ILNews

OSHA withdraws workplace noise rule interpretation after opposition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

When it comes to workplace injury, most envision a dangerous fall or an equipment or structural malfunction leading to broken bones, pulled muscles, strained backs or head injuries. But one often overlooked and potentially devastating injury is hearing loss resulting from high noise levels in a workplace.

The issue isn’t one that Indiana lawyers specializing in worker safety and employment law have missed. Recent news reports have put noise-level issues on the forefront and tie them into a larger discussion of how the federal occupational safety agency writes or changes rules dictating how attorneys advise their clients.

“This was a real significant issue for those lawyers who deal with OSHA, because if they pushed this through to change the workplace noise interpretation then that could change the game for everyone else,” said Fort Wayne attorney Mark Kittaka, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg.

Attorneys representing the business and worker sides differ on whether this would be a beneficial change, but they do say that what is happening in the workplace safety arena warrants more review by everyone.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA) withdrew its proposed change to workplace noise standards that would have toughened employers’ requirements on those workplace noise situations by clarifying the phrase “feasible administration or engineering controls” within its rule.

If adopted, the proposal would have essentially resulted in employers having to adopt increased safety measures to protect the hearing of employees rather than just providing them with ear protection gear, such as ear phones.

The administration contended that if something was feasibly possible, even cutting-edge technology that might not be widely available, then it could be required under the new interpretation.

Employers and attorneys mulling what that new interpretation would have meant found it could have resulted in high-cost building modifications or equipment changes in how work is actually done in these sites. Some would have cost more than what it costs to buy hearing protection to help shield workers from the noise, they said.

OSHA first published its new interpretation of the noise rule terminology in the Federal Register in October 2010, and in December it extended the public comment period for three months. Federal officials contended this wasn’t a rule change but rather simply a new interpretation, while opponents in the business community argued it circumvented the administrative rule-making process and had the potential to go beyond just hearing loss issues in the workplace.

“This wasn’t going through the formal rule-making process and wasn’t really a change in regulation that’s out there, it was just an interpretation of an existing rule that could have been expanded greatly and been huge in workplace compensation and employment law,” Kittaka said. “That’s a crazy difficult standard for feasibility and would impair companies, but if they can do this for hearing loss compensation then that standard could be applied to many others OSHA issues.”

Almost immediately after the proposal was published, it sparked criticism from various industrial and trade groups who viewed it as a costly measure that would require them to make extensive and unnecessary changes – possibly requiring noise-dampening equipment or other expensive technologies. Employers argued this would likely hit the economy hard because some businesses would have to lay off employees or possibly close.

OSHA explained that the noise proposal was a result of concern about continued high levels of hearing loss among workplace employees. This is despite statistics that Indiana lawyers say show the number has decreased by a third between 2004 and 2009.

“The numbers just don’t show that this should be a concern, and so the question is why they would make this change on something at a time when these injuries are getting better statistically,” Kittaka said.

Now, the federal agency is exploring how to address the hearing loss issue without incurring these types of significant costs.

Though the proposal has been scrapped, Hoosier attorneys worry that it could return in some form or that it’s part of a larger push to revise the broader rule-making process.

Kittaka said the big concern is that OSHA is overreaching and that can be bad for the economy.

Carmel attorney John Daly, who handles construction site law and teaches OSHA courses, said he sees the point of trying to eliminate the potential of hearing loss claims in the first place.

“If you can design out a hazard, that’s the best way to go because you can avoid it all together down the road,” he said. “You’re not just adapting and responding to it. The rub is what’s ‘feasible’ and that’s where the employers say it’s too expensive … and that’s where you move to the battleground. It’s not like this was some radical decision, because in reality a problem is that workers just don’t wear the ear protections they’re given.”

Daly’s professional experience has made him aware of other issues impacting workplace injury as a result of using hearing equipment. In some cases, employees couldn’t communicate adequately or handle a situation to prevent an injury, as they might have been able to do without ear protection.

“You can tell which way the political winds are blowing based on how much emphasis is placed on interpreting the rules,” Daly said. “That’s what happened here. The thing about OSHA is that they have police duties, but can’t be everywhere and have to come in and enforce after the fact rather than trying to prevent this from the start. That’s where you need contractors and employers to know the rules and enforce them.”

His law partner, Matt Golitko, chair of Indiana Trial Lawyers Association’s workers’ compensation section, said these types of hearing loss claims are so few that it didn’t seem like it should be a priority for the federal agency. In his 11 years of practicing workers’ compensation at high volume, he’s had less than five of these. Those clients suffering from workplace hearing injuries are employed at places such as factories and loud construction sites, he said.

“Generally speaking, anytime we can eliminate the risk of injury to an employee, that has a benefit to everyone,” Golitko said. “If we take those issues away, you’ll have even fewer hearing loss claims and that would in turn have a good effect on an employer’s rates with insurance companies.

“But whether it would play out that way in reality, because of the costs that would be involved here, is a different question. Indiana is still one of the best places to have a business because our worker compensation laws are as good here as anywhere in the country.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT