Diesel Fumes Cause Lung Cancer

Today’s post comes from guest author Leonard Jernigan from The Jernigan Law Firm.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of death for men and women in the United States. It’s greater than breast and colon cancer in women and greater than prostate, colon, pancreatic and liver cancer in men. If diagnosed early there is a 70-80% survival rate for 5 years, and a low-dose CT scan of the chest can detect 60-70% of lung cancers at an early stage. Unfortunately, there has been no significant progress in the treatment of lung cancer in 40 years and between 10,000–20,000 occupational lung cancer deaths occur each year in the United States.

One area of concern is the relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer. In June of 2012 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified diesel engine exhaust as carcinogenic to humans, and studies of underground miners support that statement and also indicate that others who are around diesel fumes may be at an increased risk. Toxic chemicals in diesel gas are nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, benzene, PAHS (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), aldehydes and nitro-PAHS.

Railroad workers, miners, truck drivers, bus operators, longshoremen and others who have been heavily exposed to diesel fumes are obviously at greater risk than those with less exposures, but even minimal exposures may cause harm. In urban areas, like lower Manhattan, there is concern that diesel exposures may be a public health hazard and detection systems have been placed in areas to collect exposure data. As for workers who have experienced intense, short-term duration to diesel fumes, a chemical called 1-hydroxypyrene may be elevated in urine, but the test for this marker is not performed by most commercial laboratories. The Mount Sinai – Irving J. Selikoff Center for Occupational & Environmental Medicine is studying diesel exposure and may be a good resource for future information, as well as the National Clean Diesel Campaign: www.epa.gov/diesel.

This post is from Iowa Workers' Compensation Law Link to original post: Diesel Fumes and Lung Cancer

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Gelman from Jon Gelman, LLC – Attorney at Law.

Over 140 governments meeting at a United Nations forum in Geneva have agreed to a global, legally-binding treaty to address mercury, a notorious heavy metal with significant health and environmental effects.

The Minamata Convention on Mercury – named after a city in Japan where serious health damage occurred as a result of mercury pollution in the mid-20th Century – provides controls and reductions across a range of products, processes and industries where mercury is used, released or emitted.

These range from medical equipment such as thermometers and energy-saving light bulbs to the mining, cement and coal-fired power sectors, according to a news release issued today by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which convened the negotiations.

“After complex and often all-night sessions here in Geneva, nations have today laid the foundations for a global response to a pollutant whose notoriety has been recognized for well over a century,” said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

“Everyone in the world stands to benefit from the decisions taken this week in Geneva, in particular the workers and families of small-scale gold miners, the peoples of the Arctic and this generation of mothers and babies and the generations to come. I look forward to swift ratification of the Minamata Convention so that it comes into force as soon as possible,” he added.

The treaty, which has been four years in negotiation and which will be open for signature at a special meeting in Japan in October, also addresses the direct mining of mercury, export and import of the metal and safe storage of waste mercury.

Pinpointing populations at risk, boosting medical care and better training of health care professionals in identifying and treating mercury-related effects will also form part of the new agreement.

UNEP noted that mercury and its various compounds have a range of serious health impacts, including brain and neurological damage especially among the young. Others include kidney damage and damage to the digestive system. Victims can suffer memory loss and language impairment alongside many other well documented problems.

Among the provisions of the treaty, governments have agreed on a range of mercury-containing products whose production, export and import will be banned by 2020. These include batteries, except for ‘button cell’ batteries used in implantable medical devices; switches and relays; certain types of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs); mercury in cold cathode fluorescent lamps and external electrode fluorescent lamps; and soaps and cosmetics.

Certain kinds of non-electronic medical devices such as thermometers and blood pressure devices are also included for phase-out by 2020.

Governments also approved exceptions for some large measuring devices where currently there are no mercury-free alternatives. In addition, vaccines where mercury is used as a preservative have been excluded from the treaty as have products used in religious or traditional activities.

This post is from Iowa Workers' Compensation Law Link to original post: UN Announces Treaty to Restrict Use of Mecury

By working together we can bring an end to gun violence in America

Today’s post comes from guest author Kit Case from Causey Law Firm.

     A man entered a Seattle bar late Sunday night, January 27, 2013, and confronted his ex-girlfriend, brandishing a gun.  The gunman shot both his ex-girlfriend and the doorman before the gunman was fatally shot by Seattle police.  Both the ex-girlfriend and the doorman were taken to Harborview Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.  Both were victims of senseless gun violence, but the doorman is also a workers’ compensation claimant due to this occurring while he was on-the-job.

2012 has been the worst year for these events in modern US history, with 151 victims injured and killed.

       Quoting an article published by Mother Jones (Mother Jones Investigates: The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys), Washington CeaseFire shared that there have been at least 62 mass shootings in the last three decades, attacks in which the killer took the lives of four or more people (the FBI’s baseline for mass murder) in a public place—a school, a workplace, a mall, a religious building. Seven of them have occurred this year alone. Along with three other similar though less lethal rampages—at a Portland shopping mall, a Milwaukee spa, and a Cleveland high school—2012 has been the worst year for these events in modern US history, with 151 victims injured and killed.

    On Tuesday, January 22nd, Washington CeaseFire presented the results of a statewide poll conducted by Alison Peters Consulting. The poll of 600 randomly selected registered Washington voters reveals a strong preference for stronger gun safety laws on both Eastern and Western sides of the state. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent. Findings included :

• 76% of state residents support tighter gun laws;
• 87% support a state law to require that everyone who buys a gun at a gun show undergo a background check;
• 66% support a state law to ban semi-automatic assault weapons;
• 68% are in support of a state law to increase mandatory penalties for youth firearm possession, starting with house detention at the first offense ;
• 68% would support a state law to limit ammunition clips on guns to 10 bullets;  and,
• 66% of respondents are in support of a state law requiring the signature of local police on every concealed weapons permit application.

     Washington CeaseFire states that it’s time to end gun violence in America, noting that gun deaths outnumber traffic fatalities in Washington and nine other states.  Now is the time to make our voices heard.  Please consider participating in a candlelight vigil and march on February 9, 2013 in Seattle, Washington, co-sponsored by CeaseFire.  More than 1000 people attended a similar march held in January (see prior post for details) and it is hoped that the upcoming vigil and march will draw more attention to this issue.

This post is from Iowa Workers' Compensation Law Link to original post: Seattle Shooting – Another Case of Workplace Gun Violence, and Another Call to Action

Today’s post comes from guest author Barbara Tilker from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.

If you get a denial notice from Social Security after filing your application for benefits on your own, don’t be surprised. Most people are turned down the first time they apply for benefits. Social Security recently released a study showing that people who filed on their own were slightly more likely to get denied initially, although they received their initial decision a little sooner. Many people make one of two common mistakes when they get turned down – they either don’t do anything or they file a new application. People who don’t do anything will, of course, not receive Social Security disability benefits. Those that file a new application are just as likely to get turned down again, and may lose entitlement to benefits they otherwise would have gotten.

When you get a denial, you should file an appeal of that decision.

When you get a denial, you should file an appeal of that decision. Filing an appeal is different than filing a new application. Depending on where you live, you will either file a request for reconsideration or a request for a hearing. A request for reconsideration means that someone else at Social Security reviews your file and makes a new decision. If you get denied at reconsideration (and about 90% of people do) you should file a request for a hearing.

After you file a request for a hearing, you’ll be scheduled for a hearing held by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ will ask you questions and issue a written decision after the hearing. People who appear at a hearing before an ALJ are much more likely to get SSD than those who file a new application after getting denied.

Once you receive a denial, you should contact our office right away to discuss your options. You only have sixty (60) days to file an appeal, so it’s important to act fast. Our staff will be able to handle the appeals process for you, and one of our attorneys will appear at the hearing with you. The most important thing is to not get discouraged and continue your medical treatment so that you’ll have the medical evidence you need to prove your disability.

This post is from Iowa Workers' Compensation Law Link to original post: I Filed For SSD on My Own and Got Turned Down – What Should I Do Next?

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

Having a work injury is incredibly stressful. Sometimes when a worker is under stress, they won’t understand what a treating doctor is telling them, which leads to frustration and anger on the part of the worker directed toward the doctor. In turn, the worker’s attitude will lead many doctors to not cooperate in a worker’s case. This is especially true if the insurance company has a nurse case manager working on the claim.

One solution for an injured worker is to bring a trusted friend or family member to the doctor with them to medical appointments. I see at least two advantages to bringing in someone else:

1) another person would be able to help you describe symptoms and how the injury happened and

2) the other person can help you understand what the doctor is telling you.

But not every friend or family member is the right choice to go to an appointment with you. You should choose someone who is level headed so that they do not get into an argument with the doctor. You should remember that the doctor is taking down a record of your visit and that that written record will likely be looked at by the judge deciding your workers’ compensation case, should your case go to trial. If you or a friend or family member gets into an argument with a doctor, it will likely hurt your case.

Injured workers who are non-English speakers can present more challenges to effective medical treatment. Not only is there a language barrier but there is often a cultural barrier as well. The language barrier is often used to the advantage of the employer and insurer, because they will often provide interpreters to the doctor. Non-English speakers should try to bring along a fluent interpreter in their language. A bad interpreter can almost be as bad as no interpreter. However, the same rules about temperament and judgment apply for those who go to doctors with non-English speakers. Sometimes doctors get frustrated with language and cultural barriers of non-English speaking injured workers. Employers and insurers know this and use this to their advantage.

This post is from Iowa Workers' Compensation Law Link to original post: Take Someone to the Doctor with You

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Gelman from Jon Gelman, LLC – Attorney at Law.

The Zadroga 9/11 Victims Claim Fund has started to make payments to victims of the World Trade Center attack. First Responders andthose who lived or worked in the immediate geographical site near “ground zero” may be entitled to the payment of benenfits for illness and injuries that they suffer as a result of the terrorist attack.

Those eligible include, individuals present at  a 9/11 crash site at the time of or in the immediate aftermath, who suffer physical harm as a result of the crashes or debris removal. Also the personal representatives of individuals who were present at a 9/11 crash site, who died as a result of the crashes or debris removal, are eligible to file claims.

A deadline exists for filing claims with the 9/11 Fund. A person who knows (or reasonably should have known), of physical harm resulting from the September 11 attacks as of October 3, 2011, must file a registration form by October 3, 2013. If they subsequently learned of such physical harm, they must file a claim within two years of the date that they learned or reasonably should have known that they suffered such physical injury. The 9/11 victims claim fund will receive claims for five years after it opened in 2011. Final payments are expected to be made from the fund in 2016-17.

Injuries that are being compensated are: lung cancer, chronic respiratory disorder, asthma, reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS), WTC-exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic cough syndrome, chronic laryngitis, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disorder (GERD), sleep apnea exacerbated by or related to the above conditions, and low back pain. Additionally certain types of cancer (including mesothelioma, lung cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, trachea cancer, esophageal cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, skin cancer, thyroid cancer, blood cancer and a bone marrow cancer.

To determine economic loss, the special master will consider a loss of earnings or other benefits related to employment, medical expense loss, replacement services laws, and loss of business or employment opportunities.

Documentation must be submitted to prove missed work and loss of earnings as a result of the qualified injury. Workers compensation determinations can’t be submitted to prove missed work and loss of earnings.

This post is from Iowa Workers' Compensation Law Link to original post: 9/11 Fund Starts Making Payments To Victims

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

In many workers’ compensation cases, Medicare pays medical treatment expenses for an injured worker that may otherwise be the responsibility of the workers’ compensation insurance carrier. In the past decade, workers’ compensation practitioners have become well-versed in dealing with Medicare issues and establishing Medicare Set Asides—effectively deals between the federal government (Medicare) and the work comp insurance company to cover future work-related medical care for the injured worker. 

However, Medicare does not cover all types of medical treatment expenses. Thus, certain types of medical treatment cannot be considered part of a Medicare Savings Account (MSA), but those expenses could still be the responsibility of the insurance carrier. One of those non-Medicare-covered expenses are TENS units for chronic law back pain.  On August 1, 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a memorandum regarding Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) units for chronic low back pain. The new CMS policy indicated that chronic low back pain (CLBP) is “an episode of low back pain that has persisted for three months or longer; and is not a manifestation of a clearly defined and generally recognizable primary disease entity.” CMS indicated that for all workers’ compensation cases settled after June 8, 2012, use of TENS units for chronic low back pain will no longer be deemed reasonable and necessary. While injured workers certainly will continue to use TENS units, the medical charges (if being used for “chronic low back pain” under CMS definition) will not be included as part of MSA funding. Practitioners must be aware of this change when considering any workers’ compensation settlement or MSA pursuit.

This post is from Iowa Workers' Compensation Law Link to original post: TENS Units No Longer Reasonable Treatment For Chronic Low Back Pain, Says CMS

Today’s post comes from guest author Kristina Brown Thompson from The Jernigan Law Firm.

Over the past decade, North Carolina has witnessed an ongoing decrease in the number of workplace fatalities. This past year (2012) there was a total of thirty-five reported workplace fatalities. In 2004, for example, there were 90 workplace fatalities.  According to the Department of Labor, the Occupational Safety and Health Division has been working with the state’s most hazardous industries to prevent deaths on the job. However, North Carolina continues to have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country at 9.2 % (December 2012) and with fewer jobs there are obviously fewer chances of an accidental death on the job. 

According to the National Council for Occupational Safety the number of fatalities may be artificially low. In a report published in April of 2012 entitled “North Carolina Workers: Dying for a Job,” the National Council for Occupational Safety alleges that the N.C. Department of Labor’s “report of occupational fatalities greatly understates the true extent of the problem.” (http://www.coshnetwork.org/north-carolina-workers-dying-job). The report further states that the listed fatalities “include only those cases that the state OSHA program investigated” and that their internal analysis found that about thirty additional deaths occurred in 2011. The National Council for Occupational Safety then recommended stricter deterrents to promote safe work environments, imposition of more penalties as permitted under the current statutes, as well as a special emphasis program to protect Hispanic workers.

Let’s hope that on the job fatalities continue to drop in 2013, but beyond “hope” the best way to insure a continued decrease is to make all employees and employers aware of potential life threatening dangers and then enforce compliance with safety standards.

This post is from Iowa Workers' Compensation Law Link to original post: North Carolina Workplace Deaths Lower in 2012

Workers have flooded North Dakota to work in the booming oil industry.

Today’s post comes from guest author Jay Causey from Causey Law Firm.

A recent article in the New York Times (An Oil Boom Takes a Toll on Health Care, January 28, 2013) recounted the growing burden on North Dakota hospitals because of on-the-job injuries to workers who have flooded that state to work in the booming oil industry. Apparently North Dakota hospitals are swimming in debt from unpaid bills because, as the article by John Eligon states, “many of the new patients are transient men without health insurance or a permanent address in the area.”

“Swamped by uninsured laborers flocking to dangerous jobs in the oil industry, the hospitals here in the North Dakota oil patch are sinking under skyrocketing debt, a flood of gruesome injuries and bloated business costs from the inflated economy.” – John Eligon, New York Times

Mr. Eligon goes on to discuss actions by the governor and state legislature to increase medical training and medical facilities in North Dakota, and to obtain increased Medicaid financing for the state’s rural hospitals. Not only are medical facilities groaning from the increase of gruesome injuries associated with highly dangerous work environments, Mr. Eligon recounts the health issues that arise from the cramped housing scenarios in the work camps that have sprung up near the oil fields. This includes a significant increase in the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.

The North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance site includes its catchy motto – “Putting Safety to Work.”

However, nowhere in Mr. Eligon’s article is there any mention of, or reference to, North Dakota’s workers compensation system which would seemingly provide the principal coverage for the injuries and conditions that are the subject of his article. Is the NYT oblivious to the fact of coverage for industrial injuries and conditions under each state’s workers compensation law? Or are workers injured in the new booming oil economy of North Dakota somehow being denied coverage under that state’s system, or being engineered out of coverage by the terms of their employment with the oil companies? It seems that a minimal inquiry, at least, on these points was owed by the NYT in its article.

Photo credit: nestor galina / Foter.com / CC BY

This post is from Iowa Workers' Compensation Law Link to original post: What About Workers’ Compensation In North Dakota?

Today’s post comes from guest author Roger Moore from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

It used to be that the most to fear from an examination scheduled by an insurance company would be an unfair or incomplete assessment of the work injury. Now it seems insurance companies are using doctors to essentially cross-examine injured workers and delve deeply into irrelevant issues in an attempt to embarrass, harass and probe where they do not belong.

• Do you have painful, frequent, or difficulty urinating?
• Do you have painful breasts, periods or intercourse?
• Have you suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse?
• Do you have erectile difficulty?
• Do you get along with supervisors and other employees?
• Do physical or mental problems run in your family?
• Is anyone in your family disabled?
• Did you smoke, drink or use illegal drugs in the past?

These are some of the more disturbing questions asked by a doctor of a patient in a pre-exam questionnaire sent directly from the doctor’s office to the injured worker. You might surmise that this was a case of some sort of reproductive injury associated with mental duress of some type by looking at the questions. In fact, this worker only alleged carpal tunnel syndrome! Most assuredly, embarrassing facts about this worker would just happen to show up in the defense doctor’s final report for the Court’s review at trial.

Any time anyone other than your lawyer sends you something to complete, you should be very careful about filling it out. It’s probably unethical for doctors to send these reports to injured workers who are represented, but we’re seeing more and more of these go out. They are becoming more and more intrusive; in fact, this questionnaire was 11 pages long. It’s my practice not to have clients complete any of these pre-exam questionnaires from doctors.

This post is from Iowa Workers' Compensation Law Link to original post: Are Medical Doctors Willing Puppets For Cross-Examination?