Search Our Site

March 6, 2026 Cannabis can’t qualify as reasonable and necessary medical treatment under the Longshore Harbor and Workers’ Compensation Act because it remains a Schedule I drug under federal law, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday. Growing acceptance of cannabis having some medicinal value — and an apparent willingness of the federal government to entertain rescheduling — are irrelevant in Luis Peña Garcia’s request for reimbursement for edibles recommended to treat chronic pain, according to  Luis Peña Garcia v. Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs et al. All that matters is that Schedule I drugs have no accepted medical use under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the court ruled, writing that “(f)ederal law thus categorically bars marijuana from being deemed a reasonable and necessary medical expense for the purposes of the LHWCA.” Mr. Peña Garcia is permanently and totally disabled after injuring his neck, back and upper and lower extremities in May 1994. The Department of Labor in 1998 ordered his former employer, Calzadilla Construction Corp., and its insurer, IMS Insurance Co. of Puerto Rico, to provide medical care and treatment pursuant to the Longshore Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. In 2019, a doctor treating Mr. Peña Garcia said he responded well to edibles and that they were one of the few treatments that worked well to manage his pain at night. Later that year, Mr. Peña Garcia asked IMS to reimburse him for payments made for cannabis-infused edibles. The insurer denied the request, and the Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges held that cannabis is a Schedule I drug that has no accepted medical use and cannot be a reasonable and necessary medical treatment. The department’s Benefits Review Board affirmed. On appeal, the 2nd COA said Mr. Peña Garcia’s argument that medical cannabis is a reasonable and necessary treatment for his pain is foreclosed by the plain text of the Controlled Substances Act, which says Schedule I substances, including cannabis, have no currently accepted medical use. The appellate court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court in  Gonzales v. Raich  similarly held that the effect of the federal scheduling of cannabis shows that there are currently no accepted medical uses. The court was not persuaded that the references in congressional riders to “medical marijuana” require a different decision because the riders don’t address whether the drug is a reasonable and necessary medical expense for federal workers’ compensation programs. Whether some states allow cannabis to be used for medical purposes is irrelevant to questions about federal law, the court said. Similarly, whether reimbursement for cannabis would violate the prohibition on possession or distribution is also immaterial. The fact that Congress has allowed research into medical uses of cannabis demonstrates only a willingness to explore whether medical value exists and does not denote a congressional finding that the drug has legitimate medical uses. And, while President Donald Trump in December signed an executive order directing the attorney general to take steps to move cannabis to Schedule III, the drug remains a Schedule I substance today. “It may very well be the case that the federal government will at some point — perhaps even in the near future — remove marijuana from Schedule I of the CSA,” the court said. “But that is a decision for the political branches of the federal government, not for the judiciary. This court is obliged to apply the law as it currently stands.”

March 5, 2026 Risk normalization occurs when repeated safe experiences lead workers to underestimate hazards, increasing the likelihood of accidents. Key Highlights Experience can create blind spots, making seasoned workers more prone to shortcuts and complacency, which can be mitigated through targeted retraining focused on reflection and storytelling. Leadership plays a crucial role; by modeling humility and encouraging open conversations about near misses, managers can foster a culture of continuous awareness and learning. Using stories and peer learning helps make safety lessons memorable and relevant, especially for experienced employees who may tune out traditional training methods. Regular reflection and the strategic use of technology reinforce safety awareness, ensuring that familiarity doesn’t dull perception and that workers stay present and vigilant.   The road between Glendale and Kingman, Arizona, cuts through some of the most breathtaking desert landscape in North America. But that night, I couldn’t see any of it.   It started innocently enough. I’d just wrapped up a presentation at EHS Today's Safety Leadership Conference 2025 —a long day, a good day. I was tired but restless, buzzing from the conversations and the energy of people who care deeply about keeping others safe. I had rented a Triumph Bonneville T120—a perfect blend of power and grace—and I was itching to ride.   The plan had been simple: get a head start toward the Grand Canyon. I’d make it to Kingman before midnight, grab a cheap motel, and head north at sunrise. I figured I’d beat the morning heat and check a lifelong goal off the list—reaching the Canyon by bike. The sun had already started dipping behind the desert ridges as I rolled out of Glendale. I should have stopped. Anyone who’s ridden a motorcycle long enough knows that riding at night in unfamiliar territory is asking for trouble. But I’d ridden in worse, I told myself. I knew the risks. I could handle it. That’s the thought that gets us every time. Within an hour, the light was gone. The desert swallowed the last of the sun, and I found myself surrounded by an ocean of black. The air, which had been comfortably warm when I left, dropped fast. It’s the kind of cold that doesn’t hit all at once—it creeps in, seeping through your jacket, numbing your fingers one joint at a time. The Triumph’s engine hummed beneath me, steady and strong, but even that warmth couldn’t fight the chill clawing up my arms. I was alone. Really alone. No lights behind me. No gas stations ahead. The occasional glow of an 18-wheeler approaching from the opposite direction was the only thing that broke the darkness—and when it did, the flood of blinding headlights erased the road entirely. Each time a semi passed, the wind tore at me, shaking the bike and rattling the bags I’d tied down to the seat. The Bonneville’s headlight—usually my lifeline—suddenly felt small, weak, swallowed by the desert. My eyes strained to see the lines on the asphalt, the subtle dips that hinted at uneven pavement or the shimmer of sand across the road. Every mile felt like a gamble. It was so dark that I couldn’t even tell when I was climbing. Later I’d realize that somewhere in that stretch, I crested a mountain. I never saw it. Just a gradual incline into black, no horizon, no point of reference—only instinct and faith that the road would keep curving where the map said it would. The temperature dropped again. My hands cramped around the handlebars until my knuckles ached. My shoulders were locked tight, frozen in that defensive posture that every rider knows—the kind that sets in when your adrenaline won’t let you relax because you know, deep down, one mistake could end it. There was fear, but it was quiet. The kind that doesn’t shout. It whispers. It asks:  What are you doing out here? But I pressed on. Because that’s what experience tells you to do—you keep going. You think, “I’ve done this before. I’ll be fine.” You think you’ve got this handled. And that’s the problem. The Moment of Reflection I made it to Kingman sometime after 10 p.m. I don’t even remember pulling into town—only that the glow of streetlights felt surreal after hours of black. When I finally parked, I sat there for a while, the engine ticking in the cold, my hands still clamped around the grips. It took several minutes before I could even straighten my fingers. My shoulders were so tight that I could feel the pulse of blood pushing back into the muscles. I was exhausted, mentally and physically. I’d made it. But I also knew—really knew—that I’d made a huge mistake. And sitting there in that parking lot, still shaking from the cold, it hit me: This is exactly how risk normalization feels. You don’t see it coming. It creeps in when you stop respecting the danger. You start believing that your experience exempts you from risk. It’s not arrogance. It’s human nature. Risk Normalization: When Experience Becomes the Hazard Risk normalization is one of the most dangerous forces in workplace safety. It’s the process by which repeated exposure to risk without negative outcomes leads people to underestimate that risk over time. In plain language: You get away with something enough times, and your brain starts to believe it’s safe. Every industry has its version of this. The warehouse worker who lifts without asking for help because “I’ve done this for 20 years.” The electrician who skips the test light because “I can tell when a line’s hot.” The construction veteran who doesn’t tie off for a quick job. They’re not being reckless. They’re being human. They’ve been there before. They’ve done the job safely a hundred times. The risk feels theoretical—until it isn’t. Researchers have studied this for decades. In 1998, psychologist Dr. Judith Komaki found that  experienced workers are more likely than new employees to take shortcuts —not because they don’t care, but because they believe they can manage risk better. Another study published in  Safety Science  found that  tenured employees in high-risk jobs are twice as likely to engage in unsafe   acts  compared to new hires. The researchers called it “the paradox of expertise.” In other words, what makes you good at your job can also make you vulnerable to complacency. Read more

March 5, 2026 Workplace safety is a core priority for every organization that cares about its people and its performance. Many employers talk about safety and display slogans like  Safety First  or  Zero Harm  in their break rooms. These messages can be helpful in setting expectations. However simply saying safety matters is not enough in most workplaces. To truly protect workers and prevent incidents, employers need both an intentional  safety culture  and a robust  safety management system  that guides daily operations, processes and decisions. What safety culture really means Safety culture refers to the shared perceptions, values and attitudes that people in an organization hold about safety. It is how workers and leaders view risks and how they act on those perceptions every day. In essence, safety culture reflects whether safety is integrated into work practices or simply treated as a slogan. A strong safety culture makes safe behaviors the norm and encourages workers to speak up about hazards. It involves leadership visibly supporting safety, employees feeling responsible for their own and others’ well-being, and proactive communication about risks. When these elements are present in daily work, safety becomes part of  how work is done , not just what is written in a manual. Why slogans alone fall short Many organizations fall into the trap of focusing on motivational statements rather than measurable actions. These slogans can create a perception of concern for safety without delivering real changes in risk control or outcomes. Without structured systems behind them, slogans can feel empty to frontline workers and fail to drive measurable improvements. Workplace safety guidance emphasizes that phrases like  Zero Harm  or  Safety First  are merely starting points unless they are backed by concrete expectations, procedures and support mechanisms. When safety is seen only as a value but is not supported by systems that help people manage risk, organizations often revert to compliance-only thinking. This can lead to a reactive approach to incidents where hazards are fixed only after harm occurs instead of being prevented in the first place. What a safety management system does A  safety management system (SMS)  provides a structured and systematic framework for managing risk and improving safety performance. It defines how hazards are identified, how controls are selected and applied, and how performance is measured and improved. An effective system helps organizations: Set clear safety goals and accountabilities Identify and assess hazards consistently Implement and track control measures Analyze incidents and near misses for learning Communicate expectations and results across all levels Without this structured approach, safety efforts tend to be inconsistent, vary by team or shift, and may not actually reduce risk even if everyone  intends  to work safely. Systems turn values into actions and create repeatable, measurable processes for continuous improvement. How culture and systems reinforce each other Culture and systems are interdependent. A strong safety culture motivates people to follow systems and speak up when something is wrong. At the same time a well-designed and effectively implemented safety management system reinforces culture by giving employees clear, reliable methods to carry out safety expectations. In some cases a well-run SMS can help strengthen safety culture by making safety easier to practice and more predictable in its outcomes. Practical steps for workplaces Build systems that support culture Document hazard identification procedures, inspection schedules, training requirements and incident investigation practices. These clear structures make safe behavior easier to achieve and sustain. Lead with action Leadership must visibly act on safety data and system outputs, not just speak about safety. Regular reviews of safety metrics, investment in training and participation in safety discussions signals that safety is non-negotiable. Encourage meaningful participation Involve workers in developing and improving safety systems. When employees feel heard and see their input reflected in processes, culture strengthens. Measure and improve Use audits, observation programs and incident data to see if systems are working. Adjust systems based on what the data shows, not only based on how things felt or what employees say they want. Creating Safety That Lasts Safety culture and safety management systems are not alternatives. A workplace that relies solely on slogans or intentions without a structured risk management system will struggle to achieve consistent, measurable safety performance. Conversely, a system without cultural buy-in may become a set of ignored checklists. Combining culture and systems creates a workplace where safety is not only valued but it is practiced and improved every day.

March 4, 2026 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL  – The U.S. Department of Labor has cited a Florida plumbing, heating, and air conditioning contractor for exposing workers to struck-by hazards after an employee suffered a fatal injury at a Bal Harbor Shops worksite in August 2025. The department’s  Occupational Safety and Health Administration  found that on Aug. 28, 2025, a Hyvac Inc. pipefitter installing a new air-conditioning system for a mall expansion construction project was fatally injured from a pressurized HVAC piping system.  The employer was cited with two serious violations for exposing workers to  struck-by hazards  by not verifying piping was free from stored pressure before employees performed work on the system and did not train workers to recognize and avoid hazards associated with removing HVAC end caps on pressurized pipping systems. OSHA proposed $28,135 in penalties. Hyvac Inc. has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Penalties and citations may be adjusted throughout the course of the case process.

March 4, 2026 "This progress shows that when employers focus on serious injury and fatality risks, invest in prevention and build strong safety cultures, lives are protected," said Lorraine Martin, CEO, NSC. The  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics'  2024 fatal occupational injuries data showed 5,070 worker deaths – a second consecutive year of decline. The fatal work injury rate was 3.3 fatalities per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers in 2024, a decrease from a rate of 3.5 in 2023. The decrease in fatal injuries in 2024 was largely driven by a 16.2% drop in fatalities due to exposure to harmful substances or environments (to 687 cases from 820). This decrease was in turn driven by a decline in drug or alcohol overdoses, which accounted for 59.7% of fatalities in this category, dropping to 410 fatal injuries in 2024 from 512 fatalities in 2023. Key findings include --A  worker died every 104 minutes from a work-related injury in 2024  compared to 99 minutes in 2023.--Workers in  transportation and material moving occupations represented the occupational group with the most fatalities  with 1,391 fatal work injuries in 2024, though this was a 7& decrease from 2023(1,495). The fatality rate for these workers was 12.5 fatalities per 100,000 FTE workers in 2024, down from 13.6 in 2023.

March 2, 2026 Contractors – of all tiers – are often surprised to learn they may be considered a “ special employer ” of individuals who actually work for independent third parties—such as temporary staffing agencies or equipment rental companies—on their projects. Even more surprising, contractors (including owners who self-perform) can be held primarily responsible for the negligent acts or omissions of these third-party workers because of this “ special employer ” status. How can a contractor become primarily liable for someone they do not pay, do not withhold taxes for, do not provide benefits to, and who is officially employed by another company? The answer lies in an old legal concept called the “ Borrowed Servant Rule .” Under this rule, a contractor can become a “ special employer ” of so-called “ borrowed  servants”—workers who remain employed by a third-party company but are temporarily assigned to the contractor for a specific job. The rule, based on outdated master-servant principles, focuses on who actually controls the worker. Variations of this rule exist in nearly every state, creating significant risks for contractors nationwide. For example, imagine a contractor rents a crane or backhoe, and the rental company provides the operator. Under the Borrowed Servant Rule, the contractor typically becomes the “ special employer ,” the operator is the “ borrowed servant ,” and the rental company is the “ general employer .” If a court finds the contractor to be the “ special employer ,” the contractor can be held liable for personal injury or property damage caused by the operator’s negligence—including injuries to the operator or damage to the rented equipment. There are two main tests used to determine whether a contractor is a “ special employer ,” both centered on the issue of control. The first test looks at whether the contractor has a contractual right to control the work and how it is performed. This right is often hidden in standard contract language found on rental agreements, service contracts, daily tickets, acknowledgments, or similar documents. Contractors may not realize that by signing these documents, they are granted an express contractual right of control —even if the term “borrowed servant” is never mentioned and they never actually exercise control. The second test considers whether the contractor actually exercises direct control over the “ borrowed servant ”—for example, by directing where, when, and how the work is done. No written contract is needed for this test; the contractor’s actions alone can establish “ special employer ” status. In many cases, contractors become “ special employers ” under both tests when they have both a contractual right of control and actually exercise that control. Most of the risks and liabilities created by the  Borrowed Servant Rule  arise in situations involving temporary labor or equipment rentals, where contractors often control, to some degree, employees of a third party. Standard forms used by staffing agencies and equipment rental companies usually recognize this practice and almost always give the contractor the right to control the work performed by the “ borrowed servant .” However, these forms rarely indemnify the contractor for the worker’s negligence or name the contractor as an additional insured on the employer’s general liability (GL) policy. Because most contractors are unaware of this rule, they often fail to modify standard forms and assume the general employer’s insurance will protect them. However, as soon as the “ borrowed servant ” starts work on the project, the contractor becomes their “ special employer ” and is primarily responsible for any negligent acts or omissions, often with little or no recourse against the staffing agency or rental company that supplied the worker. Many contractors first learn about the  Borrowed Servant Rule  only after suffering a loss caused by a “ borrowed servant ”—and discovering they are responsible for the entire insurance deductible, or worse, the entire loss if there is no coverage. At the same time, they often find that the workers’ compensation and general liability policies provided by staffing agencies or equipment rental companies rarely, if ever, cover personal injury or property damage involving “ borrowed servants .” Unless the standard forms used by the “ general employer ” are modified, the contractor remains exposed to claims and losses caused by the “ borrowed servant .” Personal injury claims made by the “ borrowed servant ” are submitted to the contractor’s workers’ compensation policy, which can impact their safety rating and increase premiums. Third-party claims for personal injury or property damage are submitted to the contractor’s GL policy, subject to deductibles and potential premium increases. Most costly of all, property damage to the work itself (including schedule impacts) is often absorbed by the contractor due to insurance coverage exclusions. Learning about the rule the hard way can be extremely expensive! Contractors who have experienced the negative effects of the  Borrowed Servant Rule  can take steps to reduce or eliminate these risks through insurance and indemnification strategies. First, they can require the “ general employer ” (such as a staffing agency or rental company) to obtain an “ alternate employer endorsement ” that extends workers’ compensation coverage to the “special employer.” Second, they can require the “ general employer ” to indemnify the “ special employer ” for losses, damages, and claims arising from the “ borrowed servant ’s” negligence. Third, they can require the “ general employer ” to name the “ special employer ” as an additional insured under the  general employer’s  GL policy. Finally, successful contractors stay informed about developments in the  Borrowed Servant Rule  in every state where they operate.

March 1, 2026 Workers’ compensation judges may consider a variety of factors when determining whether a claimant is permanently disabled. A case involving a worker injured operating a front-end loader highlights the type of factors that come into play. In Louisiana, those factors should also dictate whether or how an employer decides to challenge a WCJ's finding. The 58-year-old claimant was injured when the front-end loader she was operating struck concrete and jolted her, injuring her back. She initially received temporary total disability benefits. Later, she sought permanent benefits, saying her back pain had increased such that she could not work at all. At the hearing, the WCJ considered expert testimony that the claimant could no longer work. The expert pointed to her age. He also explained that her back pain radiated to her legs and hindered her from sitting, standing, or concentrating. He also pointed to her limited education and indicated that her intellectual capacity was such that she could not be retrained to learn another job. The WCJ awarded her permanent total disability benefits. The company argued that the WCJ’s decision should be reversed because he considered factors that were irrelevant. A claimant who seeks permanent total disability benefits must prove she is physically unable to engage in any employment or self-employment, regardless of the nature or character of the work. Was the claimant totally disabled? A. Yes . The combination of her age and physical and mental limitations indicated she could not do any job. B. No.  The fact that she would not be retrained wasn't an appropriate basis for finding she was permanently disabled. If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Ebarb v. Boise Cascade Co., No. 25-464 (La. Ct. App. 02/19/26), which affirmed the WCJ. In Louisiana, when determining whether an employee is totally disabled, it is appropriate for judges to consider an employee’s inability to be educated or retrained. Lack of education alone is not enough, but it may be significant when combined with a claimant’s inability to be educated and other factors. Thus, a claimant’s limited intellectual capacity and physical limitations caused by the injury are relevant in determining total disability.  Here, the claimant was 58 years old, with back pain radiating to her legs. That pain limited her ability to sit, stand, walk, and concentrate. “[S]he is limited to sedentary work, but she does not have the necessary skills to perform sedentary work or the mental capacity to be retrained to do so,” the court said. Importantly, the employer didn’t produce any evidence to contradict that evidence. The court affirmed the WCJ’s finding that she was permanently, totally disabled.

March 1, 2026 As older workers remain in or reenter the labor force, the workers compensation industry is zeroing in on an area where claims tend to be more severe, medically complex and costly. “Our workers compensation data clearly show that the percentage of the workforce that is older is growing,” said Rich Ives, Hartford, Connecticut-based senior vice president of business insurance claim for Travelers. “That comes with favorable impacts — lower injury frequency — and unfavorable ones, including higher severity and longer time out of work.” Older workers tend to be more experienced and “less risky in their behaviors,” he said, but recovery is often slower because of reduced physical resilience and a higher likelihood of comorbidities such as diabetes, arthritis or obesity. “When someone has one comorbidity, the cost of a workers compensation claim can double,” he said. “With two or more, costs can increase fivefold.” In recent years, Sedgwick has seen a data point in its pool of claims that hinted at trouble: In 2024, the largest year-over-year increase in workers compensation claims came from employees ages 60 and older, rising 2.8% over 2023. “It’s not a huge number, but it does show that they are having more injuries each and every year over the last few years than the other age groups within the employment pool,” said Max Koonce, Bentonville, Arkansas-based chief claims officer at Sedgwick. Other data shows that the average indemnity duration for older workers is nine days longer than for younger workers and costs 35% more both in income replacement costs and in medical costs, he said. Economic pressures are a major driver of older workers remaining in the labor force past traditional retirement age. U.S. Census data shows that workers 55 and older have steadily increased their share of the labor force over the past two decades, rising from roughly 10% of workers in the mid-1990s to nearly 25% by 2022. About half of the private-sector workforce lacks access to employer-sponsored retirement savings plans, said Chris Farrell, a St. Paul, Minnesota-based journalist and author of “Unretirement: How Baby Boomers Are Changing the Way We Think About Work, Community, and the Good Life.” “For many workers, working longer is not about staying busy — it’s about necessity,” he said. Read more

February 27, 2026 For more than a decade, insurance companies and physician groups have battled it out over the true meaning of Florida statutes: Are doctors considered pharmacists, allowed to dispense medications to injured workers, often at a higher price? A Florida appeals court this week may have finally answered that question, giving a multimillion-dollar win to employers and carriers that have spent years trying to undo state workers’ compensation regulations that have allowed physician dispensing. “This is huge. It’s not often you see a complete vindication like this,” said Jerry Fogel, a consultant with Imagine Clinical who has been at the center of the dispensing debate for years. The 1 st  District Court of Appeals on Wednesday  overturned  a Florida Division of Administrative Hearings decision that had upheld a state Division of Workers’ Compensation regulation issued in 2023. That regulation, initially contemplated in 2020, reversed years of regulatory sentiment that the wording of Florida law does, in fact, allow insurers to deny reimbursement when physicians dispense medications to injured workers. That 2023 rule has now been struck down. It’s unclear if the appellees in the case, including the Florida Department of Financial Services, the Florida Medical Association, and Prescription Partners LLC, will try to appeal to the state Supreme Court, or if the rule will now be revamped. Those organizations and their lawyers could not be reached for comment Thursday. Rumors quickly circulated that efforts already were underway to change the law before the Florida legislative session is set to end March 13. The place where injured workers obtain their prescriptions may not seem like a big deal. After all, workers’ compensation rates for most employers have fallen dramatically in Florida and nationwide over the last two decades. But insurers involved in the case said medical costs could be lower—and outcomes could be improved—if doctors stayed out of the medication-selling business. It’s a potential conflict of interest and physicians are not always trained on a wide range medications like pharmacists are, insurance groups have said. Ending the dispensing practice will now save workers’ comp insurers as much as $43 million over the next five years, the Florida Insurance Council and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association said in an  amicus curiae  brief filed with the appeals court. The groups pointed to studies by the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute that suggest that many drugs are more expensive when doctors dispense and bill for them: The pain reliever Vicodin is, on average, $1.41 per pill if dispensed at a doctor’s office versus 52 cents at a pharmacy. Mobic painkiller is as much $5.86 per pill, compared to $3.19, the brief notes. “This increase would need to be factored into the cost of workers’ compensation insurance, unraveling years of legislative reform,” attorneys Maria Elena Abate and Michael Billmeier Jr. wrote in the brief. The Florida Insurance Council hailed the court ruling. “We believe this decision reinforces an important safeguard against misaligned financial incentives in physician dispensing, protecting injured workers and helping prevent unnecessary cost increases that impact Florida employers,” said George Feijoo, of Floridian Partners, representing the Council Advocates for physician dispensing have long said it saves injured workers time and avoids multiple trips to pharmacies, speeding recovery. And in an  answer brief  in the appeal, Prescription Partners’ attorneys said the whole dispute has been unnecessary: They pointed out that under Florida law, the comp insurer chooses the treating physician, in most claims. “A carrier has the choice to send the injured worker to any provider of the carrier’s choice, including a provider who is not a dispensing practitioner, and thereby avoid any practitioner-dispensing of medications at all,” attorneys Virginia Dailey and Lindsay Ervin wrote. But Fogel argued that in today’s profit-driven medical system, in which large private equity funds have gained stakes in many provider practices, it’s not so easy for physicians to agree to drop dispensing, even in return for better reimbursement and more patients. “That worked great 20 years ago,” Fogel said. “But nowadays, no one owns their own operation anymore. The medical people don’t make the decisions so much.” The appeals court acknowledged that Florida law is somewhat conflicting and confusing on physician dispensing. In some sections, the law is clear that physicians are not the same as pharmacists, the court noted. But another section sets the price of doctor-sold meds to no more than the average wholesale price, plus a $4.18 dispensing fee. For repackaged drugs, it’s 112.5% of the wholesale price, plus an $8 fee. But Fogel pointed out that even with price ceilings, dispensing doctors have a vested interest in writing more prescriptions and selling more-expensive medications, driving up costs for carriers and employers. Physician dispensing has become a lucrative part of many medical businesses, insurance groups have said. One of the biggest players is Prescription Partners, based in Hollywood, Florida, which manages the software, packaging and billing when physicians set up office pharmacies and add pharmaceuticals to the bill. The firm has been the driving force behind the Florida regulatory push to allow doctor dispensing, insurance leaders have said. Paul Zimmerman, a physician, is listed as CEO of Prescription Partners. He could not be reached for comment Thursday. But he once told  NBC News  that insurance companies have distorted the reported cost of dispensed meds by focusing on a few medications. On the other side, Publix Super Markets, one of Florida’s largest employers, was the lead appellant in the case. Publix had two reasons for pressing the appeal: Its own workers’ comp costs and its pharmacy business, which will likely see an increase in medication sales now that doctors can be denied reimbursement when dispensing to injured workers. Other appellants in the case were Florida workers’ comp insurers, including Normandy Insurance Co., based in Deerfield Beach, which Fogel credited with supporting and financing much of the litigation, even after other insurers backed out. Others in the appeal included Zenith Insurance, in Sarasota; Bridgefield Employers Insurance; BusinessFirst Insurance and RetailFirst Insurance.

February 27, 2026 Washington — OSHA has released a new version of its poster informing workers of their rights under the  Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 , as part of the agency’s “OSHA Cares” initiative. The  Job Safety and Health Workplace Poster  must be displayed in the workplace where workers can easily see it, per  regulation 1903.2 . OSHA says employers can use this version, which is available for free, or continue using an older version. For employers under  State Plan programs , a  state version of the poster  may be available. OSHA notes that federal government agencies must display the  Federal Agency Poster . Under the OSH Act, employees have a right to: A safe workplace Speak up about safety and health concerns without retaliation Report an injury or illness Have training in a manner they understand Be provided with required safety equipment Request an OSHA inspection and speak with the inspector File a complaint with OSHA about workplace hazards Ask for free safety and compliance assistance from OSHA at any time The poster features a phone number – (800) 321-6742 (OSHA) – and a website ( osha.gov/workers ) that employees can use to contact the agency. It’s available in 16 different languages, including Spanish.

February 26, 2026 MIAMI  – The U.S. Department of Labor has cited a concrete manufacturer for exposing workers to hazards after an employee suffered fatal injuries after entering the unprotected area of a concrete block cubing machine in July 2025. The department's  Occupational Safety and Health Administration  cited Adonel Concrete Corp. – operating as Adonel Block Manufacturing Corp. – with nine serious violations for inadequate machine guarding, and for failing to ensure lockout/tagout procedures were used, electrical panels were marked and the locking mechanism operational, implement an effective hearing conservation program for workers exposed to high-noise levels, and incorporate silica hazards into the company's hazard communication program. OSHA assessed $58,604 in penalties.