on the job and healthcare employers may not be following best practices to protect against these hazards.

Healthcare is the fastest-growing sector of the U.S. economy, employing over 18 million workers, 80% of which are women.  These healthcare workers face numerous hazards on the job, including sharps injuries, exposures to chemicals and hazardous drugs, musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), latex allergy, violence, and stress.

Significantly, there are more cases of healthcare workers suffering nonfatal occupational injury and illnesses than any other industry sector.  In a recent healthcare study, NIOSH found that as to administering aerosolized pentamidine to patients “22% of respondents did not always wear protective gloves, 69% did not always wear protective gowns, and 49% did not always wear respiratory protection….”  NIOSH concluded that there was “a belief that employers do not fully appreciate the potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to these drugs and therefore do not prioritize adherence.”

As to high-level disinfectants, the survey findings showed that best practices to minimize exposure have not been universally implemented.  NIOSH’s survey found that “17% of respondents said they never received training and, of those who received training, 42% said that it was more than 12 months ago.  19% of respondents said that employer safe handling procedures were unavailable.”  “44% of respondents did not always wear a protective gown and 9% did not always wear protective gloves.”

Critically, NIOSH concluded that employers and employees did not always follow best practices.

For healthcare employers this conclusion should be a red-flag as to the overall quality of their safety and health policies.  Healthcare employers should consult with safety professionals who are well versed in the areas where the employers may be out of touch with best practices.  Such consultations can enhance employee safety and help avoid liabilities associated with OSHA violations.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team or the Workplace Counseling & Solutions Team.