Cynthia Kane, 58, allegedly suffered shortness of breath due to breathing in petroleum fumes over a prolonged period. Kane had already “lawyered up,” so a statement was out of the question. Her file during her 15 years with Union Manufacturing raised no suspicions. Kane was a nonsmoker, and she had never complained to the company nurse about pulmonary problems.
I arranged to tour Kane’s work location. It was separated from the machine shop, where the actual manufacturing took place, by a floor-to-ceiling wall with glass windows. The assembly area was not particularly dirty, and I verified that the HVAC system was up to specifications and maintained twice annually.
Kane didn’t appear to be in any distress as she did her job.
Kane’s shift ended at 5 p.m., so I returned to the plant at 4:45 that afternoon and waited in the parking lot. I followed her as she made her way home in a fairly new two-door sports car. She stopped at a dry cleaner on the way. I parked and waited nearby for 10 minutes. When she didn’t come out, I decided to
This was a large operation with the cleaning machines in the back room. There were huge fans throughout the store, but even so there was an unmistakable kerosene-like smell from the solvents used in the dry cleaning process.
At the counter, I asked the clerk about dry-cleaning bedspreads while I strained to see into the back of the store. It was evident Kane was working.
I scratched my head. Why didn’t her attorneys name the shop as a co-defendant on the claims petition? It had far greater pulmonary exposure to airborne contaminants than Union Manufacturing.
The next day, I went back to the dry cleaner and asked to speak with Kane. The flustered counter person said they had no employee by that name. I went back to the dry cleaners three more times during the next two weeks, and each time, I saw Kane’s car there.
I arranged to have a disability evaluation by a pulmonologist, who confirmed that Kane had a mild pulmonary disability (5 percent PPD rating). After reading my report, the doctor concluded the condition was not due to her work at Union Manufacturing. Kane’s attorney had a disability report rating Kane at 25 percent PPD.
I couldn’t fault Kane for wanting a part-time job to help pay for living expenses (and her sports car), but she left me no choice but to deny the claim against Union.
I called her counsel and explained that we’d have to go to trial. He was incredulous, until I explained my findings.
“Your client didn’t tell you about her ‘under the table’ deal at Salerno’s Dry Cleaning, did she?” I asked him. “I personally observed her working there on three different occasions, and noted the smell of the dry cleaning solvent was very strong.
“I am willing to bet that exposure is the proximate cause of any pulmonary disability she has, rather than from a clean and temperature-controlled environment at Union Manufacturing Co. My examining physician agrees.”
The attorney reluctantly agreed to withdraw the petition. Kane continued to work at Union, and whether she kept her night job at the dry cleaner wasn’t my concern. A good investigation paid off and the claim against Union Manufacturing hit a snag.
Qualified Medical Evaluators
The Division of Workers’ Compensation proposed modifications to its proposed regulations regarding qualified medical evaluators. The modifications state that initial represented panel requests postmarked after Sept. 3 will not be accepted or processed by the medical unit for initial represented panel requests only. The last day to mail in panel requests will be Sept. 3. Effective Oct. 1, all initial panel requests must be submitted electronically.
Under the proposed modifications, parties will have 10 days from service of the panel list to strike a doctor. Also, disputes regarding the validity of panel requests must be resolved by a workers’ compensation judge. Disputes regarding the appropriateness of the specialty designated must be resolved by the medical director. Either party may appeal the decision with a workers’ compensation judge.
Medical Billing and Payment Guide
The Division of Workers’ Compensation proposed to modify rules to transition from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision diagnosis and inpatient procedure coding systems to the ICD-10 diagnosis and inpatient procedure systems. The change will go into effect on Oct. 1. The proposed amendments also adopt new forms and amend the medical billing and payment guide to adopt the ICD-10 code tables and index. Additional updates were proposed to the medical billing and payment guide to adopt more current versions of instruction manuals for professional and facility paper billing forms and updated dental codes.
Medical Fee Schedule
The Division of Workers’ Compensation proposed amendments to rules regarding the medical fee schedule. The rules revise the standard terminology and the administrative procedures and requirements necessary to implement the medical treatment guidelines and medical fee schedule. The proposed rule amendments also update the language of the medical fee schedule, revise the billing codes systems, and update the fees and relative values. The amendments also revise the medical requirements, procedures, and payments as they relate to the medical fee schedule.
The Workers’ Compensation Board proposed to repeal and replace a rule regarding medical fees and amend rules regarding formal hearings and expenses and fees.
The rule states that in the event that the employer or insurer contends that the medical records and information, preexisting and subsequent to the workplace injury, are relevant for determination of compensability and disability, it may obtain from the worker and the employee is obliged to within 14 calendar days execute a limited authorization for focused written medical records. Also, an employer or insurer must pay a worker’s travel expenses incurred for medical treatment, including actual costs for overnight lodging, parking, tolls, and public transportation if accompanied by a receipt.
The Workers’ Compensation Board announced the elimination of a number of fees. Starting April 1, fees for licensing compensation medical bureaus and laboratories were eliminated. Fees were also eliminated for physician arbitration, psychologist arbitration, chiropractor arbitration, and podiatrist arbitration. Licensed third-party administrator fees and licensed hearing representative fees were also eliminated.
Claims Procedure Rules
The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation proposed amendments to the claims procedure rules regarding lump-sum advancements. The rule states that an injured worker or surviving spouse must file an application requesting a lump-sum advancement with the bureau. The injured worker or surviving spouse must provide proof that the lump-sum advancement is advisable for the purpose of providing financial relief or furthering the injured worker’s rehabilitation. The bureau will not grant a lump-sum advancement in a claim where the allowance of the award of compensation is on appeal.
The Workers’ Compensation Division proposed amendments to rules regarding medical services. The rules clarify that the dispute record packet must include certification whether there is or is not an issue of compensability of the underlying claim or condition. The rules limit the denial of reimbursement based on the late submission of a treatment plan by an ancillary service provider to those services provided before the treatment plan is sent.
The amendments also require that an insurer approve or disapprove a health care provider’s request for preauthorization of a diagnostic study within 14 days of receipt of the request. The division scheduled a public hearing on July 21 at 9 a.m. at 350 Winter Street NE, Room B, in Salem.
The Department of Labor and Industries amended rules to meet new measures for calculating penalties set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The amendments add a minimum penalty amount of $2,500 for violations issued when contributing to a fatality. In a rule regarding base penalty adjustments, the language was modified to state that no reduction will be given if the violations are classified as willful, repeat, failure to abate, or violations contributing to an inpatient hospitalization or a fatality. The rule also added clarifying language on how to determine an employer’s good faith. The rule goes into effect on Sept. 1.
Pathogens, Allergens and Globalization – Oh My!
In 2014, a particular brand of cumin was used by dozens of food manufacturers to produce everything from spice mixes, hummus and bread crumbs to seasoned beef, poultry and pork products.
Yet, unbeknownst to these manufacturers, a potentially deadly contaminant was lurking…
What followed was the largest allergy-related recall since the U.S. Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act became law in 2006. Retailers pulled 600,000 pounds of meat off the market, as well as hundreds of other products. As of May 2015, reports of peanut contaminated cumin were still being posted by FDA.
Food manufacturing executives have long known that a product contamination event is a looming risk to their business. While pathogens remain a threat, the dramatic increase in food allergen recalls coupled with distant, global supply chains creates an even more unpredictable and perilous exposure.
Recently peanut, an allergen in cumin, has joined the increasing list of unlikely contaminants, taking its place among a growing list that includes melamine, mineral oil, Sudan red and others.
“I have seen bacterial contaminations that are more damaging to a company’s finances than if a fire burnt down the entire plant.”
— Nicky Alexandru, global head of Crisis Management at AIG
“An event such as the cumin contamination has a domino effect in the supply chain,” said Nicky Alexandru, global head of Crisis Management at AIG, which was the first company to provide contaminated product coverage almost 30 years ago. “With an ingredient like the cumin being used in hundreds of products, the third party damages add up quickly and may bankrupt the supplier. This leaves manufacturers with no ability to recoup their losses.”
“The result is that a single contaminated ingredient may cause damage on a global scale,” added Robert Nevin, vice president at Lexington Insurance Company, an AIG company.
Quality and food safety professionals are able to drive product safety in their own manufacturing operations utilizing processes like kill steps and foreign material detection. But such measures are ineffective against an unexpected contaminant. “Food and beverage manufacturers are constantly challenged to anticipate and foresee unlikely sources of potential contamination leading to product recall,” said Alexandru. “They understandably have more control over their own manufacturing environment but can’t always predict a distant supply chain failure.”
And while companies of various sizes are impacted by a contamination, small to medium size manufacturers are at particular risk. With less of a capital cushion, many of these companies could be forced out of business.
Historically, manufacturing executives were hindered in their risk mitigation efforts by a perceived inability to quantify the exposure. After all, one can’t manage what one can’t measure. But AIG has developed a new approach to calculate the monetary exposure for the individual analysis of the three major elements of a product contamination event: product recall and replacement, restoring a safe manufacturing environment and loss of market. With this more precise cost calculation in hand, risk managers and brokers can pursue more successful risk mitigation and management strategies.
Product Recall and Replacement
Whether the contamination is a microorganism or an allergen, the immediate steps are always the same. The affected products are identified, recalled and destroyed. New product has to be manufactured and shipped to fill the void created by the recall.
The recall and replacement element can be estimated using company data or models, such as NOVI. Most companies can estimate the maximum amount of product available in the stream of commerce at any point in time. NOVI, a free online tool provided by AIG, estimates the recall exposures associated with a contamination event.
Restore a Safe Manufacturing Environment
Once the recall is underway, concurrent resources are focused on removing the contamination from the manufacturing process, and restarting production.
“Unfortunately, this phase often results in shell-shocked managers,” said Nevin. “Most contingency planning focuses on the costs associated with the recall but fail to adequately plan for cleanup and downtime.”
“The losses associated with this phase can be similar to a fire or other property loss that causes the operation to shut down. The consequential financial loss is the same whether the plant is shut down due to a fire or a pathogen contamination.” added Alexandru. “And then you have to factor in the clean-up costs.”
Locating the source of pathogen contamination can make disinfecting a plant after a contamination event more difficult. A single microorganism living in a pipe or in a crevice can create an ongoing contamination.
“I have seen microbial contaminations that are more damaging to a company’s finances than if a fire burnt down the entire plant,” observed Alexandru.
Handling an allergen contamination can be more straightforward because it may be restricted to a single batch. That is, unless there is ingredient used across multiple batches and products that contains an unknown allergen, like peanut residual in cumin.
Supply chain investigation and testing associated with identifying a cross-contaminated ingredient is complicated, costly and time consuming. Again, the supplier can be rendered bankrupt leaving them unable to provide financial reimbursement to client manufacturers.
“Until companies recognize the true magnitude of the financial risk and account for each of three components of a contamination, they can’t effectively protect their balance sheet. Businesses can end up buying too little or no coverage at all, and before they know it, their business is gone.”
— Robert Nevin, vice president at Lexington Insurance, an AIG company
Loss of Market
While the manufacturer is focused on recall and cleanup, the world of commerce continues without them. Customers shift to new suppliers or brands, often resulting in permanent damage to the manufacturer’s market share.
For manufacturers providing private label products to large retailers or grocers, the loss of a single client can be catastrophic.
“Often the customer will deem continuing the relationship as too risky and will switch to another supplier, or redistribute the business to existing suppliers” said Alexandru. “The manufacturer simply cannot find a replacement client; after all, there are a limited number of national retailers.”
On the consumer front, buyers may decide to switch brands based on the negative publicity or simply shift allegiance to another product. Given the competitiveness of the food business, it’s very difficult and costly to get consumers to come back.
“It’s a sad fact that by the time a manufacturer completes a recall, cleans up the plant and gets the product back on the shelf, some people may be hesitant to buy it.” said Nevin.
A complicating factor not always planned for by small and mid-sized companies, is publicity.
The recent incident surrounding a serious ice cream contamination forced both regulatory agencies and the manufacturer to be aggressive in remedial actions. The details of this incident and other contamination events were swiftly and highly publicized. This can be as damaging as the contamination itself and may exacerbate any or all of the three elements discussed above.
Estimating the Financial Risk May Save Your Company
“In our experience, most companies retain product contamination losses within their own balance sheet.” Nevin said. “But in reality, they rarely do a thorough evaluation of the financial risk and sometimes the company simply cannot absorb the financial consequences of a contamination. Potential for loss is much greater when factoring in all three components of a contamination event.”
This brief video provides a concise overview of the three elements of the product contamination event and the NOVI tool and benefits:
“Until companies recognize the true magnitude of the financial risk and account for each of three components of a contamination, they can’t effectively protect their balance sheet,” he said. “Businesses can end up buying too little or no coverage at all, and before they know it, their business is gone.”
This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Lexington Insurance. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.