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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  2. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  3. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  4. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  5. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

ADVERTISEMENT