Scenario:   An employee hurts his or her left arm and is told by the doctor not to use the left arm for one week. The employee is able to perform all of his or her routine job functions using only the right arm (though at a slower pace and the employee is never required to use both arms to perform his or her job functions).

Question:  Would this be considered restricted work?

Answer:  No, If the employee is able to perform all of his or her routine job functions (activities the employee regularly performs at least once per week), the case does not involve restricted work. Loss of productivity is not considered restricted work.

OSHA cites China Grove, Texas bakery for 49 violations following a finger amputation for exposing workers to combustible dust, electrical, fall, other hazards

Federal OSHA has cited Lone Star Bakery Inc. for 32 serious, one repeat and 16 other-than-serious violations following an amputation incident and multiple inspections at two of the company’s facilities in China Grove. Violations include exposing workers to combustible dust, fall and electrical hazards, among others. Proposed penalties total $229,400.

“This company has jeopardized the health and safety of its workers,” said Jeff Funke, OSHA’s area director in San Antonio. “Employees were exposed to many hazards, including excessive accumulations of combustible flour dust that could have ignited and caused serious injuries.”

OSHA’s San Antonio Area Office initiated a safety and health inspection on Oct. 18, 2010, at the company’s facility at 8100 E. U.S. Highway 87, following a finger tip amputation incident on the pie processing line. A second safety inspection began on Dec. 15, 2010, at the company’s facility at 6905 E. U.S. Highway 87 as the result of a fire that occurred from excessive buildup of bread materials in the ovens. A second health inspection was initiated Jan. 24 at the company’s 8100 Highway 87 facility following a report that employees were being exposed to excessive levels of noise and not being protected by a hearing conservation program.

The serious violations include failing to ensure that employees were protected from falls; to clean combustible dust from workroom floors and other surfaces; to cover drain openings; to ensure that exits were free from obstructions and unlocked; and to ensure electrical deficiencies were corrected.

The repeat violation is failing to ensure that a metal junction box was permanently mounted in accordance with the listing and labeling required by the manufacturer. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. OSHA cited Lone Star Bakery for a similar violation following a 2006 inspection that resulted in total penalties of $78,300.

Other-than-serious violations include failing to record each work-related injury or illness case that met general recording criteria, and complete an incident report form for each work-related injury or illness case that met the general recording criteria for both locations from 2007 to 2010.

Lone Star Bakery, a private commercial bakery that employs about 500 workers at the two China Grove facilities.

Scenario:  You are the safety manager of an establishment on the east coast in the Eastern Time zone.  All your OSHA 300 logs and records are maintained at your corporate headquarters in California.  On Tuesday morning at 7:00 AM (your plant starting time) sharp, an OSHA inspector appears at your facility door step and commences an OSHA inspection.  Very early in the opening conference, the inspector asks you for the OSHA 300 logs.  You explain these logs are maintained at your corporate office in California and their work hours are 9:00 to 5:00 Western Time.  It will be noon time at your plant before you can even get anyone at the corporate office to begin the process of responding to this inspector’s request.

The Inspector gets frustrated and tells you this is not acceptable. He needs to see them now or you are subject to an OSHA citation.

Question:  Is the inspector correct in his belief?

Answer:  The OSHA recordkeeping standard 1904.40(a) states:  When an authorized government representative asks for the records you keep under Part 1904, you must provide copies of the records within four (4) business hours.

However if you read further: 1904.40(b)(2)  states that OSHA will consider your response to be timely if you give the records to the government representative within four (4) business hours of the request. If you maintain the records at a location in a different time zone, you may use the business hours of the establishment at which the records are located when calculating the deadline.

Therefore, you would have until 1:00pm west coast time or 4:00pm your time to produce these records and still be in compliance.

Scenario: You are the safety manager of a medium sized manufacturing plant and are responsible for maintaining the OSHA log for this operation.  You have an employee who was on top of a machine and fell and was seriously injured.  The employee lost 120 days of work and then returned to work with fairly significant work restrictions for the next six months.  You documented the case on your OSHA 300 log and marked it as a lost time case and counted the 120 days as lost days and the next 60 days of restricted days to total 180 days.  At that point based on paragraph “1904.7(b)(3)(vi), the employer is allowed to stop counting the days away from work when the injury or illness results in 180 calendar days away from work” you feel you stop counting the additional restricted days.

Several months later, your corporate safety director conducts an audit of your OSHA 300 log and states you should have continued to count the restricted days until they reached 180 and believes you need to add 120 additional days of restricted work to this case. He believes the cap of 180 days is exclusive to lost days and restricted or transferred days and you cannot sum both columns to reach your 180 day cutoff.   He believes each column must reach 180 days before you can stop counting.

Question: Who is correct, you or the corporate safety director?

Answer:  In a search of the Detailed Frequently Asked Questions for OSHA’s Injury and Illness Recordkeeping Rule the following scenario was described and the answer to the above issue is found in the explanation:
Question 7-18. How would the employer record the change on the OSHA 300 Log for an injury or illness after the injured worker reached the cap of 180 days for restricted work and then was assigned to “days away from work”?

The employer must check the box that reflects the most severe outcome associated with a given injury or illness. The severity of any case decreases on the log from column G (Death) to column J (Other recordable case). Since days away from work is a more severe outcome than restricted work the employer is required to remove the check initially placed in the box for job transfer or restriction and enter a check in the box for days away from work (column H). Employers are allowed to cap the number of days away and/or restricted work/job transfer when a case involves 180 calendar days. For purposes of recordability, the employer would enter 180 days in the “Job transfer or restriction” column and may also enter 1 day in the “Days away from work” column to prevent confusion or computer related problems.

OSHA cites Miami business for deliberately failing to protect employees from lead exposure and issues Lead Enterprises Inc. 32 citations and more than $307,000 in penalties. Parent company no stranger to OSHA.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued citations to Lead Enterprises Inc. in Miami, Fla., alleging that the company knowingly neglected to protect employees from lead exposure. The company is being cited with 32 safety and health violations, and $307,200 in total proposed penalties.

“This company was well aware of what it needed to do to protect its workers from a well-known hazard but failed to provide that protection,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “Lead exposure can cause many serious health issues including brain damage, kidney disease and harm to the reproductive system. Such a blatant disregard for OSHA’s lead standard is shameful and will not be tolerated.”

Lead Enterprises is a lead recycling and manufacturing company that produces lead products, including fish tackle, lead diving weights and lead-lined walls used in medical radiology facilities.

As a follow-up to a 2009 inspection, OSHA conducted a July 2010 inspection that resulted in four willful citations and proposed penalties of $224,000. The citations allege violations of OSHA’s lead standard including exposing workers to lead above the permissible exposure limit; not providing engineering controls to reduce exposure; failure to perform ventilation measurements; failure to provide a clean change area; and failure to provide a suitable shower facility for workers exposed to lead above the permissible level. A willful violation exists when an employer has demonstrated either an intentional disregard for the requirements of the law or plain indifference to employee safety and health.

Additionally, 21 serious citations with proposed penalties of $70,400 allege that Lead Enterprises failed to perform an initial exposure determination for workers who clean the facility, to conduct quarterly monitoring, to notify workers of air monitoring results, to provide appropriate protective clothing, to maintain surfaces free from lead accumulation, to properly store oxygen and acetylene tanks in the facility, properly install production equipment, and to fix or remove defective forklift trucks. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

“The management of Lead Enterprises acknowledged awareness of the OSHA lead standard and the dangers associated with lead exposure but continued to allow the hazard to exist, exposing employees to a serious health risk,” said Darlene Fossum, OSHA’s area director in Fort Lauderdale.

Three repeat citations with a proposed penalty of $11,200 have been issued, alleging that the company failed to cover electrical wires on a furnace fan motor and record injuries on the OSHA recordkeeping forms for 2008 and 2010. A repeat citation is issued when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years.

Two other-than-serious citations were issued with $1,600 in proposed penalties for failing to record instances of medical removal on OSHA 300 logs, and label containers that held lead-contaminated clothing. Two additional other-than-serious citations with no monetary penalties have been issued for failing to certify forklift operators and notify the laundering facility of lead exposure dangers.

In August 2010, OSHA issued citations to E.N. Range Inc. in Miami, a sister company of Lead Enterprises. E.N. Range is the primary lead supplier for Lead Enterprises, and both companies have the same owner. The earlier citations alleged that E.N. Range knowingly neglected to protect employees who clean gun ranges from serious overexposure to lead. E.N. Range also was cited for providing, without medical supervision, non-Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments for lead exposure. The company was cited for more than 50 violations of the lead and other standards, with total proposed penalties of $2,099,600. It is currently contesting the citations and penalties.

OSHA cites Home Depot in San Antonio for lack of worker protective equipment, improper recordkeeping.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued serious and repeat citations to Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. at 9115 North Loop 1604 in San Antonio for lacking adequate personal protective equipment and deficient injury recordkeeping. Proposed penalties total $70,500.

“As a large, national employer with a history of OSHA inspections and citations at other facilities, we are disappointed to find so many of the same or similar hazards at this facility,” said Jeff Funke, OSHA’s area director in San Antonio. “It’s imperative that this company and all employers adhere to safety and health standards to prevent worker injuries.”

OSHA began its inspection on July 30, which found that an employee had sustained chemical burns due to lack of appropriate personal protective equipment and training for protective equipment.

Serious violations cited include failure to train employees on the proper use of protective equipment, failure to teach employees how to safely clean up spills and not assessing respiratory hazards. A serious citation is issued when there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Repeat violations cited include failure to ensure eye protection was utilized; failure to provide adequate eye wash and quick drenching facilities; failure to properly record and describe injuries on the OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping form; and improper certification of the form. A repeat violation is issued when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. However, at the time this inspection began, the current repeat violation policy was within the last three years.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited the Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. regional distribution center in Rockford with $182,000 in proposed penalties for failure to document and report employee injuries and illnesses, as required by OSHA safety and health regulations.

As the result of a May inspection, OSHA issued Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. four willful citations with a proposed penalty of $160,000 for alleged continuous failure to correctly classify injuries or illnesses and not correctly recording the number of days a worker was away from work due to injury or illness in the OSHA 300 log. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or plain indifference to employee safety and health.

The distribution center also received two repeat violations with proposed penalties of $20,000 and two other-than-serious violations with proposed penalties of $2,000 for other recordkeeping violations. OSHA requires employers to record and maintain occupational injuries and illnesses on the OSHA 300 log. A repeat violation is issued when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

“Accurate injury and illness records are vital to protecting workers’ health and safety,” said OSHA Area Director Kathy Webb in North Aurora, Ill. “Accurate records are an important tool that employers and workers can use to identify hazards in the workplace, and they also enable OSHA to better target its resources.”

Steel giant hit with Willfuls and $53,000 for failing to record worker injuries, hearing loss

Federal OSHA has issued AK Steel Corp. five willful and three other-than-serious citations for failing to record occupational injuries at its Middletown Ohio facility. The company, which produces flat-rolled and tubular steel products, is facing proposed penalties of $53,000.

The Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA David Michaels stated in a press release “AK Steel has implemented policies where a portion of its managers’ bonus money often involves taking disciplinary action against workers for reporting injuries, if accurate records are not compiled because workers believe they will be fired or disciplined for reporting an injury, or supervisors fear they will lose their bonuses if workers report injuries, real safety is not being achieved. Accurate workplace injury and illness records are vital tools for identifying hazards and protecting workers’ health and safety.”

OSHA has issued AK Steel willful citations for failing to properly record occupational injuries on the OSHA 300 Log for more than three years, from January 2007 through the inspection in April 2010. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or plain indifference to employee safety and health.

“By not properly recording injuries and creating an environment that discourages employees from reporting occupational hazards, AK Steel has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the safety and welfare of its workers,” said OSHA Area Director Dick Gilgrist of Cincinnati, Ohio. “OSHA is committed to seeing that the workers at this facility are provided a safe and healthy workplace.”

AK Steel also has been issued other-than-serious citations for failing to record cases of occupational noise-induced hearing loss.

AK Steel’s facilities have been inspected more than 138 times and have received 496 citations from OSHA since 1972. The company, which is headquartered in West Chester, Ohio, was cited in 2008 for recordkeeping violations at its Coshocton, Ohio, facility. AK Steel also operates facilities in Mansfield and Zanesville, Ohio, as well as Ashland, Ky., Butler, Pa., and Rockport, Ind.

Scenario: A machinist injured his shoulder last year when he was removing a part from a CNC machine. In order to recover, he was off work for a week, returned to work with lifting restrictions, and received physical therapy for three months. At the end of the therapy, the doctor said he had fully recuperated, and the machinist was able to perform his job without any restrictions. However, the employee just reported that he injured the same shoulder while he was rolling his toolbox to his work area. He said he felt a significant amount of pain in about the same area of his shoulder as before. The Safety Director sent the employee to the company doctor who prescribed treatment identical to the previous injury. The Safety Director felt this incident was a recurrence of the old case.

Question: Did the Safety Director make the correct decision? See what OSHA says.

Answer:  The answer lies with the doctor.  The injury may be different and in another shoulder area even if the employee says it is the same, so the occurrence may be a new case.  If a conflicting second opinion from another doctor is received, the Safety Director will need to make the decision. 

1904.6 (b)(3) states the following:

May I rely on a physician or other licensed health care professional to determine whether a case is a new case or a recurrence of an old case?

You are not required to seek the advice of a physician or other licensed health care professional. However, if you do seek such advice, you must follow the physician or other licensed health care professional’s recommendation about whether the case is a new case or a recurrence. If you receive recommendations from two or more physicians or other licensed health care professionals, you must make a decision as to which recommendation is the most authoritative (best documented, best reasoned, or most authoritative), and record the case based upon that recommendation.

OSHA has issued Goodman Manufacturing Co. LP 83 willful citations for failing to record and improperly recording work-related injuries and illnesses at the company’s Houston air conditioning cooling facility. Proposed penalties total $1,215,000.

“Accurate workplace injury and illness records are vital tools for identifying hazards and protecting workers’ health and safety,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “Workers and employers need this information to recognize patterns of injuries and illnesses, and prevent future hazards.”

OSHA’s Houston North Area Office began its investigation March 2 in response to a complaint alleging that Goodman Manufacturing was not properly recording workplace injuries and illnesses in violation of OSHA’s regulations. The investigation determined that Goodman had either not recorded or failed to properly record the nature and/or duration of 72 percent of employee injuries and illnesses from January 2008 to March 15, 2010, on its log.

Although Goodman was extremely knowledgeable about OSHA recordkeeping requirements, it made many unsupportable decisions that resulted in the deficiencies found by the agency. With regard to the injuries and illnesses improperly recorded, important information reflecting severity, such as the time away from work, was grossly incorrect.

“OSHA takes these violations extremely seriously,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “OSHA needs accurate data to effectively target its inspections and resources, and to measure the impact of OSHA’s actions on workplace safety. Employers and workers need to understand how important accurate data are to workplace safety and health.”

OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for OSHA’s requirements or employee safety and health.

Apart from this particular investigation, OSHA has implemented a National Emphasis Program on Recordkeeping to assess the accuracy of injury and illness recorded by employers.