Search Our Site

Promoting health and safety is everyone’s job, and the best way to support that effort is to build and sustain a strong safety community. This webinar discusses different types of employees who make up a safety community, including their strengths and their challenges. It will suggest strategies for engaging the different members of your safety community and provide resources that you can take back and use to build and support strong safety communities at your organization.   Event type:   Live Webinar              Cost:          Free Date:               April 23, 2026             Time:         1:00 PM ET Event Host:   Saif                               Duration:  1 hour   Click here to Register

Dust exposure remains one of the most underestimated hazards in construction, manufacturing, fabrication, maintenance, and industrial operations. While often invisible, respirable dusts and metal particulates can cause permanent health damage, trigger costly OSHA citations, and, in the case of combustible dusts, lead to catastrophic explosions. This session will cover: The major dust hazard categories Exposure pathways and risk recognition Regulatory requirements and standards Engineering and administrative controls We will wrap up with a live Q&A session (10-15 mins) to address your specific concerns and challenges. Join us as we turn invisible risks into visible solutions!   Event type:   Live Webinar              Cost:          Free Date:               April 28, 2026             Time:         11:00 AM ET Event Host:   J. J. Keller                    Duration:  1 hour   Click here to Register

Discover how to design training programs that resonate with employees, improve retention and drive meaningful results. Join Novara’s Mulango Akpo-Esambe, creative services manager, and Rachel Hook, training and quality manager, as they explore the psychology of learning and unpack how to design impactful training programs. During this webinar, they’ll cover: The science of retention: Key psychological principles that make training stick Engaging the modern learner: Strategies to captivate and motivate today’s workforce Practical applications: How to design training programs that drive real-world results Event type:   Live Webinar            Cost:          Free Date:              April 9, 2026              Time:         1:00 PM ET Event Host:  Safety+Health           Duration: 1 hour   Click here to Register

By law, U.S. employers are only allowed to employ workers who can prove their identity and qualifications to work in the United States. This includes U. S. citizens, noncitizen nationals, lawful permanent residents, and resident aliens who are authorized to work. Learn how E-Verify and Form I-9 protect employers from unintentionally hiring undocumented workers. Webinar Topics include: E-Verify for Existing Users E-Verify for Web Services Users E-Verify in 30 E-Verify Overview Employee Rights Employer Responsibilities Federal Contractor E-Verify Form I-9 my E-Verify E-Verify and Form I-9 free webinars (except for E-Verify in 30 and my E-Verify) are eligible for professional development credits (PDC) through the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Human Resource Certification Institute (HRCI). The webinars are held on multiple dates and times in November. Register early as space is limited. Event type: Live Webinar Cost: Free Date: January 2026 Time: Multiple Event Host: Everify.gov Duration: 30 min. to 1 hour Click here to register

March 25, 2026 Heat exposure, workplace violence and structural changes to coverage systems are key emerging issues shaping the workers compensation landscape in 2026, according to a report released Tuesday by the National Council on Compensation Insurance. The report indicates that while familiar policy debates — including mental injury claims, presumption laws, cancer initiatives and worker classification — remain active, regulators and lawmakers are increasingly focused on newer risks that could carry significant cost implications for employers and insurers. Among those emerging risks, heat-related injury is drawing heightened attention at both the state and federal levels. Between 2011 and 2022, approximately 34,000 heat-related workplace injuries resulted in 479 fatalities, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor data cited in the report. NCCI said claims tied to heat exposure are increasing across all sectors, with the largest impact in outdoor industries such as construction, natural resources and maintenance. In response, lawmakers are advancing measures requiring employers to implement heat mitigation protocols, including access to water, rest breaks and shade, as well as formal heat illness prevention plans, employee training and emergency response procedures. Some proposals would establish specific heat index thresholds — often around 80 degrees — that trigger employer obligations. At the federal level, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is considering a rule that would require employers to implement heat injury and illness prevention plans for worksites, although a timeline for adoption has not been announced, the report notes. Workplace violence is also receiving increased policy attention, particularly in health care and social service settings. Recent legislative proposals include measures requiring employers to adopt workplace violence prevention programs, as well as bills expanding workers compensation eligibility. For example, one New York proposal would provide benefits to employees injured in a sexual offense. Federal lawmakers are also considering legislation directing regulators to establish workplace violence prevention standards for certain industries. The report further notes that policymakers are revisiting how workers compensation systems are structured, reflecting broader changes in the workforce. Legislative efforts have explored alternative coverage models, including opt-out frameworks and expanded use of captive insurers, as well as proposals clarifying coverage responsibilities in contractor-subcontractor relationships. While many of these measures have not advanced, NCCI said they signal continued pressure to modernize the system.

March 25, 2026 Critics warn the new system could effectively eliminate claim filing deadlines Florida's appeals court has rewritten how workers' comp carriers must calculate claim deadlines, overturning 26 years of settled precedent. In an en banc decision handed down on March 23, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that the word "toll" in section 440.19(2) of the Florida Statutes means to suspend or stop temporarily the two-year statute of limitations clock – not to extend it by creating a separate one-year filing window, as the same court had held since 1999. The dispute arose from a workplace injury. Nancy Estes, a teacher employed by the Palm Beach County School District, tripped and fell on the job on September 30, 2021. The employer and its carrier, Davies Claims North America, accepted the injury as compensable and paid medical and indemnity benefits for approximately sixteen months, from October 2021 through January 26, 2023. Shortly after benefits stopped, the carrier filed a Notice of Denial on February 8, 2023, asserting that the accident was no longer the major contributing cause of Estes's need for further treatment. Estes did not file a petition for benefits until June 2024, roughly seventeen months after receiving her last payment. She sought a one-time change in orthopedists and other benefits related to her original injuries. The carrier argued the claim was time-barred. Under the interpretation that had governed Florida since 1999, the math was straightforward: the accident occurred in September 2021, the last benefit was furnished in January 2023, and the one-year tolling window expired in January 2024. Estes's June 2024 filing came five months after that deadline. The Judge of Compensation Claims agreed and dismissed the entire petition with prejudice. The statute at the center of the case has two relevant parts. Section 440.19(1) sets the baseline: a petition for benefits is barred unless filed within two years of the date the employee knew or should have known the injury arose from work. Section 440.19(2) provides that payment of any indemnity benefit or the furnishing of remedial treatment shall toll the limitations period set forth above for one year from the date of such payment. The provision also specifies that this tolling period does not apply to the issues of compensability, maximum medical improvement, or permanent impairment. For more than two decades, the court had treated the tolling provision as functionally creating a one-year extension from the date of the last benefit payment. Under that approach, the two-year clock was never paused. It ran continuously from the date of the accident, and the one-year tolling period simply gave claimants an additional window that could run past the two-year mark if benefits were provided late enough. The en banc majority concluded that this interpretation was incorrect. Chief Judge Osterhaus, writing for the majority, looked to the established legal meaning of the word. Legal dictionaries define "toll," when used in the context of a statutory limitations period, as meaning to suspend or stop temporarily the running of that period. The court also cited the US Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Artis v. D.C., which described tolling as a suspension of a limitation period that, once lifted, allows the clock to resume from where it left off. The court found further support within the statute itself. Section 440.19(5) addresses tolling for minors and mentally incompetent persons, providing that the limitations period is tolled while such a person has no guardian. Under that subsection, the two-year clock is plainly suspended – it stops and resumes only after the condition ends. The majority reasoned that the same word cannot carry a different meaning in subsection (2).

March 23, 2026 When employers try to understand why injured workers hire attorneys, the conversation often centers on the claim itself. Was the injury legitimate? Was the claim denied? Was the employee exaggerating? But those questions miss a much more important truth: Most workers don’t hire attorneys because of the claim. They hire attorneys because of fear — specifically, financial fear. At the center of that fear is what we can call the Breadwinner Effect. The Moment Everything Changes When an employee gets injured, their world doesn’t just pause—it becomes uncertain. For many workers, especially those in hourly or physically demanding roles, income is not optional. It is immediate, necessary, and often already allocated before it even arrives. Rent, groceries, utilities, and family expenses depend on it.   So when that income is suddenly interrupted, the injured worker isn’t thinking about claims strategy or legal process. They’re thinking: “How am I going to pay my bills? ”Who is going to cover these medical costs? ”Why hasn’t anyone told me what’s happening?” These are not legal concerns. They are survival concerns. What Injured Workers Actually Experience From the plaintiff attorney perspective, one of the most common triggers for attorney involvement is surprisingly simple: No one contacted the injured worker. Two weeks go by, and the employee still doesn’t know: How they will get paid Whether the claim is accepted Who is handling their case What happens next In that silence, uncertainty grows. And uncertainty quickly turns into assumption. The worker begins to believe the worst: The claim must have been denied The employer doesn’t care They might lose their job At that point, hiring an attorney feels less like escalation—and more like protection. It’s Not Just the Worker — It’s the Role They Carry One of the most powerful insights from the discussion was the recognition that many injured workers see themselves not just as employees, but as providers. They are the ones responsible for keeping everything running at home. Whether it’s supporting a spouse, raising children, or simply maintaining financial stability, their identity is tied to their ability to earn. When that ability is threatened, the pressure intensifies. This is especially true in households where there is a single primary income. When that income becomes uncertain, the entire household feels it immediately. Conversations at home shift from routine to urgent: “What are we going to do for money? ”How long will this last? ”Are we going to be okay?” That pressure doesn’t wait for the claims process to catch up. Why Financial Fear Turns Into Litigation Litigation is often a reaction to uncertainty—not conflict. When injured workers don’t understand how the system works, they try to create certainty wherever they can. And an attorney provides exactly that: Someone who will explain the process Someone who will advocate for payment Someone who appears to bring control back to the situation From the worker’s perspective, hiring an attorney is not about fighting the employer. It’s about stabilizing their financial situation. Unfortunately, once that step is taken, the claim changes. Communication becomes more formal. Costs increase. Timelines extend. And what could have been a cooperative process becomes adversarial. Where Employers Get It Wrong Most litigation that stems from financial fear is preventable. But employers often underestimate how quickly fear builds when there is no communication. They assume the system is working because the claim is being processed internally. Meanwhile, the injured worker is sitting at home with no information and mounting anxiety. Even small gaps create big problems. A delayed phone call. A missing explanation. A bill that arrives before reassurance does. Each one reinforces the idea that the worker is on their own. How to Defuse the Breadwinner Effect Early The solution is not complex, but it does require intention. The most effective employers act immediately to remove financial uncertainty. They reach out early—often within the first 24 hours—not with technical language, but with clarity and reassurance. They explain what the injured worker can expect: how wage replacement works, how medical bills are handled, and who will be guiding the process. Even if all the answers are not available yet, simply acknowledging the situation makes a significant difference. Equally important is reinforcing that the employee is valued and that the goal is recovery and return to work. This directly addresses the fear of job loss, which is one of the most powerful drivers of attorney involvement. Simple tools can support this effort. A clearly written employee brochure outlining the process helps eliminate confusion. A handwritten get-well card from a supervisor can shift perception in a way that policies never will. Ongoing follow-up ensures that initial reassurance doesn’t fade into silence. These actions may seem small, but to an injured worker facing financial uncertainty, they carry enormous weight. A Different Way to Look at Litigation The biggest shift employers can make is this: Stop viewing litigation as a legal problem. Start viewing it as a human response to financial insecurity. When workers feel informed, supported, and confident that their needs will be addressed, they rarely feel the need to involve an attorney. But when they feel uncertain—especially about money—they act quickly to protect themselves. The Bottom Line Most injured workers are not looking for a fight. They are looking for stability. They want to know that their bills will be paid, their income will continue, and their job is secure. When those needs are met early, trust is built and litigation is avoided. When they are not, even a straightforward claim can escalate quickly. Understanding the Breadwinner Effect allows employers to see what is really driving behavior—and to respond in a way that keeps claims on track, costs down, and relationships intact.

March 20, 2026 A Florida appellate court on Wednesday ruled that the costs associated with a tetraplegic worker’s travel to visit family out of state did not qualify for coverage as medical benefits. As documented in  Purple Pride Inc. v. Burgess , the man worked for Purple Pride Inc. He suffered injuries in a work-related motor vehicle accident in 2019 that left him tetraplegic. Burgess now requires around-the-clock attendant care. The insurance provider for Purple Pride accepted liability for his injuries and has paid for attendant-care services in Atlanta, where he now resides. In 2024, he filed a petition for benefits seeking attendant care and other medical benefits for a trip he intended to take to visit family in New York. Specifically, he sought benefits for the extra cost of traveling attendants, including their overtime pay and accommodations, and the extra cost of renting a lift, commode chair and other durable medical equipment. He also supported his request with testimony from his psychotherapist that the trip was medically necessary in that it could improve his depression and anxiety symptoms. The insurer denied payment, characterizing the trip as a personal vacation. A judge found that the trip to New York to visit family was not medically necessary, as it was not to identify or treat an illness or injury. However, the judge ruled that the insurer had to cover the costs of travel, since the insurer conceded that he needed around-the-clock care and medical equipment as a result of the accident. The judge reasoned that the insurer should cover the costs no matter where the man went, as industry “is responsible for what industry causes.” The Court of Appeal for the 1st District of Florida said employers are obligated to furnish only medically necessary remedial treatment, care and attendance to an injured employee, which means medically necessary “constitutes the general defining term under which all compensable benefits awarded” must fall. The court said Florida case law has recognized a distinction between “travel that is medically necessary and travel that merely improves a claimant’s quality of life.” Quality-of-life travel has included visits to the movies, the mall, the park and the grocery store, the court said. It also included transportation to a parent’s funeral. Basically, any “transportation other than to a doctor” reflects on quality of life rather than medical necessity and is “generally considered gratuitous and not compensable,” the court said. “Here, because the JCC concluded that claimant’s proposed trip to New York was not medically necessary, the trip — at best — could only be categorized as travel to improve claimant’s quality of life,” the court said. “The Legislature has not included such quality-of-life travel within the ambit of medical benefits available under the Workers’ Compensation Law.” Accordingly, the court concluded that it was an error for the judge to grant benefits for a trip that he determined was not medically necessary.

March 19, 2026 Publix Super Markets, Inc., et.al . v. Dept. of Financial Services, et. al., ---So.3d---(Fla. 1st DCA 2026) The First District Court of Appeal issued a blockbuster opinion on February 25, 2026, in the case of  Publix Super Markets, Inc., et.al . v. Dept. of Financial Services, et. al ., ---So.3d---(Fla. 1st DCA 2026). The court held that, while injured workers have an absolute right to choose their own “pharmacy or pharmacist,” physicians may not dispense medications directly to their patients under Chapter 440. This marks a significant development in the often contentious relationship between insurance carriers and dispensing physicians. Those opposing the dispensing practice claim that it has resulted in practitioners charging more for medications, and that ending the practice could save insurance carriers millions of dollars. For many years, the Department of Financial Services (DFS) interpreted the “free, full, and absolute choice in the selection of the pharmacy or pharmacist” language of section 440.13(3)(j) to exclude dispensing physicians. Thus, insurers could deny reimbursement when physicians dispensed medications to injured workers. In 2020, however, DFS reversed course and issued an Informational Bulletin stating that dispensing practitioners were considered pharmacists under the absolute choice provision. Then in 2023, DFS proposed two administrative rules confirming that “physicians (including oral surgeons), physician assistants, ARNPs, and any other recognized practitioners registered to dispense medications pursuant to section 465.0276, F.S., may dispense medications” to injured workers. The rules were challenged by Publix and various insurance companies. After a final hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a final order upholding the proposed rules. The First DCA disagreed with the ALJ’s final order and set it aside. The court held that the proposed rules were invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority because they enlarged, modified, or contravened the plain language of the “absolute choice” provision in section 440.13(3)(j). It explained that a “pharmacist” is someone licensed to practice pharmacy by obtaining a degree from a pharmacy school, completing a board-certified internship program, and passing a pharmacy exam. The statutes governing and regulating pharmacists under Chapter 465 of the Florida Statutes do allow for certain non-pharmacists, defined as “dispensing practitioners,” to distribute medications. The crux of the First DCA’s opinion is its holding that the plain language of the absolute choice section 440.13(3)(j) of Chapter 440 only applies to pharmacists and does not encompass dispensing practitioners. The issue, however, may not be permanently resolved, as an appeal to the Supreme Court could follow. The court also implied that an opposite result would have been reached if section 440.13(3)(j) expressly included dispensing practitioners or if the statute used a broader term like “health care provider.” In effect, the opinion provided a potential roadmap for groups to lobby for statutory amendments that could survive judicial review.