This guest post is from Evan Fischer, a writer for http://www.pricebenowitzlaw.com, a law firm that protects the livelihood of clients who have suffered from an injury due to another person’s negligence.

It’s all fun and games until you’re dancing on the conference table on margarita Friday and you fall off and break a hip.  Okay, so most end-of-the-week “team building” exercises don’t go quite this far, but when it comes to workplace injuries, they’re probably best avoided.  Not only do most people want to keep their bodies intact, but do you really want to explain to your boss (and the workers compensation commission) just exactly what you were doing dancing on a table, three sheets to the wind?  Or more likely, why you were pulling a fifty pound box of paper off a high shelf while using a wheeled office chair as a stepstool?  Even lifting something, if done improperly, could result in a back injury that not only hurts like the dickens, but makes you feel like a fool, as well (everyone knows you should lift with your legs, not with your back).  The point is, you don’t want to deal with it in the first place.  So here are a few tips to help you prevent these injuries from occurring.

First, you should probably make an honest assessment of your physical abilities.  Many accidents and injuries in the workplace occur during simple tasks like lifting because people either aren’t paying attention to what they’re doing or they mistakenly overestimate their abilities.  One of the most common causes of workplace injury is falling.  This could result from climbing something in order to get at items that are high up or it could occur because you walked right past the wet floor sign without so much as a glance.  So you need to assess each situation for danger, pay attention to your surroundings, and ask for help if you need it.  You may be embarrassed to ask the young guy in the cubicle next to you to pull down a box from a high shelf, but you’ll be a lot redder in the face if you have to go to the hospital because you fell off the ladder and the box landed on you.

Of course, many people also experience repetitive motion injuries.  These are extremely common in office workers, in particular, because small motions like typing and using a mouse are often performed all day, every day.  In addition, many people who sit at a desk all day don’t realize that holding poor posture for extended periods can lead to aches, pains, and even serious injuries over time.  Before this happens, talk to your office manager about securing ergonomic devices meant to protect your body.  There are chairs and keyboards that will help to correct your posture and positioning in order to avoid injury (and they’ll cost a lot less than physical therapy).  As for staving off pain from repetitive motion, consider using stiff, padded wrist guards that will limit your range of motion.

And always practice safety first.  There are likely guidelines and policies in place to protect workers in every profession, especially those that are prone to hazard.  So make sure that you always follow safety regulations.  When in doubt, take the time to check and double check that you’re doing everything you can to avoid accident and injury – and don’t be too proud to ask for help since you’re the only one who will suffer from the decision not to (unless you happen to fall on a co-worker).

The purpose of the 1991 law was to remove claimants’ lawyers from the comp system and force the claimants to deal directly with the insurance carriers and their army of lawyers. The law was extraordinarily successful in achieving this goal. I know, because I am one of the lawyers who was kicked out of the system. According to a report generated by the State of Texas shortly before the law was passed, I was ranked number 13 on the list of claimants’ lawyers handling a high volume of workers’ compensation claims. My partner at the time was ranked slightly lower on the list. But after 1991 neither of us ever handled a single case under the revised law.

Please read this article. You will be amazed at what the Texas Legislature and the Supreme Court have done to Texas employees. Here are the opening paragraphs:

As Deputy Sheriff Ed Martin sat by his squad car in a fast-growing pool of his own blood, he called his wife and woke her at 3:30 a.m. He knew he might die from the point-blank shotgun blast that greeted him moments earlier when he knocked on a door for a 911 call in a tiny east Texas town called China.

“It’s pretty bad and I don’t know how it’s gonna turn out,” Martin told his wife as he awaited a helicopter medical evacuation. “Get the kids and meet me at the hospital.”

When they arrived, Martin was on a gurney and covered with a white sheet splotched red. His wife clutched their sleepy 2-year-old daughter to her chest as their sons, 6 and 10, stood at her side.

“I know it was tough for them,” Martin says, retelling the story of that night in June 2006 in the flat monotone of cop-speak. “But I wasn’t sure if I’d make it through surgery and I wanted to at least tell them ‘Hello’ and ‘I love you.’ ”

Doctors say Martin’s life was saved by his ballistic vest and the swift trip to the hospital in Beaumont, near the Gulf Coast and the Louisiana border. But the blast vaporized the skin of his inner arm down to bare muscle and tendons, and tore out the main artery.

A couple of weeks later, Martin got a phone call from an insurance adjuster handling his workers’ compensation claim. He was told the $7,300 helicopter ride was “not medically necessary” and likely would not be covered.

“Not medically necessary,” Martin says, repeating the phrase twice in succession five years after the shooting. “That was my first introduction to those words. And I’ve heard them a lot since then.”

While cops can’t be sure what lurks behind a door on an emergency call, they know the hazards. But Martin could not have foreseen the traps and trauma in store for him as he entered a state workers’ compensation system that was radically overhauled 20 years ago expressly to drive out lawyers representing injured workers, and that has grown ever friendlier to the insurance industry.

Martin, 45, has undergone 11 surgeries to repair his various injuries. He was away from work for two years. Such treatment is built in progressive stages, many of which—like his helicopter evacuation—were initially denied by the insurer and only later approved.

The chain of repeated denials of treatment not only kept him from recovering sooner but also left him with deep, nerve-enveloping scars that today cause sharp tingles he says feel like ants constantly biting his hand.

Reporting from its Washington Bureau, Business Journals cited “preliminary numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics” revealing 4,547 deadly work injuries in the US in 2010. The number is slightly less than 2009 but “the bad news is that the weak economy played a role in keeping occupational fatalities down — some high-risk industries, such as construction, saw continued declines in the number of hours worked.” Mining industry fatalities increased by 74 percent, in part due to the Deepwater Horizon and Upper Big Branch mine explosions. Labor secretary Hilda Solis “noted that the number of workplace fatalities is down significantly from the 14,000 estimated deaths in 1970, when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was founded,” but said, “One worker killed or injured on the job is one too many.”

From the American Association for Justice news release.

The
Texas Supreme Court has spoken once more on the Entergy case and has
refused to change its original bad ruling. But the Legislature can get
the last word by passing legislation to reverse this latest sign of the
court's extreme tilt toward business interests.

The Entergy case centered on whether the "premises owner" of a large
facility, in this case a utility power plant, could get immunity
against a lawsuit filed by a contract worker injured on the job simply
by declaring itself to be the general contractor and buying workers'
compensation coverage for the contractor and actual employer.

For years, the law in Texas has been clear: No. Attempts by some
business interests to change the answer to "yes" were defeated in the
Legislature. The fear was that plant owners would then have incentive
to slack off on plant safety just by purchasing workers' compensation
insurance when it hired a contractor to work on a plant, such as for
repairs or maintenance.

The case worked its way up to the Texas Supreme Court, which in 2007
ruled unanimously for Entergy. Criticism rained down on the court, and
not just from workers' groups. Legislators from both parties faulted
the court for misapplying long-settled law, as did the Texas
Association of Defense Counsel, whose members generally represent those
being sued — including plant owners.

Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, the Senate's acknowledged expert on
workers' compensation law, has introduced a bill that would reverse the
court's ruling, as has Rep. Helen Giddings, D-Dallas. Giddings' House
Bill 1657 was recommended for approval on a 9-0 vote this week by the
House Business and Industry Committee and now goes to the full House.

The workers' compensation system is designed to provide employers an
incentive to compensate, through insurers, workers injured on the job.
In exchange, employers get immunity to lawsuits by those workers. The
system, the Legislature has rightly judged, must not provide plant
owners incentive to cut back on the expense of maintaining a safe plant
simply by paying a contractor's workers' compensation insurance policy.

And lawmakers should spell it out in terms that even a majority of
the Texas Supreme Court can't reinterpret to please certain business
interests.

House members Monday
rehashed the complicated worker’s compensation issue at the heart of a
conflict between legislators and the Texas Supreme Court.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in a run-of-the-mill worker’s
compensation case, Entergy v. Summers, that the work-site owner has the
same kind of lawsuit protection in worker’s compensation cases that
general contractors now have. The court re-heard the case this fall and
has not yet ruled for the second go-round.

Legislators who have dug into the state’s worker’s compensation laws
over the years say it was not their intent to extend that lawsuit
protection and the court overstepped its authority.

Representatives from Texans for Lawsuit Reform argued Monday that
the Legislature never precluded the work-site owners from the legal
protection so the court was right in its interpretation. Business and
industry groups lined up behind that reading of the case.

The committee left the bill pending Monday night after four hours of testimony.

The draft rules
will require crane operators to pass written and practical tests in all
50 states and also will require the operators to undergo more training.

The
new standards aim to toughen requirements on inspecting ground
conditions, the assembly and disassembly of cranes, the operation of
cranes near power lines, the certification and training of crane
operators, the use of safety devices and inspections of cranes.

Crane
operators would have four options under the new requirements:
certification through an accredited third-party testing organization,
qualification through an audited employer testing program, a U.S.
military-issued qualification, or qualification by a state or local
licensing authority.

Just 15 states and six cities — including
New York state and New York City — require the tests. Texas, which led
the nation in deadly crane accidents for the past three years, does not.

Industry officials had called for months for uniform
standards for operating cranes and had pushed the government to move
quicker to update the standards. A final approval process will likely
take more than a year.

What do you do when the job that provides a livelihood turns out to be the poison that’s slowly draining your life? What do you do when you’re rendered an invalid in the blink of an eye because your employers turned a blind eye to safety norms? Injuries and illnesses incurred at the workplace or in connection with work are commonplace, but what’s not common is the readiness of employers to pay out compensation.

Occupational hazards like prolonged exposure to toxic substances, repetitive work movements and noise and air pollution give rise to a number of illnesses like cancer, cardiac and obstructive lung diseases, asthma, musculoskeletal disorders, skin diseases, hearing loss and vibration-related diseases. Jobs that are by nature hazardous lead to severe injuries, lifelong disabilities and even loss of life.

The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets and regulates safety measures that employers must comply with at the workplace or be subject to heavy fines during routine inspections. In spite of this, establishments have been found to be shirking their responsibilities towards their employees in two ways when it comes to both illnesses and injuries that originate at the workplace.

•    Injuries are being downplayed: A recent missive to OSHA from the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine lays bare the tactics employers use to downplay the seriousness of injuries sustained at the workplace. Doctors are concerned that their ethics are being compromised when employers force them to “under-treat and mistreat”, according to Dr. Robert McLellan, president of the organization. Most of the doctors belonging to this group work for the employers; their grouse is that most establishments are taking the crooked way out to keep safety regulators from their doors and asking doctors to skip recording injuries that require time off from work or treatment beyond first aid. Those who demur find that their services are not sought anymore. Most companies require their injured employees to see doctors that they recommend. The pressure from safety regulators to improve working conditions and the costs associated with compensating injured workers and losses due to time away from work are the reasons for this unethical behavior from employers.

•    Illnesses are difficult to prove as having their origins at the workplace: Cancer and other work-related illnesses manifest only after prolonged periods of exposure to hazards, both known and unknown. By the time the symptoms of the disease start to show, it’s often too late in most cases – cancers become malignant and life-threatening while other illnesses lead to lifelong disabilities that affect the ability of the individual to work effectively. Employers, when faced with cases that demand compensation for mental and physical agony, pain and stress suffered because of occupational hazards, are more intent on saving their skins rather than taking care of the rehabilitation needs of the employees who have been affected. The onus of having to prove that the illness is a direct result of conditions at the workplace rests with the employee, and with the establishment fighting back in order to avoid a bad reputation and millions of dollars in pay outs, it’s more often than not a losing battle.

The best course of action to follow when you are injured or fall ill due to a work-related hazard is to call a lawyer and discus your case at the earliest.