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.

February 19, 2026 A 53-year-old construction worker was killed Tuesday afternoon after being struck by a dump truck in a construction zone for a new subdivision in Manatee County, troopers said. According to the Florida Highway Patrol, the crash happened around 12:02 p.m. on Feb. 18 near Diamond Reef Drive and Bella Mar Trail. Investigators said a 2026 Kenworth dump truck, driven by a 46-year-old woman from Wesley Chapel, was backing east on Bella Mar Trail. The man, who was from Tampa, was assisting the driver as the truck backed up to unload when he tripped and fell to the ground, troopers said. The truck’s right-side tires then ran him over. Manatee County EMS pronounced the man dead at the scene. The crash occurred within an active construction area for a new subdivision. The Florida Highway Patrol Traffic Homicide Unit is continuing to investigate. As of February 19, there have been 593 crashes in Manatee County in 2026. Of those, there have been five deaths and 428 injuries, according to the Florida Crash Dashboard. In Sarasota County, there have been 692 crashes. Of those, there has been one death and 418 injuries.

January 23, 2026 Case File When a Florida bus driver made misrepresentations about an injury she experienced in 2021, she lost out on worker's compensation benefits for   it. But when she experienced another injury in 2022, for which the 2021 accident was the major contributing cause, was she left without a compensable injury?  Simply Research  subscribers have access to the full text of the decision. Case Pinellas County Transit Authority v. Jackson, No. 1D2024-1522 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 11/12/25) What Happened? A Florida bus driver reinjured her shoulder while turning the steering wheel at work and required medical treatment. The employer/carrier denied the driver's claims for benefits because doctors identified the driver's prior on-the-job shoulder injury as the major contributing cause of her need for benefits and because the driver had made misrepresentations related to the earlier claim that barred her from entitlement for benefits for that injury. The Judge of Compensation Claims awarded benefits, and the E/C appealed. Rule of Law Workers' Compensation benefits are available in Florida when an injury arises out of and in the course and scope of one's work. "Arises out of" is defined in terms of a "major contributing cause" analysis. Under that analysis, an occupational accident must be more than 50% responsible for the injury.   Workers' Comp 101:  In Florida, "major contributing cause," or "MCC," means the cause that is more than 50% responsible for the injury.   What the Court Said After pointing out that the E/C argued that because the driver lost her right to receive benefits for the earlier injury by making misrepresentations that were forbidden under the law, she was foreclosed from receiving benefits related to the later injury, the court found two problems with the E/C's argument.   Workers' Comp 101:  Under Florida law, claimants may not "knowingly make, or cause to be made, any false, fraudulent, or misleading oral or written statement for the purpose of obtaining or denying any benefit or payment." Florida law also bars benefits for an employee found to have "knowingly or intentionally engaged in any" false, fraudulent, or misleading statements "for the purpose of securing workers' compensation benefits."   First, the court noted that both of the driver's accidents and injuries stemmed from her work on the job. Thus, there was no injury unrelated to the driver's work involved with the case. Also, the driver did not fail to seek benefits after the first accident "as might have rendered that accident non-compensable and required an MCC analysis to be completed." Second, the E/C's misrepresentation defense argument conflated the concepts of "compensability" and "entitlement to benefits." The court explained that "compensability" involves the workplace-related existence and cause of an injury and not benefits-entitlement issues. "It is true that the E/C's successful misrepresentation defense on the 2021 injury claim foreclosed [the driver's]  entitlement to benefits  for that accident," the court wrote. "But that forfeiture of benefits did not render either the 2021 or 2022 accident  non-compensable  because, again, compensability analysis doesn't directly concern benefit-entitlement but whether a work-caused accident and injury occurred." Moreover, the E/C's misrepresentation defense did not foreclose the driver from qualifying for benefits stemming from the second, separate workplace accident because Paulson v. Dixie Cnty. Emergency Med. Servs., 936 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) held that the law's plain language applies the prohibition on benefits when a claimant makes a misrepresentation only "to a specific accident" in which fraud was committed and not a subsequent workplace accident. "Thus, the E/C's successful ... defense didn't affect the compensability status of either the 2021 or 2022 accidents, nor did it prevent [the driver] from qualifying to receive benefits corresponding to the distinct workplace accident and injury in 2022," the court wrote. Verdict : The court affirmed the JCC's decision. Takeaway In Florida, a misrepresentation regarding a workplace accident that forecloses a claimant's entitlement to benefits doesn't render that accident -- or a subsequent accident for which the first accident was the MCC -- non-compensable.

February 2, 2026 What Do You Think? With states generally allowing individuals to carry guns, including at work, an interesting issue is whether a shooting accident at work can trigger a compensable claim. A case involving a claimant who estimated vehicle damage at an auto body shop and ended up damaging his own body sheds some light on that topic. The estimator always carried a gun. He had done so for several years for personal protection prior to taking the job. The job consisted of estimating the cost of repairs for the damaged vehicles that came in. He didn’t need the gun to do his job, and the company did not require him to carry one. But he said the area was dangerous due to the homeless population. The claimant’s manager knew the claimant had a gun and advised him not to carry it around at work. The manager also brought his own gun to work, but left it in his vehicle during work hours and said he never felt in danger. The estimator was in the area where they parked the damaged cars waiting to be repaired. While carrying out his duties, he decided to move a damaged pick-up truck. As he climbed into the seat, his gun went off and shot him in the leg. He filed a workers’ compensation claim. An ALJ denied the claim on the basis that it did not arise out of employment. The estimator appealed. To obtain workers’ compensation, a claimant must show that his injury arose out of and in the course of employment. To arise out of employment, an injury must result from some risk of the employment or be incidental to carrying out the worker’s duties. Did the claimant’s injuries arise out of his employment at the auto repair shop? A.   Yes . Because the area was so dangerous, he needed to carry a gun; thus, carrying the gun was related to a risk of his employment. B. No.  He didn’t have any work-related duties that required him to carry the gun. If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Goins v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, No. CA-IC 24-0021 (Ariz. Ct. App. 01/21/26), which ruled that the claimant’s injury did not arise out of employment. The court found no causal connection between the claimant’s job and the injury. This was largely because no part of the job required him to have a gun at work. While the claimant argued that he carried the gun to remain safe, the manager’s statements suggested that the area was not especially dangerous. Even if it were dangerous, the fact that he carried the gun for personal protection all the time and in many other places suggested he was not wearing it because his workplace in particular was dangerous. Further, he had no work duties that involved protecting himself or others from dangers. Thus, the risk of injury was not work-related. Rather, it was personal to the claimant. The court considered the claimant's introduction of a gun to the work environment an "imported danger." In Space Steel Corp. v. Jones' Dependents, 248 So. 2d 807, 809 (Miss. 1971), the Mississippi Supreme Court explained that "the doctrine of `imported danger' refers to that class of cases in which the source of the injury was a hazard brought onto the employment premises by the claimant himself. Workers' Comp 101:  Larson's Workers' Compensation Law  notes situations where "the imported-danger idea has been invoked: explosives, automobiles, food and drink, matches, and unsuitable clothing brought by the employee," and that such cases, "on the whole, confirm the basic rule that there must be some employment contribution to the risk when the initial source of harm is a distinctly personal danger." The court also rejected the claimant’s argument that the injury arose out of employment because his employer acquiesced in his carrying the gun at work. While the employer may have known about the gun, this was not enough to establish a causal relationship between the job and injury. “That [the employer] did not directly prohibit him from carrying a gun did not make it necessary for his employment, and there is no evidence [the employer] authorized or allowed [the claimant] to perform security duties as part of his job,” the court said. The court affirmed the ALJ’s denial of the claim.