Insurers fighting coverage for stoneworker injury claims in a California federal court are arguing that a ruling in favor of a policyholder in a similar case in the same court is irrelevant to disputes with their policyholders.
Former workers at a Las Vegas county government building must litigate claims that Monsanto Co. contaminated the site with polychlorinated biphenyls in federal court, the Ninth Circuit ruled.
Future EPA chemical analyses are likely to reuse the agency’s recently proposed, unusual analytic methods that could downgrade formaldehyde’s estimated risks, critics predict.
Probationary federal employees would have fewer options for appealing their terminations under a new Trump administration proposal.
Among next year’s most high-profile jury trials will be mass tort cases consolidated in California federal and state courts.
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration is set to conduct more targeted inspections of high-hazard industries like construction, manufacturing and warehousing next year, continuing a trend from the Biden administration.
A silica exclusion in liability insurance policies issued to stone product manufacturer LX Hausys America Inc. doesn’t bar coverage for stoneworker suits alleging they suffered from silicosis and other bodily injuries as a result of handling the company’s products, a federal judge ruled.
Refrigeration services company The Articom Group LLC and others won dismissal of a False Claims Act suit alleging fraud under the Covid-19 pandemic Paycheck Protection Program, but they didn’t show that whistleblower suits violate Article II of the US Constitution.
As employers are making plans to return to their workplaces. How quickly they succeed will likely depend on how many of their employees get vaccinated.
Employer contests a four-item serious citation in 11 parts and $53,976 fine. The serious citation includes the alleged violation of 29.C.F.R. 1910.134(c)(1), for failure to establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures; 29.C.F.R. 1910.134(e)(1), for failure to provide a medical evaluation to determine an employee’s ability to use a respirator before the employee was required to use the respirator in the workplace; and 29.C.F.R. 1910.134(f)(2), for failure to ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting face-piece respirator was fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator. (20-0329)
Employer contests a three-item serious citation and $6,998 fine and a repeat citation and $8,906 fine. The serious citation includes the alleged violation of 29.C.F.R. 1926.102(a)(1), for failure to ensure that eye and face protective equipment was used when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury; 29.C.F.R. 1926.1053(b)(1), for failure to secure portable ladders used to access an upper landing surface against displacement; and 29.C.F.R. 1926.1053(b)(13), for failure to ensure that the top step of a stepladder was not used as a step. (20-0330)
Employer contests a two-item serious citation and $12,337 fine and a two-item other-than-serious citation with no fine. The serious citation includes the alleged violation of 29.C.F.R. 1910.36(d)(1), for failure to ensure that employees were able to open exit route doors from the inside at all times without keys, tools, or special knowledge; and 29.C.F.R. 1910.178(l)(4)(iii), for failure to conduct an evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator performance at least once every three years. The other-than-serious citation includes the alleged violation of 29.C.F.R. 1910.157(e)(3), for failure to perform annual maintenance checks on fire extinguishers. (20-0317)
Get the latest legal, regulatory, and enforcement news and analysis, as well as in-depth business and industry covering in the following areas: