Legal Questions

In the UK it is the Health & Safety Executive HSE who act to ensure that all of our workplaces are as safe as possible. In the 35 years since it was established the HSE has overseen a dramatic fall in death and injury rates in the workplace. In 1974 when the executive started, 651 died as a result of workplace incidents, a number that fell a huge 70%, according to HSE statistics, to a figure of 180 in 2008.

With Britain now returning the lowest average number of fatalities at 1.3 per 100,000 compared to an average of 2.5 for the rest of Europe, the contribution of the HSE to the UK workplace is clearly reaping rewards. Unfortunately, and despite the best efforts of the HSE, preventable deaths and injuries still occur in the workplace.

With authority comes responsibility and it is the role of employers to protect their staff and any other people who come into contact with their company such as customers, visitors or members of the public. Employers have a duty to protect workers and the public from dangers caused by their work - and the HSE is committed to making sure they do that.

How far do these responsibilities extend and what can you do if you feel that you haven’t been protected adequately?

Employers are obliged to do a number of things. Initially an employer must assess the risks of the workplace and ensure that any risks are eliminated or at least controlled. A risk management programme needs to be conducted. According to the HSE this covers five main areas.

Plant and machinery must be operationally safe and safe working systems set and adhered to. Any dangerous substances must be moves, stored and used safely. Adequate welfare facilities must be provided. Health and safety instruction, training, supervision and information must be given. Workers must be consulted in matters related to health and safety. Of course as employees we too all have responsibilities. Health and safety isn’t entirely someone else’s responsibility. Safety at work is a two way street and it’s very important that we all co-operate with safety measures, with instruction and follow the rules as well as using our common sense to stay out of danger.

What if you’ve fulfilled your side of that relationship but feel your employer hasn’t? What if you have had an accident at work and feel they haven’t taken enough care over your health and your welfare? That the systems weren’t in place to protect you? Maybe you’ve had to take time off work as a result or your future earning potential has suffered?

You may be entitled to compensation.

Take the advice of a specialist work accident solicitor. Most will give you a free consultation to determine the likelihood of a claim’s success. If your position appears strong the chances are that the solicitor will take on your case on a no win no fee basis. You’ve got nothing to lose.

This week, Michael Astru, the Commissioner of Social Security held hearings on a “Compassionate Allowances” program. The proposed program is aiming to get children and adults with serious, rare diseases on disability benefits much faster. This is quite a change, considering the Administration has been notorious for prolonged wait periods and strict guidelines on disability determinations. The December 2007 Compassionate Allowances hearings were the first of the public outreach hearings that the Administration plans to hold on this topic over the year.

The hearings were held in Washington, D.C. and experts from all over the country convened to speak on rare diseases, new technology and how they effect the Social Security adjudication process. Speakers from the National Organization of Rare Disorders, NIH (National Institute of Health) Office of Rare Diseases, Professors, Doctors and prominent attorneys all shared their opinions. The purpose for the hearings was to advise on methods for identifying serious, rare diseases early in the disability determination process.

For those that have been following SSA’s promises for faster turn around times, this new program sounds similar to older fast-track models that have not made much of a difference for most applicants. For example, a year ago the Administration set up a model program called “Quick Disability Determination (QDD)” which was supposed to identify severe cases early and award them within 21 days. The model has been in operation in the Boston region for some time now, and according to SSA has worked so well that it will be implemented nationwide. Statistics showed that 97 percent of the cases identified by QDD were decided within 21 days, with an average decision time of 11 days. However, this didn’t change wait times or efficiency for most applicants overall because less than 3 percent of all new disability cases ever even became part of the QDD process. The problem has been that the QDD model looks at very specific illnesses, and a variety of other disabling conditions that deserve quick determinations are never even considered.

Though the Administration has not released exactly what narrow field the QDD looks at, we can assume that perhaps its limited scope triggered the recent hearings on rare diseases and the Compassionate Allowances program. Again, Commissioner Astrue has made the same promise for a faster turn around, stating that the “compassionate allowances initiative will allow the Social Security Administration to make decisions on cases involving certain categories of conditions in days or weeks instead of months or years.” Still, the details on which diseases will be on this compassionate allowances list have not been disclosed.

There had been talk that certain illnesses, such as acute leukemia and ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), were going to be part of the proposed program. In these cases, allowances would be made as soon as the diagnoses were confirmed, with minimal objective medical evidence. In any case, the Administration has a long way to go and probably several more hearings before the Compassionate Allowances program is ready for implementation. In the meantime, several health organizations such as the Tourette Syndrome Association, have been adding their comments at these hearings in order to get specific diseases added to Social Security’s newest fast-track model.

It turns out that one of the most significant impacts that the rapid spread of Facebook is having on society may be … destroying marriages?

The Telegraph reports that by reconnecting old flames and enabling new ones, Facebook is tempting to people to cheat on their partners. One law firm that specializes in divorce asserts that almost one in five petitions they process cite Facebook as a reason, as spouses are finding evidence of flirting and even affairs on the site.

The 20 percent statistic may be high as it comes from a law firm that handles divorces online, but Mark Keenan, managing director of Divorce-Online, says that after hearing from his staff that Facebook was a recurring issue, he confirmed the 20 percent figure. “The most common reason seemed to be people having inappropriate sexual chats with people they were not supposed to,” he says.

The article even mentions one 35-year-old woman who discovered her husband was divorcing her when he updated his Facebook status to read: “Neil Brady has ended his marriage to Emma Brady.”

A recent study has found that certain proteins are not an early indication of heart failure among patients as previously thought. A study published in the January 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association has shown than monitoring the protein biomarker molecule brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) in patients suffering from heart disease were at the same risk for heart failure as patients who did not monitor the protein.

Researchers found that the monitoring the protein over a 18-month period did not offer early signs of heart failure compared to patients with heart disease that did not undergo monitoring.”

According to an article from HealthDay Reporter, BNP is a “protein produced by stressed heart cells, for better management of heart failure,” especially among older individuals aged 60 and up, who suffer from chronic heart disease. Although the study reported that “some improvement over symptom-guided treatment was found with BNP therapy for those 60 to 74, but not for those aged 75 and older” the BNP-measurement was not found to be useful enough to prevent heart failure from occurring or providing adequate warning signs to prevent heart failure.

Heart Failure Details.

Heart failure is also known as congestive heart failure (CHF) and is medically defined as a “condition in which the heart can’t pump enough blood to the body’s other organs,” according to the American Heart Association (AHA). Although many reasons contribute to the onset of heart failure or CHF, the AHA has reported the following as the most common:

- infection of the heart valves.
- infection of the heart muscle.
- heart defects stemming from birth such as congenital heart defects.
- high blood pressure.
- narrowed arteries such as coronary artery disease.
- previous heart attacks or myocardial infarction.
- heart valve disease.
- cardiomyopathy.

Medical and Prescription Dangers.

An increasing number of factors can contribute to heart disease resulting in heart failure in many patients. Avandia, a type 2 diabetes medication, is another heart-failure trigger currently on the market that has been linked to serious side effects, including heart disease and heart failure onset among diabetes patients. In May 2009 GlaxoSmithKline was approved to manufacture the drug, however recent studies have link the drug to a high instance of heart disease among its patients, which has drawn a high rate of criticism.

Individuals who have suffered from the Avandia side effects including heart failure and heart disease, should consider discontinuing the drug or switching to a different type 2 diabetes medication. Consulting a physician will assist a victim in overcoming these potentially dangerous Avandia risks. Furthermore, many Avandia patients who are interested in pursuing a potential Avandia class action lawsuit consider contacting an experienced Avandia attorney who can advise about the possibility of earning monetary compensation for damages incurred..