Nuclear Verdicts

Nuclear verdicts are a hot topic in the trucking and transportation industry, and for good reason. In 2010 there were less than 10 cases against trucking companies with a verdict over $1 million; in 2011 there were nearly 60, and there hasn’t been less than 30 in a year since then. And it’s not just the number of cases that’s increasing, but the amount of the verdict. The average verdict in 2010 was $2.3 million; in 2018 it was $22.3 million ¹.
A single finding against a trucking company can be catastrophic, at times even forcing their closure. With that in mind, is there anything a company can do to reduce the risk that one of their drivers will be involved in one of these cases? The answer is: Absolutely!

Yes, this COVID-19 pandemic is frightening. And yes, we should restrict our activities to only those that are essential.  

Employers who are hiring for physically demanding jobs can mitigate the risks associated with hiring candidates that don’t have the physical abilities to do the job, through the use of pre-hire Physical Abilities Tests (PAT). The improper use of PAT, however, can lead to another type of risk: compliance. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) specifically spell out the laws relating to these tools so that employers can be sure not to violate federal anti-discrimination laws. Some of the EEOC’s best practices include:

When 926 qualified women apply for entry-level warehouse laborer jobs and only six are hired, suspicion will develop. In the case of Gordon Food Service, Inc., a federal food service contractor located in Michigan, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) took notice and action.

Some time ago we presented a post on first aid and OSHA recordable injuries in the workplace, and since we've received a great deal of feedback on that post, we thought some follow-up would be in order. One particular issue mentioned in that piece that sparked a fair bit of feedback was workplace exercise, which, in some circumstances, can be considered physical therapy under OSHA regulations. Here we'll clarify that issue, helping employers understand when, according to OSHA, workplace stretching or other exercises can cross the line from first aid to OSHA recordable medical treatment.OSHA classifies any on-the-job injury or illness as a recordable event if it requires medical treatment beyond first aid. Under OSHA guidelines, exercises tailored to address specific employee complaints are considered medical treatment that goes beyond first aid. So does that mean that workplace stretching and/or exercise programs designed to aid in preventing such complaints are off-limits? Not at all – provided you take care to keep your program on the right side of that first aid/recordables line.

In case you missed this in your news feed late last year, OSHA is making big changes as the agency steps up its campaign for preventing workplace injuries in 2016. The implementation of a number of new measures will mean an even greater impact on companies failing to live up to workplace safety standards. The following are a few of the most noteworthy measures that you can expect OSHA to take.

Under most circumstances, if your employees are covered by workers' comp, they are not allowed to sue for workplace injuries. However, there are exceptions to that rule. For example, in many states, employers can be sued if they can be shown negligent in addressing hazards in the workplace that have lead to injuries, and litigation can become an issue if an employee's workers' comp claim is contested. Of course, if you do not provide workers' comp coverage to your employees, there is no prohibition against their filing suit regarding workplace injuries.

Here we'll go over the top 3 workplace injuries that result in lawsuits, issues that can lead to legal action, and workplace injury prevention tips that can help your company avoid these problems altogether.

OSHA regulations require employers to prepare and maintain records of serious occupational injuries and illnesses. If you're a covered employer, you should be familiar with the OSHA 300 Log in which those records must be kept. However, deciding which on-the-job incidents are recordable and which are not can be confusing – and getting it wrong can cost businesses dearly in penalties and frustration.

How, then, should employers make accurate determinations as to what constitutes a first-aid injury and what is a recordable incident?

To be effective and accurate in matching the abilities of current or potential employees to jobs, Physical Abilities Testing (PAT) must produce consistent results. Consistency is essential for making objective and reliable employment decisions, maximizing the benefits of testing, and ensuring a legally defensible PAT program.

As any employer knows, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) creates an obligation for covered employers to provide eligible employees with disabilities reasonable accommodations to enable them to perform the essential functions of their jobs. The difficulty with this obligation for many employers lies in understanding exactly what their responsibilities are in terms of accommodation.