Author: WorkCompAcademy

Hundreds of lawsuits stemming from the coronavirus pandemic are rapidly amassing in state and federal courts, the first wave of litigation challenging decisions made early during the crisis by corporations, insurance companies and governments.

According to the report published by SFGATE, claims have been filed against hospitals and senior-living facilities, airlines and cruise lines, fitness chains and the entertainment industry – 771 as of Friday, according to a database compiled by Hunton Andrews Kurth, an international law firm tracking cases that emerge from the pandemic.

Complaints reach across industries and state lines. Some seek significant monetary damages. Others ask for a judge to correct actions alleged to be harmful or in violation of contractual agreements.

In New York more than 250 lawsuits have been filed – the most of anywhere in the nation by far. Among them, is a set of lawsuits brought by a nurse’s union against the state and two hospitals. They say officials failed to appropriately protect hospital workers with sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and ensure a safe workspace for those at higher risk of contracting the illness.

A similar suit was brought by a union representing state employees in Alaska.

Families who’ve lost loved ones at a senior-living residence in Atlanta have accused the facility of failing to protect its residents, alleging it allowed events and group meals to continue even as family visits were curtailed.

Jodi Gill, a criminal justice professor at Penn State University, is the named plaintiff in a class-action suit brought against Pennsylvania’s health department for what she says is its failure to properly monitor the state’s nursing homes, including the facility – Brighton Rehabilitation and Wellness Center in Beaver, Pennsylvania – where her 81-year-old father lives. Nursing homes there have recorded 60 deaths due to the virus, according to state data.

A devout man in Washington state, home to the country’s first confirmed case of the novel coronavirus, sued its governor for setting policies that prohibit the small weekly Bible study he hosts at his home.

Other claims focus on voting rights and the potential expansion of absentee balloting. As it gets closer to the November general election, there are likely to be new petitions seeking judicial intervention, citing quandaries and concerns over access to the polls.

In California, customers have gone after a yoga studio and a massage parlor. A ski resort chain based in Denver also has been sued in the Golden State.

A number of class actions have been filed, including against Ticketmaster for its handling of canceled live events. One suit alleges the box office behemoth, and its parent company Live Nation, “sought to force their customers to bear the brunt of their own shortsightedness,” according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Disrupted travel accounts for several claims. The nation’s major airlines – now on life support, dependent on billions in government relief funds – have been sued over policies preventing customers from obtaining cash refunds for travel that never transpired because of the pandemic.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has indicated he intends to address protections for businesses when the Senate reconvenes next week. “Our response,” McConnell said, “must not be slowed, weakened, or exploited to set up the biggest trial lawyer bonanza in history.”

Michael Murdoch was employed as a millwright for Siemens Industry on a construction project at SFO. He was working on a baggage conveyor belt cutting a metal side guard. The conveyor began moving unexpectedly, pulling Murdoch into an opening, where he remained stuck until he was able to pull himself out.

In May 2012, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against respondent Brock Solutions for negligence and loss of consortium. The complaint alleged that Brock was the subcontractor responsible for “the design, installation, and programming of the computerized system” that controlled the baggage conveyor system Murdoch was working on when he was injured.

The case was tried in 2014. The jury determined Brock and Siemens were negligent, and their negligence was a substantial factor in plaintiffs’ injuries. The jury awarded plaintiffs $3,895,220, comprised of $2,395,220 in economic damages and $1,500,000 in non-economic damages. The jury allocated 80 percent of the fault to Murdoch, 10 percent to Brock, and 10 percent to Siemens. The court reduced the economic damages by Murdoch’s percentage of fault, and offset settlement payments and workers’ comtpensation benefits Murdoch received before trial.

Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, arguing the jury’s apportionment of fault was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, concluding Brock’s liability “was significant and in excess of the 10% that the jury apportioned.” Brock appealed and plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal. In Murdoch I, this court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion for a new trial.

Following a second trial, the jury found that Brock was negligent, but that the negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Murdoch’s injury. In July 2018, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Brock. Murdoch appealed, but the judgment was affirmed in the unpublished case of Murdoch v Brock Solutions.

During the second trial, Murdoch testified that he agreed “the most important rule for anybody working on top of energized equipment is lockout, tagout.” He admitted he had failed to lockout the conveyor belt on the day of the accident at SFO because he thought a Bass Electric employee had done so.

The trial court did not err in permitting a retrial on damages. In their motion for a new trial following the 2014 verdict, plaintiffs requested a new trial rather than a trial only on liability. The August 2014 court order granting the motion did not limit the new trial to the liability issue. Neither did the March 2017 decision of this court affirming the trial court limit the issues on retrial. On April 4, 2018, the eve of the April 9 scheduled trial, plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved in limine to limit the retrial to liability only.

Plaintiffs argue the trial court abused its discretion in allowing evidence regarding Murdoch’s workers compensation benefits, which, they argue, “was offered to argue that Mr. Murdoch’s injuries were not serious based upon his failure to obtain medical care from collateral sources.”

However, plaintiffs cite to no portion of the hearing on the motions in limine where they argued that, if the trial court allowed retrial on damages, the court should exclude evidence regarding Murdoch’s workers compensation benefits due to the collateral source rule.

The Trump administration has tightened restrictions on the use of ethanol in hand sanitizer, citing safety concerns and forcing some suppliers to halt sales at a time of soaring demand, according to sources and documents seen by Reuters.

The crackdown is meant to protect consumers from potentially dangerous impurities in hand sanitizer, but could worsen shortages at a time when households, hospitals and nursing homes need sanitizer to fight the coronavirus pandemic.

The restrictions have dealt a blow to ethanol producers. The industry has invested millions of dollars since last month to ramp up the output of corn-based alcohol sanitizer to offset slumping fuel demand.

Ethanol production has fallen to a record low of 537,000 barrels per day and halved from month-ago levels as gasoline demand has slumped. Fuel demand has dropped by roughly 30% worldwide due to stay-at-home orders.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on April 15 issued limits on certain chemicals permitted in alcohol-based hand sanitizer, updating temporary guidance it adopted last month as the health crisis deepened and more manufacturers registered to produce hand sanitizer.

Since then, the FDA has notified several ethanol companies that their product does not meet safety standards, forcing them to halt production and cancel supply agreements, according to a source familiar with the matter. The source requested anonymity to speak candidly about the situation.

In one case, the FDA said it had found significant levels of the carcinogen acetaldehyde in ethanol supplied by a company for use in hand sanitizer, according to a recent email exchange seen by Reuters.

“FDA has reviewed your ethanol data and determined that it is not acceptable as an ingredient under the Agency’s temporary hand sanitizer policies,” it wrote.

The FDA told Reuters it decided to update the guidance after reviewing ingredient data supplied by ethanol companies and fielding multiple questions from companies seeking clarification about its temporary production policies.

The agency said in a statement it was committed to “working with manufacturers, compounders, state boards of pharmacy and the public to increase the supply of alcohol-based hand sanitizer available to Americans.”

The FDA did not immediately respond to a request for details on the number of ethanol companies it had notified for failing to meet its April 15 guidance. Its move has drawn criticism from suppliers who say it should further ease its safety standards to ensure hand sanitizer is widely available during the coronavirus outbreak.

Mitchell International Inc., headquartered in San Diego, California,  published the results of a survey of about 100 workers’ compensation professionals in the U.S.

It wanted to know what the industry thinks is next in workers’ compensation and how will technology affect our industry in 2020 and beyond? And how does the outlook for technology in our industry compare to the industry’s perspective in 2017, when Mitchell conducted a similar survey?

To find out, it surveyed nearly 100 workers’ compensation professionals at a range of companies, including insurance carriers, third-party administrators, public entities, brokers, and managed care and risk management companies.

The results of the 2020 survey demonstrated that the adoption of technology is now, more than ever, at the forefront of the evolution of workers’ compensation claims management, and is a trend expected to continue and grow into the foreseeable future.

Half of the responding workers’ compensation professionals believe that cost containment is the driving factor for adopting advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), predictive analytics, telemedicine, wearables, mobile technology and chatbots.

Many respondents believe that telemedicine will have the biggest impact on the industry within the next five years (32%), followed closely by artificial intelligence (30%) and predictive analytics (20%).

Almost all of the 2020 respondents said they have either already adopted (20%) or are at least somewhat likely to adopt (74%) these new advanced technologies within their organization within the next five years. Of the 20% of respondents currently using these technologies, the majority are using predictive analytics, followed by telemedicine and mobile.

Additionally, 33% of respondents said they are currently using claims analytics to make business improvements, and 36% said they are either currently implementing or planning to implement claims analytics in the next five years. Participants also reported that, out of a list of common challenges, the most pressing issues their organizations face today are workflow efficiency (28%), followed by cost containment (19%) and the changing workforce/employee turnover (15%).

It is noted that this survey was undertaken before the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it is anticipated that the trends will continue as reported with an additional emphasis on telemedicine which has proven to be so important for treating injured workers during this time.