EHS OutLoud Blog

What A Long, Strange Trip It’s Been (OSHA’s new rules and the strange ways they work)

RSS

As most in the safety profession know, OSHA changed the rules related to recordkeeping and reporting effective Jan. 1, 2015. The changes to the recordkeeping rules essentially did two things: changed who had to engage in recordkeeping and required the submission of records electronically to OSHA. (The summary of those records still must be posted from Feb. 1 through April 30 of each year.)

The reporting rules changed to require reporting when one – as opposed to three – employees were hospitalized for more than observation and to require reporting where there was an amputation or eye loss. (OSHA’s rules relative to reporting work-related deaths still require that deaths be reported within 8 hours, but the reporting can now be done via OSHA’s web portal.) Given the clear language of the rule change, one would expect that there would be no questions about what sort of injuries need to be reported, but as usual, that is not the case.

Traditionally, OSHA has defined an amputation as a loss of an appendage that involved bone loss. In fact, prior to the rule change, OSHA specifically defined amputations in a manner that required there be bone loss. Thus, for example, slicing the fingertip skin off would not be considered an amputation, but slicing the fingertip and a little bit of bone would be defined as an amputation.  The new rule defines amputation as follows:

An amputation is the traumatic loss of a limb or other external body part. Amputations include a part, such as a limb or appendage, that has been severed, cut off, amputated (either completely or partially); fingertip amputations with or without bone loss; medical amputations resulting from irreparable damage; amputations of body parts that have since been reattached. Amputations do not include avulsions, enucleations, deglovings, scalpings, severed ears or broken or chipped teeth. (See, 29 CFR 1904.39(b)(11).)

Thus, slicing the fingertip off, without involving the bone, is now an amputation; however, doing the same thing to a toe is not).

Though the result of the injury may be identical (i.e., the complete loss of an arm), OSHA again has changed course and now distinguishes between amputations and avulsions. An avulsion is an injury in which a body structure is forcibly detached from its normal point of insertion by either trauma or surgery. An example of an avulsion would be the sort of injury that might result if an employee’s arm was caught in a rotating piece of equipment and torn off. If the result of an avulsion, the loss of the arm is not reportable, but if sheared off in a press, the arm loss would be reportable.

Various area OSHA offices are offering guidance relative to amputations and making statements like: “If it won’t grow back, it is an amputation and reportable.” Unfortunately, that guidance contradicts the new definition of an amputation which specifically excludes “severed ears.” Further, it creates some confusion as a reattached arm ostensibly “grows back,” though the definition clearly instructs that the original injury is reportable.

Eye loss and whether the loss of an eye is reportable similarly is more complex than it might appear at first blush. Mere loss of sight does not constitute the loss of an eye. The eye must be eviscerated or enucleated to count as an eye loss. However, if the eye loss (or medical amputation of an appendage) occurs more than 24 hours after the incident, the eye loss (or medical amputation of an appendage) is not considered reportable. Thus, though the eye may be completely and irreparably non-functional, so long as it remains a part of the employee’s body for 24 hours, it is not a reportable eye loss.

OSHA currently is encouraging employers to rely upon the medical professional’s diagnosis to determine whether an injury is an amputation or eye loss that must be reported to OSHA. This could lead to unscrupulous employers working with doctors to delay procedures that are medically necessary in order to avoid a reportable incident. However, given the very odd and sometime convoluted way OSHA has defined these terms and what triggers a reportable event, that result was foreseeable and inevitable.

John Surma is Special Counsel in the Houston office of Adams and Reese. He has practiced law since 1995 and for the majority of his career he has counseled clients with health and safety issues in the workplace. He helps employers deal with compliance issues and troubled safety programs, as well as catastrophic incidents involving both people and property. In addition to his OSHA practice, he also defends his clients in the litigation that ensues from catastrophic incidents.

(Mr. Surma’s postings on EHSToday.com do not constitute legal advice or opinion and should not be viewed as a substitute for legal advice. The information provided is based on laws and regulations in effect at the time of creation and is subject to change. Adams and Reese LLP is a multidisciplinary law firm with over 340 lawyers and advisors in 16 offices.)

Discuss this Blog Entry 6

on Mar 12, 2015

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.
-Ancient Chinese Saying

on Mar 13, 2015

This article is confusing and misleading. The statement that injury and illness records are required to be electronically reported to OSHA is incorrect. There is a rule being considered currently that employers would have to electronically report injury and illness data, but that has not (and hopefully will not) become standardized. Next, the author states that OSHA must be contacted when one employee is hospitalized for more than observation. To be clear, the new OSHA requirement is that OSHA must be called when there has been an in-patient hospitalization. A person could receive treatment while being admitted on an "out-patient" basis.

on Mar 27, 2015

nice post

on Apr 27, 2015

Amazing post.

on Jun 3, 2015

awesome post

on Apr 18, 2016

I am not a fan of this article either.
In paragraph #4, the author cites OSHA in that the definition of "amputation" does not include enucleations, then turns around in paragraph #8 and states, "The eye must be eviscerated or enucleated to count as an eye loss."
This directly conflicts because an eye loss is most certainly reportable.
Confusing and conflicting article.

Please or Register to post comments.

What's EHS OutLoud Blog?

EHS OutLoud blog provides a candid look at health and safety issues both at work and at home.

Contributors

Sandy Smith

Sandy Smith is editor-in-chief of EHS Today magazine, a Penton Media Inc. publication. She has been writing about occupational safety and health and environmental issues since 1990. She has been...

Stefanie Valentic

Stefanie Valentic is an associate editor for EHS Today magazine, a Penton Media Inc. publication.  A native of Cleveland, Ohio, she has been in B2B publishing for eight years. Her work has...
Blog Archive

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×