Search
Close this search box.

OSHA Guidance on Tracking COVID-19 at Work

Coronavirus Sign

OSHA Guidance on Tracking COVID-19 at Work

Until recently, employers in only a handful of industries had to provide significant reporting on COVID-19 transmission in the workplace. But as of May 26, new Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines require a much wider range of employers to determine whether employees caught the coronavirus at work or while performing work-related activities. If so, managers must record the illness on OSHA Form 300.

To comply with OSHA’s new guidance, whenever an employee becomes ill with COVID-19, the employer must conduct a mini-investigation. Some employers are exempt from the new rules, according to OSHA: “Employers with 10 or fewer employees and certain employers in low hazard industries have no recording obligations; they need only report work-related COVID-19 illnesses that result in a fatality or an employee’s in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye.”

All other companies must make a record on the OSHA 300 log if these three criteria are met, according to guidance from the Society for Human Resource Management:

  • A confirmed case of COVID-19.
  • Work relatedness.
  • Illness resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or the transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid or the loss of consciousness.

Most people who test positive for the novel coronavirus will miss work and meet the third criteria. The hard part for employers is determining whether a positive test is work related. Employers must make reasonable efforts to determine if the exposure is work related.

What efforts are considered reasonable? This can be tricky, but the SHRM has some advice:

  • Ask the employee about how he or she believes COVID-19 was contracted. Don’t ask whether family members have contracted it, but if the employee volunteers this information, it could indicate the infection was not work related.
  • Ask about the employee’s work and nonwork activities.
  • Investigate the employee’s work environment. Have other employees in the same area tested positive? Did the employee’s job duties bring him or her into contact with the public? Were the work areas so crowded that proper social distancing was not practical?

Investigations to answer these questions should be limited or companies risk crossing a privacy line or violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, for example.

Base your conclusion only on information that’s reasonably available at the time you’re investigating. Should you learn more information later that’s related to the employee’s COVID-19 illness, you’ll need to update your recordings of occupational illnesses relevant to your work-related determinations.

Until recently, employers in only a handful of industries had to provide significant reporting on COVID-19 transmission in the workplace. But as of May 26, new Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines require a much wider range of employers to determine whether employees caught the coronavirus at work or while performing work-related activities. If so, managers must record the illness on OSHA Form 300.

To comply with OSHA’s new guidance, whenever an employee becomes ill with COVID-19, the employer must conduct a mini-investigation. Some employers are exempt from the new rules, according to OSHA: “Employers with 10 or fewer employees and certain employers in low hazard industries have no recording obligations; they need only report work-related COVID-19 illnesses that result in a fatality or an employee’s in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye.”

All other companies must make a record on the OSHA 300 log if these three criteria are met, according to guidance from the Society for Human Resource Management:

  • A confirmed case of COVID-19.
  • Work relatedness.
  • Illness resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or the transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid or the loss of consciousness.

Most people who test positive for the novel coronavirus will miss work and meet the third criteria. The hard part for employers is determining whether a positive test is work related. Employers must make reasonable efforts to determine if the exposure is work related.

What efforts are considered reasonable? This can be tricky, but the SHRM has some advice:

  • Ask the employee about how he or she believes COVID-19 was contracted. Don’t ask whether family members have contracted it, but if the employee volunteers this information, it could indicate the infection was not work related.
  • Ask about the employee’s work and nonwork activities.
  • Investigate the employee’s work environment. Have other employees in the same area tested positive? Did the employee’s job duties bring him or her into contact with the public? Were the work areas so crowded that proper social distancing was not practical?

Investigations to answer these questions should be limited or companies risk crossing a privacy line or violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, for example.

Base your conclusion only on information that’s reasonably available at the time you’re investigating. Should you learn more information later that’s related to the employee’s COVID-19 illness, you’ll need to update your recordings of occupational illnesses relevant to your work-related determinations.

OHSA reassures employers concerned about the burden and their liability according to OSHA rules, noting, “Employers, especially small employers, should not be expected to undertake extensive medical inquiries, given employee privacy concerns and most employers’ lack of expertise in this area.” It also says, “Recording a COVID-19 illness does not, of itself, mean that the employer has violated any OSHA standard.” Liability in general remains a confusing and controversial topic, however, along with the issue of how to treat workers who don’t want to return to a workplace, citing safety concerns. Companies should get legal advice before making major decisions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts

Insurance-technology

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More
Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote