Kicking off National Safety Month, and one year after announcing a historic partnership with Amazon, the National Safety Council unveiled the first-of-its-kind MSD Pledge to reduce the most common workplace injury, musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). During the inaugural Workplace Safety Summit: Business Action to Prevent Musculoskeletal Injuries, more than 15 of the nation’s leading organizations joined this effort and signed the pledge to improve workplace safety, reduce MSD risk, and enhance all workers’ well-being.

MSDs – such as tendinitis, back strains and sprains, and carpal tunnel syndrome – impact nearly a quarter of the world’s population and are the leading cause of worker disability, early retirement, and limitations to gainful employment. The MSD Pledge seeks to create safer outcomes for millions of workers worldwide by reducing these injuries by 25% by 2025. By making critical changes, employers will also build more equitable workplaces for frontline workers and communities of color, which are two groups disproportionately impacted by MSDs.

Along with Amazon and NSC, founding pledge members include Alcon Research, LLC; Ansell Inteliforz; Amentum; American Industrial Hygiene Association; AMP; Benchmark ESG; Cummins Inc.; Human Balance and Stability Systems, LLC; John Deere; MEGA InTech; Meteorite; Tenneco; United Airlines; and VelocityEHS.

Organizations signing the MSD Pledge promise to:

– – Reduce risks by analyzing the causes of MSD injuries across operations and investing in solutions and practices that reduce risks to workers.
– – Innovate and collaborate by leveraging best practices and sharing learnings and countermeasures to expand upon innovations to improve safety practices.
– – Build an organizational culture that values safety by promoting a workplace where safety excellence, transparency, and accurate reporting are equally valued, and where everyone, at every level of the organization, is accountable for the safety and health of workers.
– – Commit to a significant reduction of MSD injuries by creating safer outcomes for millions of workers worldwide and reducing MSD risk and subsequent injuries by 25% by 2025.

In addition to accessing free resources and sharing safety innovations to help reduce MSD risks, MSD Pledge members will participate in the MSD Solutions Index, an annual company index that analyzes the benefits of the pledge over time.

The index will aggregate data on risk reduction strategies, workplace safety culture, and innovation and collaboration, while also identifying areas for targeted action and uncovering trends to inform future approaches. MSD Pledge members benefit from free events, training and coaching opportunities from the Council’s team of ergonomics experts, as well as opportunities to share best practices and lessons learned with one another. Participation in the MSD Pledge is free and open to any employer that is committed to identifying and reducing risks of MSD injuries and creating a culture of safety at work.

The MSD Pledge was developed at the MSD Solutions Lab, a ground breaking initiative established as part of the NSC and Amazon partnership to solve this omnipresent safety challenge. Led by NSC, the pledge is one of several initiatives launching in 2022 to achieve the program goal of preventing MSDs before they start, including:

– – Advisory Council: NSC has named the founding members of the advisory council for this ground breaking program. Composed of volunteers, these experts in safety, health, ergonomics and innovation support and inform the program’s work by engaging in, researching, solving, and amplifying MSD prevention efforts.
– – MSD 2025 Pioneering Research: Support comprehensive research efforts, including utilizing natural language processing, case studies, reports, and expansive systematic reviews and meta-analyses to explore current and future MSD prevention-related strategies. The research findings will be available to all industries to explore and glean insights.
– – Innovation Challenges: Individuals and organizations alike will have the opportunity to develop and share cutting-edge solutions to prevent and eliminate workplace-related MSDs. During this competition, prizes and grants will be awarded to honor innovation and help fund these solutions.
– – Small Business and University Grants: Provide grants to small businesses, universities, and students to fund research and innovation that help companies of all sizes achieve impact.

To learn more about the MSD Pledge, the MSD Solutions Lab, and the risks associated with MSDs, visit nsc.org/msd.

In March 2022, telehealth utilization, as measured by telehealth’s share of all medical claim lines, fell nationally for the second straight month, according to FAIR Health’s Monthly Telehealth Regional Tracker.

Following a drop of 9.3 percent in February, telehealth utilization decreased 6.1 percent in March, declining from 4.9 percent of all medical claim lines in February to 4.6 percent in March.

Telehealth utilization also decreased in February in every US census region (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), with the greatest decrease (8.1 percent) in the South, followed closely by the West (7.8 percent). The data represent the privately insured population, including Medicare Advantage and excluding Medicare Fee-for-Service and Medicaid.

The drop in telehealth utilization was likely due to continuing reduction in the reported number and severity of COVID-19 infections, which may have led more patients to return to in-person healthcare services. Data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that the number of reported cases of COVID-19 continued to fall in March.

The rankings of the top five telehealth diagnoses did not change nationally in March 2022, but there were some changes at the regional level. In the Northeast, acute respiratory diseases and infections rose from fifth place to second place in the rankings. In the South, encounter for examination fell off the list and urinary tract infections rejoined the list (in fifth place) for the first time since December 2021. In all regions and nationally, mental health conditions remained the top-ranking telehealth diagnosis.

The rankings of the top five telehealth specialties did not change nationally or in most regions in March 2022. But in the Midwest, psychiatrist and primary care nonphysician switched places, with the former rising to fourth place in March and the latter dropping to fifth place. In all regions and nationally, for the second month in a row, social worker remained the top-ranking telehealth specialty.

In March 2022, the rankings of the top five telehealth procedure codes did not change nationally or in any region. The number one telehealth procedure code nationally and in every region remained CPT®2 90837, one-hour psychotherapy.

For March 2022, the Telehealth Cost Corner spotlighted the cost of CPT 97803, therapy procedure reassessment for nutrition management, each 15 minutes. Nationally, the median charge amount for this service when rendered via telehealth was $49.97, and the median allowed amount was $31.58.3

In what’s become an annual rite of spring for its Best & Worst States for Business survey of CEOs, Texas and Florida held on to their No. 1 and No. 2 spots this year, continuing their long-running lock on the top of the rankings.

Based on polling of nearly 700 CEOs and business owners from every U.S. state, conducted in January and February 2022, the Lone Star State placed No. 1 again, as it has every year since Chief Executive began the compiling the list in 2001. Their combination of a fast-growth population and a low-tax, low-regulation business climate is proven catnip for companies.

It’s a position that seems unlikely to change, even as Governor Greg Abbott has stressed some corporate sensibilities in recent weeks by snarling supply chains with an order for state inspection of commercial trucks coming from Mexico, looking to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs. Abbott also has assumed a high profile in the growing national controversy over new abortion restrictions that began with a law in Texas.

The state’s faltering electrical grid resulted in a similar tsunami of criticism – even worse in business circles, including a rare knuckle-rap from new Austin resident Elon Musk in early 2021—but that did little to chill the state’s reputation or ranking among CEOs.

Meanwhile, Florida has solidified its hold on the No. 2 position in the Chief Executive rankings with a consistently business-friendly approach under Governor Ron DeSantis that crested during the past couple of years with his hands-off approach to Covid shutdowns.

Texas has enjoyed an era of stunning growth based on a broadening of its economy to automobile production, digital-technology development and shared services as well as the traditional base in oil, gas and refining. And last fall, Samsung announced its investment of $17.1 billion to construct a microchip factory outside Austin.

Similarly, Florida and Tennessee (holding at No. 3) have welcomed continuing streams of new corporate investments, such as Ford’s recent multi-billion-dollar commitment to Tennessee to build electric vehicles there.

Arizona climbed six spots this year, to No. 4 in the ranking, thanks in part to the most laissez-faire pandemic-shutdown policies in the West. “There’s a big spread across the Sun Belt from Raleigh to Charlotte to Tampa and Jacksonville, and the big metro areas of Texas, on to Phoenix that are all in various respects growing fast,” said Cullum Clark, director of the Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative. “It’s a distinctive model.”

States at the bottom of the list continued to suffer from reputations for high taxes, regulation and costs of living, with Washington at No. 46, followed by New Jersey, Illinois, New York and California, all unchanged in their rankings from previous years.

Despite some of the nation’s top talent pools and education systems, it will take a true revolution in their tax and regulatory structures to gain ground with CEOs -and move up from the basement.

Ken Stabler sustained an industrial injury to multiple body parts while employed as a professional football player. He was employed by the Oakland Raiders, Houston Oilers, and New Orleans Saints during the cumulative trauma period.

Benefits were awarded against the Saints and Travelers. After Stabler passed away, Travelers and his estate settled the previously awarded benefits.

Travelers insured the Saints prior to Stabler’s last year of injurious exposure and they were held liable for his benefits pursuant to Labor Code section 5500.5.

Travelers alleged that the Saints were unlawfully uninsured during his last year of injurious exposure. The Saints allege that they were covered by North-West Insurance Company and by Horizon Insurance Company, but the Saints were unable to locate the alleged North-West policy and there is no North-West policy in evidence. North-West Insurance Company was liquidated by the Oregon Insurance Guaranty Association in 1999.

Travelers filed a Petition for Reimbursement seeking reimbursement of $87, 083.53 for benefits paid from the Saints, based on Labor Codes section 5500.5.

After a trial primarily focused on the issue of whether the Saints were unlawfully uninsured, the WCJ found that substantial evidence did not show that the Saints were covered by a workers’ compensation policy issued by North West. And that the Saints did have workers compensation coverage, which included coverage in California with First Horizon Insurance Company and thus the Saints were not unlawfully uninsured during the last year of injurious exposure.

Reconsideration was granted, and the WCAB panel found that the Saints were illegally uninsured and ordered the Saints to reimburse Travelers in the panel decision of Ken Stabler v Louisiana Saints et. al. ADJ7762424 (May 2022) .

Travelers contends that the First Horizon policy did not provide workers’ compensation coverage because First Horizon was not licensed by the California Department of Insurance to issue policies. Travelers also argues that by the terms of the First Horizon policy, including the “All States Endorsement,” the policy does not provide workers’ compensation insurance in any state except Louisiana.

Workers’ compensation insurance policies in California are subject to regulation by the Department of Insurance. All workers’ compensation policies must “contain a clause to the effect that the insurer will be directly and primarily liable to any proper claimant for payment of …compensation.”

First Horizon agreed to be directly and primarily responsible for providing benefits to applicants under the laws of the state of Louisiana. (“Coverage A”) Unlike “Coverage A,” the “All States Endorsement” is an agreement that Horizon will reimburse the employer for liability imposed on the employer under the workers’compensation laws of states other than Louisiana.

The Saints could obtain reimbursement from First Horizon for California claims but the insurance agreement does not require First Horizon to directly pay benefits to a California applicant.

The coverage provided for California claims is similar to an excess policy – First Horizon promises reimbursement not payment. Thus, the Saints did not secure the payment of compensation as required by Section 3700 and they were illegally uninsured.

Spectrum Security Services, Inc., provides secure custodial services to federal agencies. The company transports and guards prisoners and detainees who require outside medical attention or have other appointments outside custodial facilities.

Gustavo Naranjo was a guard for Spectrum. Naranjo was suspended and later fired after leaving his post to take a meal break, in violation of a Spectrum policy that required custodial employees to remain on duty during all meal breaks.

Naranjo filed a putative class action on behalf of Spectrum employees, alleging that Spectrum had violated state meal break requirements under the Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order. (Lab. Code, § 226.7; IWC wage order No. 4-2001, § 11.) The complaint sought an additional hour of pay – commonly referred to as “premium pay” – for each day on which Spectrum failed to provide employees a legally compliant meal break.

According to the complaint, Spectrum was required to report the premium pay on employees’ wage statements and timely provide the pay to employees upon their discharge or resignation, but had done neither. The complaint sought the damages and penalties prescribed by those statutes as well as prejudgment interest.

After a remand from the Court of Appeal (Naranjo I v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 654) on several issues, the trial court certified a class for the meal break and related timely payment and wage statement claims and then held a trial in stages. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff class on the meal break and wage statement claims and awarded attorney fees and prejudgment interest at a rate of 10 percent.

Both sides appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s determination that Spectrum had violated the meal break laws but reversed the court’s holding that a failure to pay meal break premiums could support claims under the wage statement and timely payment statutes. It also ordered the rate of prejudgment interest reduced from 10 to 7 percent. (Naranjo II v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 444).

The California Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal, decision in Naranjo II, and concluded that the extra pay constitutes wages subject to the same timing and reporting rules as other forms of compensation for work, but agreed that the 7 percent default rate set by the state Constitution applies. (See Cal. Const., art. XV, § 1.) in its opinion in Naranjo III v Spectrum Security Services Inc. (2022) S258966.

California’s meal and rest break requirements date back to 1916 and 1932, respectively, when the newly created IWC included the requirements in a series of wage orders. For most of the century following the promulgation of the break requirements, the law offered limited tools for enforcement: “The only remedy available to employees . . . was injunctive relief aimed at preventing future abuse.”

In 2000, concerned that the injunctive remedy had not given employers enough incentive to comply with the law, the IWC added a new monetary remedy. Employees denied a meal or rest break on a given day would be due “one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation.” The Legislature followed suit the same year by enacting Labor Code section 226.7 providing essentially the same remedy.

An employee who remains on duty during lunch is providing the employer services; so too the employee who works without relief past the point when permission to stop to eat or rest was legally required. Section 226.7 reflects a determination that work in such circumstances is worth more – or should cost the employer more – than other work, and so requires payment of a premium. In this respect, missed-break premium pay is comparable to other forms of payment for working under conditions of hardship.

The extra pay thus constitutes wages subject to the same timing and reporting rules as other forms of compensation for work. When an employment relationship comes to an end, the Labor Code requires employers to promptly pay any unpaid wages to the departing employee.