Safety Consultants    1-888-755-8010    info@FDRsafety.com

T: 1-888-755-8010
E: info@FDRsafety.com

 

Occupational Safety Blog

By Fred Rine, CEO of FDRsafety and former long-time Managing Director of Safety and Health at FedEx, Jim Stanley, President of FDRsafety and former No. 2 at OSHA headquarters and Mike Taubitz, Senior Advisor to FDRsafety and former Global Safety Director for General Motors.


Archive for the ‘Recordkeeping’ Category

A recordable injury may not be what you think

June 16th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

With OSHA putting enforcement pressure on recordkeeping, it may be helpful to refresh your memory on just what constitutes a recordable injury.

Arthur Sapper of the McDermott Will & Emery law firm has written an excellent article that straightens out some misconceptions he says are prevalent in the construction industry about what injuries must be recorded.

Here’s what he has to say:

Work restrictions

“The single most common of mistakes that lead to recordkeeping charges is misunderstanding what an OSHA-recordable work restriction is. Employers commonly but honestly believe that if an injured employee can still perform useful work, the injury is not recordable as a work restriction.

“Thus, employers may try to avoid an OSHA recordable by assigning office work to an injured tradesman. Other employers believe that an injury case is not recordable if the employee can still perform work within his job description. So they might, for example, give purely sedentary electrical work to electricians who otherwise would climb ladders daily to perform their jobs.

“Both ideas would be mistakes. OSHA’s regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1904.7(b)(4)(i)-(ii)) state that a restriction occurs when either:

“1) The employer keeps an occupationally injured employee from performing one or more “routine functions” of his job; or
“2) A licensed health care professional recommends that the employee not perform one or more “routine functions” of his job. The term “routine function” is specially defined as a work activity regularly performed at least once per week. In the case of the injured electrician now unable to climb a ladder, the case is recordable because the electrician otherwise regularly climbs ladders every day.

Light duty

“A second and related misconception is that light duty is not a work restriction. A recordkeeping regulation (§ 1904.7(b)(4) (vii)) indicates that light duty can indeed amount to a work restriction. In fact, this regulation indicates — although indirectly — that light duty is presumptively a restriction.

“The regulation starts with the question, “How do I handle vague restrictions from a physician or other licensed health care professional, such as that the employee engage only in ‘light duty’ or ‘take it easy for a week’?” After stating that the employer “may” ask the physician whether this means that the employee may not perform all of his routine job functions or work his entire normally assigned work shift, the lengthy provision ends with this: “If you are unable to obtain this additional information from the physician … who recommended the restriction, record the injury or illness as a case involving restricted work.”

“OSHA officials take this last sentence to mean that “light duty” is a recordable work restriction unless the physician affirmatively states that the employee may perform all of his routine job functions and may work a full shift. Employers are thus well advised that when faced with a vague restriction such as “light duty” to contact the physician and get clarification on what tasks the employee may not perform.

“If even one of these tasks is among the work duties regularly performed at least once a week, an OSHA recordable case must be entered on the log.
“Another aspect of light duty work restrictions that employers overlook is that the recordability of a restriction depends on the particular employee’s routine functions. Hence, two employees can be identically injured, treated and restricted, but the restriction might be recordable for only one of them. A restriction for an ironworker might not be a restriction for a receptionist.

“An employer therefore needs to review with the employee or the employee’s immediate supervisor what tasks the employee regularly performs at least once per week and whether the restriction prevents any from being performed.

Final caution

“A caution can be offered about these misconceptions. Even OSHA’s online Recordkeeping Handbook, of which few employers are aware, gives inadequate information about gray areas in the regulations.

“Employers with questions are understandably reluctant to call OSHA, plus area offices are often too busy for an employer to reach a knowledgeable person; moreover, different OSHA offices may offer different advice. Even so, employers should make every effort to get definitive guidance from OSHA or legal counsel rather than guessing what the recordkeeping requirements are. A wrong guess may mean big penalties from a less than sympathetic agency.”

Share




More evidence of OSHA’s recordkeeping crackdown: Lowe’s cited

May 11th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

Companies continue to be uncertain what OSHA’s new focus on recordkeeping may mean for them. A large national retailer just found out.

OSHA tagged Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. in Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio, with $110,000 in proposed penalties for continually failing to document and report employee injuries and illnesses.

Here’s what OSHA said about it:

“As a result of an October 2009 inspection in Cincinnati, OSHA issued Lowe’s four willful citations with a proposed penalty of $40,000. Based on a November 2009 inspection, OSHA issued the Dayton store seven willful citations with a proposed penalty of $70,000. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirement, or plain indifference to employee safety and health.”

OSHA requires employers to record and maintain occupational injuries and illnesses on the OSHA 300 log.

If you have a question about how to handle recordkeeping in your business, ask us.

Share




Just receive a letter from OSHA? Here’s what to do

March 12th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

OSHA just sent letters to 15,000 companies advising that their accident rates were substantially above average. While the letters don’t specifically say so, this likely means an inspection is on the way, especially given OSHA’s recent push on enforcement.

There are five things that should be on the immediate to-do list for every company that received the letter. Read about them in our newsletter.

Share




Here we go again (on ergonomics)

February 2nd, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

OSHA just gave notice of what at first glance might seem to be a small step – but one that signals the beginning of a long walk down the wrong path.

OSHA’s gave notice that it is proposing to revise its recordkeeping regulation by restoring a column on the OSHA Form 300 to better identify work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). OSHA says that the rule “does not change existing requirements for when and under what circumstances employers must record musculoskeletal disorders on their injury and illness logs.”

But I think this step marks the beginning of an attempt by OSHA to reissue an ergonomics standard. I anticipate that OSHA will expend huge amounts of time and money to try to promulgate a new ergonomics standard, even though a similar attempt was rejected by Congress in 2001. I testified before OSHA at that time against putting such a standard in place.

I really don’t understand why there is an interest at OSHA for an ergonomics standard when there are extensive efforts already underway in private industry to reduce/eliminate ergonomic injuries and OSHA has other items on its plate that should be higher priorities. Among them are proposed standards that have been in the works for many years and are very much needed in industry. Some examples are a confined spaces standard for construction, lockout/tagout standards for construction and revised fall protection standards for general industry.

Share




OSHA to respond quickly to GAO report that some companies try to avoid reporting accidents

November 18th, 2009 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

If there were any doubt that OSHA meant business when it said it was stepping up enforcement of recordkeeping rules, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis dispelled it with her reaction to a new report by the Government Accountability Office.

The GAO said this week that OSHA shouldn’t rely solely on employer data on accidents because there is evidence some companies pressure workers not to report injuries or illnesses. The GAO said that about a third of health providers it surveyed said they have been pressured to withhold medical treatment so a company could avoid filing an injury or illness report.

Solis said she would respond quickly to address issues raised by the report. Earlier this year, OSHA announced a one-year program to increase enforcement of recordkeeping requirements in industries with traditionally high accident rates.

Read a fuller account of the GAO report and the Labor Secretary’s reaction.

If you have a question about how to handle recordkeeping, I would be happy to provide an answer at no charge. Call me at (513) 317-5644.

Share




OSHA targets iron and steel foundries, concrete pipe manufacturers, others for recordkeeping crackdown

October 23rd, 2009 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

OSHA has announced the list of industries that will be targeted under its one-year program that will intensively ramp up recordkeeping enforcement.

The program concentrates on industries with traditionally high accident rates. Within those industries, companies that have reported low accident rates are most likely to be audited. OSHA says that to qualify for inspection under the program, a workplace must be in a selected industry, have 40 or more employees, and show a Days Away, Restricted or Transferred (DART) rate of 4.2 or below based on 2007 OSHA 300 data.

Targeted industries include steel and iron foundries, concrete pipe manufacturers, soft drink manufacturers and automotive seat and interior trim manufacturers. A complete list of those industries, and more detail about the program is contained in a report from Sherman and Howard.

Share




Answering a reader question: Is it a good idea to heavily document an accident investigation?

September 9th, 2009 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

Bob Sands posted a question that may be on other readers’ minds about my earlier blog entry on OSHA’s new emphasis on recordkeeping.

Is the collection of real-time accident evidence/documentation (photos, video, audio etc.) a detriment or benefit to a company trying to comply with OSHA’s record keeping regulations? If we document our accidents heavily are we setting ourselves up for more scrutiny? Are there any existing or upcoming regulations that require us to gather such evidence documentation like photos/video etc.?

Here’s the answer:

A comprehensive accident investigation that includes extensive documentation and root cause analysis is never a detriment and is always a benefit to a company. In fact, a comprehensive accident investigation is an essential component of a “world-class safety program.” There is no current OSHA regulation that requires companies to investigate accidents in a prescribed manner. There is some talk in the “new OSHA” regarding another attempt at issuing a federal safety and health program standard that could require companies to document accidents in a certain way. In my opinion, a safety and health program standard will not be issued in the near future if OSHA tries to mandate all the elements of a safety and health program for all covered companies.

Companies are presently required to complete and make available the OSHA 300, 301 and 300A. Other accident investigation records requests should not be released to OSHA until you have had a chance to look at the documents and/or review them with upper management and/or legal counsel. Objections to this type of records request may be made on the grounds that the internal accident investigation is legally protected from disclosure.

Share




What to expect from OSHA’s new emphasis on recordkeeping

September 1st, 2009 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

If luck doesn’t go your way and your company receives a recordkeeping inspection as part of OSHA’s new one-year National Emphasis Program (NEP) that has just started, the inspection will have three main components.

1) Records review of:

  • All available records for each employee sampled (medical records, workers’ compensation records, absentee records, audiograms). Do not forget to insist that OSHA obtain a Medical Access Order before you release any records containing private medical information.
  • The OSHA 300 log, 300A summary and 301 incident report (or the equivalent).

2) Interviews of:

  • Employees, management, healthcare providers, etc.
  • Management concerning the current recordkeeping process.
  • Management concerning any incentive programs that may deter recording of injuries and/or illnesses.

3) Limited inspection walk-around:

  • Investigate if recorded injuries and/or illnesses correlate with the actual work environment.
  • Address and cite safety or health violations in plain view.

For further information on what to expect, refer to the post: Getting ready for an OSHA inspection.

If you need recordkeeping advice:

Employers may call me free of charge for a limited consultation about recordkeeping issues. Call me at (513) 317-5644.

Share