February Resources from Sedgwick - OABA Member Service Partner
OABA is pleased to partner with Sedgwick to offer members quality service and stability through the complex workers’ compensation environment. Check out this update from Sedgwick regarding OSHA Top Ten Violations and AutoZone v. Industrial Commission Recent Court Decision.
OSHA Top Ten Violations
As the new year begins, many organizations look at ways to improve their safety programs. One way I have found effective over the years is to compare your safety program to OSHA’s Top Ten Violations List. Identifying what OSHA sees in the workplace during their inspections and comparing that to your organization is an excellent opportunity to find any gaps or deficiencies within your safety process.
OSHA publishes a top ten list every fiscal year which runs from October to September. For fiscal year 2024, OSHA identified the following on their top ten list:
- Fall Protection—General Requirements (1926.501): 6,307 violations
- Hazard Communication (1910.1200): 2,888 violations
- Ladders (1926.1053): 2,573 violations
- Respiratory Protection (1910.134): 2,470 violations
- Lockout/Tagout (1910.147): 2,443 violations
- Powered Industrial Trucks (1910.178): 2,248 violations
- Fall Protection – Training Requirements (1926.503): 2,050 violations
- Scaffolding (1926.451): 1,873 violations
- Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment – Eye and Face Protection (1926.102): 1,814 violations
- Machine Guarding (1910.212): 1,541 violations
The full text of OSHA’s regulations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). General Industry Regulations are found in Part 1910 and Construction Industry Regulations are found in Part 1926. Agriculture Regulations can be found here.
For this month’s article, we will discuss the top five violations and follow up next month with the second five.
Fall Protection—General Requirements (1926.501)
Generally speaking, fall protection is required if employees work at heights 4 feet or greater in General Industry and Agriculture and 6 feet or greater for Construction. Typically, fall protection for employees can be in the form of guardrail systems, safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems. If these fall protection options are not feasible, then an approved alternate system may be used if it meets the requirements of the standard. Fall protection is required for employees working near unprotected sides and edges, holes, excavations, ramps, runways and other walkways that meet the criteria of the specific height for that industry. The main violation OSHA is finding with this standard is failure of employers to assure proper fall protection is worn when employees are working at the heights identified for that industry.
Hazard Communication (1910.1200)
Known as OSHA’s Right To Know standard, this regulation requires employers to inform their employees about the hazards of the chemicals they work with. OSHA violations in the workplace uncovered employers with no written hazard communication program, no list of chemicals, missing or out of date safety data sheets (SDS’s) and no employee training.
Ladders (1926.1053)
You may think ladders would not require much in the safety arena, but they show up on OSHA’s Top Ten List quite often. Ladders are not something you just set in place and climb; there are specific guidelines to follow. Violations found by OSHA during inspections include: incorrectly accessing upper landing surfaces, ladders not being used for the purpose they are designed for, using the top step of the ladder as a step, carrying objects or loads that could cause the employee to lose balance or fall and not conducting pre-use inspections to ensure they are structurally sound. If your facility uses ladders, review the standard's requirements and ensure employees follow the proper procedures.
Respiratory Protection (1910.134)
The respiratory protection standard is essential when employees are exposed to chemicals above their Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL’s). OSHA has thousands of chemical exposure limitations and employers must ensure their employees are not overexposed to them or are properly protected. If employees are determined to be overexposed to any chemicals, employers are required to review engineering options (for example, using a ventilation system) and must implement a respiratory protection program. Citations in this standard include improper medically testing and fit testing employees so they can wear a respirator safely, no employee training on the proper use of the respirator and lack of a written program.
Lockout/Tagout (1910.147)
OSHA’s Lockout Tagout (LO/TO) Standard is important when maintenance is performed on machinery in the workplace. The main purpose is to prevent a piece of machinery's unexpected energization (startup) while maintenance is being performed. Lockout Tagout procedures are implemented to prevent crushing injuries, amputations and even death. An effective lockout/tagout program includes developing procedures for each piece of machinery required under the standard and training and communicating those procedures to staff. In the Lockout/Tagout Standard, OSHA is finding noncompliance that includes: unwritten energy control procedures, improper training and communication, incomplete annual periodic inspections and failure to follow procedures.
Since this is intended to just be a high-level summary of the Top 5 Most Frequently Violated Standards, it is important to review the regulations thoroughly in order to achieve and maintain compliance. There are several ways to become more familiar with the regulations, including online training classes, brochures and pamphlets, reputable online sources, consulting organizations and the Bureau of Workers Compensation Division of Safety & Hygiene. Once you become familiar with each regulation, compare that to your company's safety program and identify gaps. If you find gaps in your program or areas needing improvement, take the appropriate steps to make the changes and retrain employees if needed.
Next month we'll explore violations 6 through 10 on OSHA’s list.
If you need help identifying potential hazards in your workplace, please contact Andy Sawan, Risk Services Specialist at Sedgwick at andrew.sawan@sedgwick.com or 330-819-4728.
Recent Court Decision: AutoZone v. Industrial Commission
The Ohio Supreme Court has finalized its decision in relation to AutoZone Stores v. Industrial Commission of Ohio. As you may recall, the question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the injured worker was entitled to temporary total compensation (TT) after being terminated from his position due to a physical altercation with his supervisor. The claimant was injured on 6/20/20 and was working light duty up until the date of his termination, which took place on 9/5/20. In November 2020, the claimant had surgery for the allowed conditions and requested temporary total compensation beginning the date of his surgery. It was noted that the claimant did not secure other employment in between his date of termination from AutoZone and his surgery in November. Because of this fact pattern, the employer appealed the payment of compensation and argued that the injured worker was not entitled to temporary total compensation as he was not employed at the time of his request for disability. The claimant argued that he was entitled to compensation as the surgery that led to his current request for TT was solely related to the allowed conditions.
The Supreme Court determined that two specific questions need to be answered in this situation:
- Is the injured worker’s inability to work the direct result of the allowed conditions? – this is a question related to the medical information of the claim file.
- Is the injured workers’ current unemployment due to reasons completely unrelated to the allowed conditions? - this is a legal question that delves into a claimant’s medical inability to work vs. simply not working and if they are simply not working, then why?
The Supreme Court ruled that the claimant must be employed at the time of a request for compensation. In the AutoZone case the injured worker was not working due to termination for cause, and he did not secure employment elsewhere in between the time of his termination and the date of his surgery. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that he was not entitled to temporary total compensation since he was not working/receiving wages at the time of the compensation request.
All appeal and reconsideration options have been exhausted in this matter so this decision is now final and can be used by employers to determine if TT is necessary and appropriate when an injured worker is no longer employed and has not secured employment elsewhere.
If you have questions related to this court case, please feel free to reach out to your Sedgwick claims examiner and they can help you determine if the AutoZone case applies to your company’s claim scenario. In some instances, we may recommend that you contact your company attorney to help determine the legal application of the AutoZone case.
If you have any questions, contact our Sedgwick program manager, David Deyo, at 614-318-5516 or david.deyo@sedgwick.com.
Learn more about Sedgwick!
Did you know that many alternative discounts are available to help reduce your annual Ohio workers’ compensation costs? Through the OABA workers’ compensation program, your organization can significantly reduce your workers’ compensation costs through a variety of alternative rating programs. Our program, administered by Sedgwick, offers you quality service and stability through the complex workers’ compensation environment.
For over 50 years, Sedgwick has been helping employers navigate Ohio’s workers’ compensation system, providing services to help them control claim-related costs and reduce premiums. Our team includes the experienced colleagues from CompManagement and CareWorks Comp.
Learn more about how Sedgwick can help your company save significantly on your workers’ compensation premium by visiting www.oaba.net/services_workers_comp.