Posts Tagged ‘drivers’

The Annals of Disability: Post Traumatic Spitting Syndrome

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

The Insider scans the world of risk in a risky world. We try to zero in on hazards that might be overlooked in the rush of daily commerce. In that spirit we bring you the distasteful but necessary tale from the New York Times involving bus drivers in New York City, a number of whom have suffered prolonged disability due to the unsanitary habits of riders.
Unhappy riders may express their displeasure in any number of ways, including the unfortunate choice of spitting on the bus driver. I am sure we all sympathize with these uniformed public servants who are simply doing their jobs. You cannot please everyone all the time, especially in the Big Apple.
It’s what happens after these incidents that is really puzzling. One third of all the assaults that prompted a bus operator to take paid leave in 2009 involved spitting, 51 in all. The MTA defines these “spat upon” incidents as assaults. The 51 drivers who went on paid leave after a spitting incident took, on average, 64 days off work — the equivalent of three months with pay. One driver spent 191 days on paid leave.
Before we jump to conclusions like irate citizens running after a bus, let’s listen to John Samuelson, president of the transit union:

“Being spat upon — having a passenger spit in your face, spit in your mouth, spit in your eye — is a physically and psychologically traumatic experience. If transit workers are assaulted, they are going to take off whatever amount of time they are going to take off to recuperate.” [Emphasis added.]

Mr. Samuelson has given us one of the most compelling definitions of disability I have ever encountered: workers are going to “take off whatever amount of time they are going to take off to recuperate.” It’s not a matter of medically (or psychologically) necessary time away from work, but the amount of time the worker deems necessary. Who needs a doctor when the drivers are empowered to determine the extent of their own disabilities?
Tough Times, Not-So-Tough Drivers
The MTA is facing a budget shortfall of $400 million. It’s tempting to conclude that tightening up a bit on eligibility for “Post Traumatic Spitting Syndrome” (PTSS – you first read about it here!) might help reduce that deficit. Heck, it might even make the riding public a bit more sympathetic to bus operators.
Nancy Shevell, the chairwoman of the transit authority’s bus committee, questions whether three months’ off is a bit excessive.
“You have to wonder if you can go home and shower off, take a nap, take off the rest of the day and maybe the next day,” she said. “When it gets strung out for months, you start to wonder.”
As we peruse the annals disability – mostly real and painful, occasionally trumped up – we do indeed begin to wonder who is in control in New York, just who is driving – in this case, not driving – the bus.

Racketeering and Comp: When the Denial of an Injury is an Injury

Wednesday, December 9th, 2009

Imagine you work as a commercial driver for a long-established trucking firm that self-insures for workers comp. You are injured on the job. You seek benefits under the comp statute. The TPA handling the claim refers you to a company doctor. The doctor determines that the injury is not work related. The adjuster for the TPA denies the claim. End of story?
Not quite. What if you shared your story with five other employees, all of whom filed comp claims, all of whom saw the same doctor (a family practitioner), with the same result: claim denied by the same adjuster at the TPA? A coincidence or a conspiracy?
Five employees of Cassens Transport in Michigan concluded that there was a conspiracy to deny their claims. They filed suit in federal court, alleging a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). A district court dismissed their claims, finding that their individual claims did not constitute a “pattern” of activity and that invocation of the RICO statute would violate the McCarren-Ferguson Act by interfering with state regulation of insurance.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reviewed the case and overturned the district court’s ruling. Now the U.S. Supreme Court, by declining to get involved, has upheld the Appeals Court. The Appeals ruling is a fascinating document which explores the nature and definition of racketeering, the relationship of workers comp benefits to insurance and the roles of state and federal governments. It’s required reading for attorneys and highly recommended for all others.
Criminal Acts?
The district court has been ordered to reconsider the allegations. The five Cassens drivers allege that Cassens, their self-insured employer, Tina Litwiller, a claims adjuster for the TPA Crawford and Co., and Dr. Saul Margules conspired to deny their comp claims. (While you might expect Dr. Margules to be board certified in occupational medicine, he appears to be a family practitioner.) The Appeals Court does not address the substance of the allegations: it simply rules that denial of the workers comp claims might involve a violation of the RICO statute and thus is appropriate fodder for the federal courts.
Some folks are alarmed that the feds are getting involved in what is usually a state issue. That might be a problem, but let’s not lose sight of the delicious prospect before us. During the course of the new hearings, plaintiff attorneys will seek access to some fascinating communication records: between Cassen and Crawford, detailing the status of individual claims; Ms. Litwiller’s claim notes; and communications between Crawford and Dr. Margules, who had so much difficulty finding a connection between a given injury and work. As much as I enjoyed the Appeals Court’s discussion, I am really looking forward to the nitty-gritty details of the proceedings in the district court. (You don’t suppose that some of the written and electronic communications have disappeared, do you?)
At heart, this is a very serious matter. The five employees allege that they have been unlawfully denied the protection of Michigan’s workers comp law through a conspiracy of company, TPA and doctor. If the allegations are proven, if the accused violated the RICO statute, they will face the consequences of a criminal conspiracy. In the Insider’s burgeoning annals of fraud – employee, employer, attorney, doctor, agent, insurer – this case will surely offer one of the more compelling narratives.

FedEx Sued: Mooning in Moon Township?

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

Labor officials of three states have written to FedEx, announcing their intention to file suit for “widespread, long-term, and unlawful employment practices.” We have blogged this employment law conundrum many times (search “independent contractors” in the box to the right). There are at least two mysteries in this action: why only three states are participating (FedEx has lost court cases in at least six states and doomed to lose in many others) and why the states chose to sue at this particular time.
FedEx has until today to file objections to the suit. The complaint was filed from the office of the attorney general in New York and included the signatures of officials from Montana and New Jersey (a somewhat odd triumvirate). Their letter is addressed to William Conley, Esq., managing director of the FedEx Legal Department. With an office in Moon Township PA, Conley may end up mooning the AGs in response – after all, FedEx thus far has shown little interest in conventional employment standards. Mr. Conley runs what must be a very busy office, as there have been numerous court challenges to the FedEx business model. FedEx calls their delivery drivers “independent contractors,” even though the drivers must wear FedEx uniforms (no white sox!), drive FedEx trucks, adhere to FedEx timetables, use FedEx scanners and meet detailed FedEx standards. Drivers they are; independent they are not.
The AGs are seeking restitution, damages, civil penalties and other unspecified types of relief.
Is It Legal, Or Is It FedEx?
In some instances, individuals take over FedEx routes and hire others to do the driving. Even though these subcontractor drivers must meet the explicit FedEx standards, the entrepreneurs managing the routes can run the businesses with at least some degree of independence. But where the driver has no employees and simply covers the route for FedEx, there is no credible case to be made for independence.
The FedEx business model has been languishing in state courts for years. Meanwhile, thousands of drivers have labored without a safety net. They work without benefits. If injured, they are completely on their own. It is not difficult to imagine the sense of frustration and outrage that led to this legal action. As for the timing, the three states are filing suit just a few days before Halloween, when ghosts and goblins will prowl dark streets in search of a candy fix. It’s as good a time as any to bury this bogus incarnation of the “independent contractor” concept once and for all.

Texting and Driving: Dying to Communicate

Monday, May 11th, 2009

Aiden Quinn is 24 years old. He drives a trolley for the Mass Bay Transit Authority (MBTA or T) in Boston. He has a mediocre driving record, with three speeding violations (while operating a motor vehicle). Last week he was driving a trolley underground between Park Street and Government Center. He was texting his girlfriend, when he ran a red light and crashed into another trolley stopped in front of him. Over 40 people were injured, including Quinn. The T was shut down for hours.
Quinn has been fired – no surprise – and the T has now issued a policy prohibiting drivers from carrying cell phones. (I’m sure that made the other drivers real happy with their former colleague.) The 40 injured passengers are going to have numerous avenues for lawsuits, including: negligent hiring/negligent entrustment (should Quinn have been operating the trolley in the first place?); and negligent policies (they only prohibited cell phone use after the accident). We can assume that the T will settle as quickly as possible. This case is a real loser.
The larger policy implications are intriguing. It is safe to assume that any employee in the course and scope of employment who tries to text while driving is opening a huge liability for the employer. Texting is even more dangerous than talking on a cell phone: after all, you have to look at the screen to read a message and at the key board to reply.
[Aside: my teenage daughter assures me that her friends can text behind their backs without looking at the keyboard. This might work in class, but not very well on the road: “Look Ma, no hands on the wheel!”]
[Second aside: speaking of Ma, for a truly appalling (YouTube) video of a teenager who texts over 5,000 times a month, often while driving, check this out. If you can explain the passive “what can you do?” attitude of the mother, please explain via our comment section.]
Policy Conundrum
Employers are caught in a bind: they are virtually compelled to issue policies limiting cell phone use and texting while driving, even while they recognize that some of their best and most productive employees are multi-taskers who routinely operate this way.
Which brings us to the sad story of Phyllis Jen, a talented internal medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Jen was driving her 2007 Toyota Prius when she drifted over the center lane at 6 pm (in full daylight). She crashed into another vehicle and was killed.
Police say it did not appear speed or alcohol played a role in the crash, but they were investigating whether Jen was using her Blackberry. Jen was famous for always being available, always willing to go the extra mile. Alas, she has abruptly and tragically run out of miles to go.
As companies struggle to integrate new technologies into safety procedures and as public officials struggle with whole new categories of risk, one thing is certain: the ubiquitous cell phone and related texting have taken a firm hold in our professional and personal lives. We just cannot seem to function without them. The problem is, in making ourselves available 24/7, we put our own lives and the lives of strangers at risk. Sure, we have important things to communicate. But on the scale of life itself, virtually all of these communications can and should be put off until time and circumstances allow. We might be dying to communicate with a colleague or friend, but it’s certainly not worth dying for.