As we head into winter, alas, let’s cast a fond look back at the balmy days of summer, when a dish of ice cream is never far from our thoughts. We read in the Vancouver Sun of a workers comp claim related to scooping. An unnamed convenience store employee served ice cream in the spring of 2009. She had a pre-existing shoulder problem, for which she had received cortisone shots. During one two-day period, she scooped $1,500 worth of ice cream cones. The pain in her shoulder flared up, to the point where she had to quit her job.
She had surgery on her shoulder and filed a workers comp claim, which the provincial board initially denied. She prevailed on appeal. Despite the pre-existing condition, her work certainly aggravated her shoulder through repeated scooping, bending and reaching, presumably with her wrist at an awkward angle. Scooping ice cream is not a risk-free endeavor.
Ergonomics at Ben & Jerry’s
I called Ben & Jerry’s (make mine Cherries Garcia), to learn about their approach to safety. They are well aware of the potential problems. Their employees are taught the mechanics of scooping: aligning themselves in front of the containers; using arm muscles (as opposed to the wrist); taking frequent breaks with stretching. Several of the folks I talked to in corporate began as scoopers in a local store, so their awareness came from personal experience. This is no surprise, given the proactive corporate culture.
The next time you indulge in a frozen treat, check out the mechanics of the scooper: do they move right in front of the bucket or do they reach across? Are the buckets placed so that reaching can be minimized? How well is the arm aligned? Is the wrist bent? Is the ice cream really hard and resistant?
Ok, I know, I sound like a killjoy, but once you look at the world through an ergonomist’s eyes, there is no turning back. By all means indulge (moderately) in your pleasures, but try to do no harm.
Posts Tagged ‘food service’
The Scoop on Scooping
Thursday, November 18th, 2010The Pizza Delivery Chronicles, Part Two: Drivers at Risk
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010In yesterday’s blog on this topic, we told the story of a pizza delivery driver whose undisclosed seizure problem put others (and herself) at risk. Today we examine the inordinate and ultimately terrifying risks that routinely confront the people who deliver pizzas to homes.
The risks of delivery jobs are embodied in one sad tale. Richel Nova, 58, was a hard working immigrant who worked two jobs, one being delivering pizzas for Domino’s in Boston. He responded to a call from the Hyde Park neighborhood. The address was a vacant home. He was lured into the house, robbed, stabbed multiple times and left for dead. The three thieves took his money ($100) along with the pizza and drove off in his 1995 Subaru. (The age of the car tells us a lot about Mr. Nova.) The abandoned car was found a bit later, along with the blood-stained pizza box. All but three pieces had been eaten.
Nova’s life revolved around his family: twin 20-year-old daughters and an older son. The twins are both juniors in college. All that stood between Nova and a seat at his daughters’s graduation next year were a hundred bucks and a pizza to go.
Robberies of delivery people in the Boston area have been a long-standing problem – 52 were reported through mid-September.
Common Ground Among Competitors
The three main pizza chains – Domino’s, Pizza Hut and Little Caesar’s – have collaborated on developing safety programs for drivers. Among them, they have nearly 90,000 drivers on the road. (Here is the Domino’s description of the job.) Statistically, it’s not difficult to identify the riskiest neighborhoods for delivery, but the chains face pressure from neighborhood groups and the federal government to provide delivery services without discriminating against the poor.
Back in 2000, Domino’s reached an agreement with the Justice Department to formalize a delivery policy for all its restaurants. Reflecting what Domino’s said were well-established standard practices, the new guidelines require managers to evaluate crime statistics with local law enforcement agencies and community groups before limiting delivery. As part of that policy, drivers must report any incidences of violence, and delivery limits must be drawn narrowly. (Easier said than done.)
(Sort of) Managing Risk
There are a number of ideas floating around on how drivers should handle what appear to be risky delivery scenarios:
– Require the customer to come to the car to pay for the delivery and pick up the pizza. (This may not be feasible in all circumstances – for example, disabled customers may not be able to come to the street.)
– Require customers to have exact change for their purchase (and hope against hope that they have a bit extra for the tip!)
– Advise drivers not to enter darkened dwellings
– Limit deliveries after certain hours (in the Boston data mentioned above, many of the robberies took place after 9:00 pm.)
– When in doubt, when confronted with what appears to be immediate risk of harm, the driver is instructed to return to the store (and risk the wrath of legitimate, irate customers awaiting their dinners)
For those of us who have never had a gun or knife thrust into our faces, the dangers confronting delivery workers every day are both frightening and unimaginable. For Richal Nova’s children, any mention of pizza will haunt their thoughts for the rest of their lives – reminding them of their father’s lonely and senseless demise at the hands of cruel thugs with a half-baked plan for a free meal.
The Pizza Delivery Chronicles, Part One: Liability
Monday, October 4th, 2010Every time I see a marginal car with a pizza delivery sign slapped onto the roof, I think about the driver. How old? How experienced? How desperate to make a few bucks in a tough economy? And from the employer’s viewpoint: how competent is the driver? Just how far must an employer go before they entrust a driver with the plastic logo and the insulated bag for delivering pizza to those of us who want dinner delivered in a box?
These thoughts congeal like day-old pizza in the sad case of Nicole Fisk, an 18 year old driver who worked (briefly) for Pizza Hut. Nicole only had her license for 3 months when hired by Pizza Hut in Clairemont CA. She was delivering pizza in November 2008 when she blacked out and drifted across the solid line into oncoming traffic. She slammed into a car operated by Shari Novak, 62, who suffered permanent brain damage and can no longer take care of herself. Shari’s mother, Olena, suffered a broken neck.
Who Pays?
The Novaks sued Pizza Hut, arguing that the company was responsible for the collision because they hired Fisk, a relatively inexperienced driver, who had a history of suffering blackout spells. Ah, there’s the rub. What did the employer know about Nicole Fisk? Only what she told them. She had a clean record, she carried the necessary insurance and her references were fine. She was not diagnosed with epilepsy until after the crash. Pizza Hut called it an “unforeseeable medical emergency” – which can be used as a defense to a negligence lawsuit.
Jurors rejected the defense, awarding Shari Novak $8.6 million and her mother $2.2 million. As one juror put it, “Fisk should have known she could have a blackout episode because of her medical history.”
Here’s where it gets interesting and where the issue of employer accountability comes to the fore. A consultant attorney points out that Nicole lied continuously about her health problems. When she first experienced blackouts, she was put on medication for acid reflux (a seemingly bizarre diagnosis, but perhaps based upon the limited information she provided her doctors). She apparently under-reported subsequent problems to these doctors. When she applied for a driver’s license, she failed to disclose her medical condition to the Registry. And when she applied for a job at Pizza Hut, she once again lied about her condition and its potential impact on her ability to perform the job safely.
It’s not difficult to feel some sympathy for Nicole. She is only 18. Her medical condition frightens her – she probably prefers not to think about it. Like any 18 year old, she wants to drive like her friends and earn a few bucks. In her own mind, she was not endangering herself or anyone else.
Impossible Standard?
While it’s important to note that the jury did not find Pizza Hut guilty of negligent hiring, it did conclude that the company is responsible for damages because Fisk was their employee at the time of the accident. John Gomez, the attorney for the Novaks, said that the verdict should send a signal to other companies “to be a little more careful when hiring professional drivers.” This is a bit disingenuous. Surely, the attorney is not suggesting that employers (illegally) research medical records on every potential hire. In this case, Pizza Hut followed its own reasonable procedures. Other than hiring a relatively inexperienced driver, they did nothing wrong.
Nicole Fisk was initially named in the personal-injury lawsuit but was later dropped from the case. Not because she was innocent – she is responsible for the tragic events on that November day – but because she had no assets of the magnitude sought – and secured – by the Novak attorneys.
There are few lessons to be learned here. Employers are routinely held accountable for many things which they do not control. It’s not so much a matter of accountability as the crass ability to pay. In a case of this scale, with damages this severe, someone must pay. That someone, obviously, is the corporate entity that was unfortunate enough to hire Nicole Fisk.
Cavalcade of Risk, Linkedin, AIG, fraud, Station Nightclub fire, & strip searches
Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009Nancy Germond is hosting Cavalcade of Risk #93 – check it out. And while you’re at it, check out Nancy’s regular insurance column on AllBusiness.
Mark Wall’s excellent WC forum on LinkedIn – While recently attending the National Workers Compensation & Disability Conference in Chicago, I had the opportunity to meet Mark Walls who is the founder of LinkedIn’s excellent Workers’ Compensation Forum. Mark, who is a genuinely nice person as well as a commensurate professional, has created an impressive network of more than 2,400 members, which includes employers, claims adjusters, insurance carriers, third party administrators (TPAs), brokers, attorneys, risk managers, regulators, EH&S professionals, and vendors that provide service to the workers’ comp industry. The group illustrates some of the best advantages and features of social media: industry networking, active discussion boards, and news feeds to blogs and alternative media sources. Members can pose questions or topics and get feedback from other members. Plus, Mark does a great job of ensuring that posts are on-topic and he is strict about disallowing spam. To join, you need to first be a member of LinkedIn, and then you can register to join the Workers’ Compensation Forum. Hope to see you there!
The soft market and AIG – if you are wondering why the soft workers comp market persists, read Joe Paduda’s post on the implications of AIG’s price cutting – it certainly offers some clues. Of course, AIG’s pricing isn’t the only factor, but when you have an elephant in the room, it certainly can’t be ignored.
Fraud surveillance – Roberto Ceniceros talks about cuts in fraud surveillance in both the public and the private sector. He’s looking for feedback from others who are experiencing a similar trend. We’ve also heard talk about cuts in safety and loss control services offered by insurers as part of work comp policies. Any feedback on these issues? It would seem shortsighted to relax on either of these important services.
RI nightclub fire settlements – Insurance Journal covers a recent report on settlement details in the 2003 Rhode Island nightclub fire that killed 100 people and injured 200 others. More than 300 survivors and victims’ relatives sued after the fire. You can also follow some of our past coverage related to workers’ comp, or the lack of it, in this sad case: Workers’ Comp and the Station Nightclub; Avoid Comp Premiums and Pay the Price; Station Nightclub: Who Pays?; Stone Walls and Steel Bars for Business Decisions
Strip search not covered by comp – For nearly a decade, fast food chains throughout the nation were plagued by a cruel and bizarre telephonic hoax, the so-called strip search hoax. The “pranksters” who posed as detectives called fast food restaurants and retail chains and somehow convinced store managers to detain hapless employees. The managers were then guided through a series of progressively questionable and invasive actions such as strip searches of the alleged criminal employees, supposedly on behalf of the police. Sounds weird? It certainly was. In recent developments, Louise Ogborn, a McDonald’s employee and the victim in one of these cases, was awarded $6 million in damages for her humiliating ordeal. McDonald’s attorneys appealed the ruling, invoking the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation. The Kentucky Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that “We do not find manifest injustice in the trial court’s ruling that Ogborn was not acting in the course and scope of her employment while she was held in the manager’s office.”
