Anyone familiar with the various bailout legislation re: OSHA?

quote:

---

COVID-19 can be a recordable illness if a worker is infected as a result of performing their work-related duties. However, employers are only responsible for recording cases of COVID-19 if all of the following are met:

- The case is a confirmed case of COVID-19 (see CDC information on persons under investigation and presumptive positive and laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19);

- The case is work-related, as defined by 29 CFR 1904.5; and

- The case involves one or more of the general recording criteria set forth in 29 CFR 1904.7 (e.g. medical treatment beyond first-aid, days away from work).

---

quote:

---

It's gonna crush the Workers Comp Insurance system.

---

quote:

---

Would it not just be a workers comp claim?

---

quote:

---

I know of no long-lasting effects of the disease once you’re over it, so no real SEB claim.

---

quote:

---

I think it causes some amount of lung scaring. So will they have to pay out on a case by case basis of the % of damage someone gets?

---

quote:

---

In cases not falling within any of the provisions already made, where the employee is seriously and permanently disfigured or suffers a permanent hearing loss solely due to a single traumatic accident, or where the usefulness of the physical function of the respiratory system, gastrointestinal system, or genitourinary system, as contained within the thoracic or abdominal cavities, is seriously and permanently impaired, compensation not to exceed sixty-six and two-thirds percent of wages for a period not to exceed one hundred weeks may be awarded. In cases where compensation is so awarded, when the disability is susceptible to percentage determination, compensation shall be established in the proportions set forth in Subparagraph (o) of this Paragraph. In cases where compensation is so awarded, when the disability is not susceptible to percentage determination, compensation as is reasonable shall be established in proportion to the compensation hereinabove specifically provided in the cases of specific disability.

---

quote:

---

As far as it just being a workers comp claim I'm not so sure about that. Businesses open back up knowing there is a risk some employees might contract this. Are they now negligent because they knowingly put workers at risk?

---

quote:

---

Since the Bazley case, this Court has continued to narrowly construe the intentional act exception. Under such narrow construction, we have held that “violation of a statute alone is not per se such an intentional act as will result in the employer's tort liability if injuries are sustained by an employee because of the violation.” Mott v. River Parish Maintenance, Inc., 432 So.2d 827, 832 (La.1983) (violation of Child Labor Law). We have also reversed court of appeals' decisions which had found employers' conduct to have met the intentional act exception. In Casto v. Fred's Painting, Inc., we reversed the Fifth Circuit which had found the employer committed an intentional act by knowingly maintaining a refrigerator where paint and some food were stored which produced an electrical shock each and every time a person came into contact with the refrigerator's metal surface. Casto v. Fred's Painting, Inc., 96–405 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/15/97), 688 So.2d 72, rev'd, 97–0374 (La. 4/4/97), 692 So.2d 408; see also Alexander v. Ingersoll–Rand, 95–1816 **7 La.10/27/95), 661 So.2d 1365.2
Our courts of appeal have likewise narrowly construed the intentional act exception according to its legislative intent and have almost universally held that employers are not liable under the intentional act exception for violations of safety standards or for failing to provide safety equipment. Compare *212 Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94–1497 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/30/94), 642 So.2d 311, writ denied, 94–2445 (La.12/9/94), 647 So.2d 1110 (failure to provide safe working environment in grain storage bin); Leger v. Hardy Rice Drier, Inc., 93–1512 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/94), 640 So.2d 650 (maintaining forklift in unsafe condition); Williams v. Gervais F. Favrot Co., Inc., 573 So.2d 533 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 576 So.2d 49 (La.1991) (violations of OSHA and other accepted industry safety standards); Dycus v. Martin Marietta Corp., 568 So.2d 592 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 571 So.2d 649 (La.1990) (allowing worker to operate dangerous equipment); Holliday v. B.E. & K. Const. Co., 563 So.2d 1333 (La.App. 3 Cir.1990) (knowledge that machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured from such use); Davis v. Southern Louisiana Insulations, 539 So.2d 922 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989) (failure to **8 provide ladders and scaffolding); Hood v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 517 So.2d 469 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987) (failure to maintain safe working conditions); Taylor v. Metropolitan Erection Co., 496 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 497 So.2d 1388 (La.1986) (failure to provide scaffold worker with safety belt); Snow v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 492 So.2d 31 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writs denied, 496 So.2d 349, 356 (La.1986) (allowing worker to work too closely to energized wires); Jacobsen v. Southeast Distributors, Inc., 413 So.2d 995 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 415 So.2d 953 (La.1982) (failure to provide specifically requested safety equipment); Cortez v. Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corp., 402 So.2d 249 (La.App. 4 Cir.1981) (deficiently designed machinery and disregard of OSHA standards); Erwin v. Excello Corp., 387 So.2d 1288 (La.App. 1 Cir.1980), writs refused, 396 So.2d 1242 and 397 So.2d 1363 (La.1981) with Trahan v. Trans–Louisiana Gas Co., 618 So.2d 30 (La.App. 3 Cir.1993) (employer committed intentional act by repeatedly exposing employee to the chemical mercaptan where employee had become ill on two prior occasions after exposure to mercaptan); Wainwright v. Moreno's, Inc., 602 So.2d 734 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992) (employer committed intentional act by ordering employee to work in a ditch that had caved in the previous day and which looked as though it would cave in again). Likewise, gross negligence does not meet the intentional act requirement. Gallant v. Transcontinental Drilling Co., 471 So.2d 858 (La.App. 2 Cir.1985).
1 Thus, based on the above cases and the legislative purpose behind the enactment of the intentional act exception, the fact that OSHA guidelines prohibited the pot from being moved manually and that the supervisor had specifically requested a forklift from SPS does not meet the strict requirements of that exception

---

quote:

---

tigersbb

---