Louisiana Job Injury Law Blog

Often times an injured worker is forced to ask his or her employer for the name of its workers compensation insurer after an work related injury. The employer might try to encourage the injured worker to use his or her health insurance.

However, in Louisiana, health insurance usually does is not provide primary health insurance coverage for a work related injury unless the the employer and its insurer denies that the employee's injury is compensable under the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act.

Unfortunately, many employers are unwilling to report a work related injury to their workers compensation insurer or provide the injured employee with the name of the insurer.

In the past, If you were trying to find the name of your employer's insurer so that you can report the claim to them and see if the claim is compensable, you had to call the individual insurers like Louisiana Workers Compensation Corporation ("LWCC"), LUBA, CNA, Travelers, Chartis or other workers compensation insurer.

Now injured workers can discover their employers Louisiana Workers Compensation Act insurer online through https://www.ewccv.com/cvs/. If that doesn't work, look for "COVERAGE VERIFICATION" on the Louisiana Workforce Commissioner home page at http://www.laworks.net/

If you need help with your job injury matter, contact a Louisiana Workers Compensation Lawyer.

Additional Resources:

LA-RS 23:1205

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement ( BOEMRE) has completed its investigation into the fire that broke out on an offshore oil platform 100 miles off the Louisiana coast in September of 2010. The fire forced the 13 platform workers to jump in to the water and await Coast Guard rescue. The fire aboard the Mariner Energy Vermillion 380-A platform occurred just months after the April 2010 BP oil spill, offering a chilling reminder of the importance of strict safety standards in the offshore oil industry. The official investigation report cites a combination of factors, including crucial equipment failure, corroded equipment, and a fire water pump that could not be used due to generator failure, as causes for the incident.

"The report underscores the need for offshore operators to maintain their equipment consistent with existing standards, to protect the safety of personnel working onboard and to protect the environment," BOEMRE Director Michael Bromwich stated.

According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, noncompliance citations may be issued to Mariner Energy Inc. Mariner Energy, which has recently been taken over by Apache Corporation, may also face civil charges related to the September fire.

For additional information see, SEPTEMBER 2 2010 INCIDENT.pdf For questions about your work related injury, contact Louisiana work injury lawyer.

If your job injury claim falls under the jurisdiction of the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act or Longshore & Harbor Workers Compensation Act and your treating doctor says you are physically capable of returning to modified duty work either with your employer of injury or with another prospective employer in your geographic region. The vocational counselor says you have the skills necessary to do the position. What should you do?

If the Modified Position is with Your Employer of Injury

If the modified duty position is with your employer of injury, get to work and try the job. If you fail to return by the return to work date, you may be fired and your employer will probably reduce or terminated your workers compensation indemnity payments. See, Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc.pdf Furthermore, without showing up, you will never be able to determine if the position offered pays your pre-injury wage, if it is full-time or part-time, if the position is within your physical restrictions and skill set or if the position even exist. Sometimes these positions are even temporary or perhaps even created solely for purposes of terminating or reducing your indemnity payments.

Upon returning to work , make sure you keep a copy of your work restrictions in your pocket so you can provide them to your employer if your restrictions are called into question. If you have physical trouble performing the job, call your treating doctor immediately to get in to see him.

Also, upon returning to work, do not give the employer a reason for terminating you for misconduct as this may also be a basis for terminating or reducing your potential future indemnity payments under the rationale that your termination caused your wage loss, not your job injury. See, Synigal v. Vanguard Car Rental, 951 So. 2d 1197 - La_ Court of Appeals, 5th .pdf

Do not quit your job as this may also be a basis for terminating or reducing your indemnity payments.

If the Modified Position is with Another Potential Employer

If the vocational rehabilitation counselor presents your treating doctor with a list of job descriptions of potential jobs with other employers in your geographic location, you should diligently explore these job opportunities. If you don't, your indemnity payments may be reduced or terminated if your treating doctor has indicated you are physically capable of performing the jobs on the list. See, Mayeux v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 671 So. 2d 1261 - La_ Court of Appeals, 2n.pdf

Without at least exploring the job opportunities by asking questions of the potential employer and/ or making out an application with the prospective employer, you will have difficulty determining whether the position advertised is within your physical restrictions, your skill set and your geographic area or if it even exists or pays the listed pay rate.

Keep detailed notes on all prospective positions including name, address and phone number of the prospective employer, who you spoke with, date you made out an application, whether there is an actual position available, physical requirements, education and skill requirements, rate of pay, follow up calls etc.. See, Gasway v. Cellxion, Inc., 31 So. 3d 566 - La_ Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit.pdf

Your Louisiana Workers Compensation Attorney and Longshore & Harbor Workers Compensatoin Lawyer will need all of this information when you go to court to assist with your case.

Similar Rules Apply under the Longshore & Harbor Workers Compensation Act

Similarly, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, the employer of an injured worker may be able to reduce or terminate the Longshoreman's indemnity payments by demonstrating that the injured worker is able to secure suitable employment within the injured employee's geographic region that the longshore employee is physically and mentally capable of performing. The employer of injury need not hire the injured worker himself or find him a guaranteed job. Rather, the employer only needs to establish that water is nearby which the injured worker may drink if he reaches for it. See,New Orleans (Gulfwide) Stevedores v. Turner, 661 F. 2d 1031 - Court of Appea.pdf

If you suffered a hearing loss as a result of working at a shipyard like Ingalls or Avondale, you may have a claim for Longshore & Harbor Workers Compensation benefits.

How is a Longshore & Harbor Workers Compensation Hearing Loss Calculated? First, the impairment rating % is determined by a Physician by the using the AMA Guides.

The employee's Average Weekly Wage ("AWW") is determined as of the date of last exposure to harmful noise.

Generally, amount receive will be calculated as follows:

Monaural Hearing Loss. The amount of monaural hearing loss is multiplied times the number of weeks contained in section 8(c)(13)(A) (i.e. 52 weeks) to determine the length of entitlement. This number of weeks is multiplied times the compensation rate (i.e. AWW x 2/3) to determine the amount of compensation. The following is an example of the application of this this formula assuming an AWW of $777 and a 12.25 monaural hearing loss:

12.25% monaural loss x 52 weeks = 6.37 weeks

6.37 weeks x $777 x 2/3 = $3,299.62

Binaural Hearing Loss. If there is a binaural loss of hearing, the amount of binaural loss is multiplied times the number of weeks contained in section 8(c)(13)(B) (200 weeks), and then times the compensation rate. The following is an example of the application of this formula assuming an AWW of $800 per week and a 15.5% binaural loss:

15.5% binaural loss x 200 weeks = 31 weeks
weeks x $800 x 2/3 = $16,533.16

If you have any questions about your Hearing Loss Claim or other job injury, contact a Longshore & Harbor Workers Compensation Lawyer.

Working in a noisy environment may be more than annoying-it may be bad for your heart. According to a study released this month by researchers at The University of British Columbia and published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, individuals working in noisy environments are at have a higher prevalence of chest pain, heart attacks, heart disease and high blood pressure due to psychological stress acquired by exposure to loud noise at the work place.

A team of researchers analyzed data on over 6, 300 employed individuals 20 years and older who participated in the U.S National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1999 and 2004. As part of the U.S National Health and Nutrition Examination survey, participants underwent physical exams and answered questions about their occupational and general health. University of British Columbia researchers then divided the study participants by type of workplace: generally quiet work environments and persistently noisy workplaces. "Persistent noise" did not include loud music or talking but was defined as unwanted industrial noise such as the noise commonly found in mining and manufacturing industries. More than 20 percent of the approximately 6,300 individuals had been exposed to over 8 months of workplace noise. Even after taking into consideration the high rates of heart disease risks factors such as tobacco use and obesity among the mostly middle-aged male individuals working in a loud environment, researchers still found that workers exposed to industrial noise were about twice as likely to have serious heart problems than individuals working in quieter environments. According to study results, individuals exposed to loud noise at work were about twice as likely to have above normal diastolic blood pressure, a biomarker linked to hypertension and cardiac problems. Among those who worked in a noisy environment, men under age fifty and men who smoked were at a higher risk of coronary disease and heart attack.

Because the study relied on self-reported diagnosis data and did not consider other occupational factors associated with cardiovascular disease such as air pollution, further studies are needed before the connection between noise and cardiovascular illness is proven. Despite conclusive causal evidence of the connection, the scientific community is interested in the results of the study and eager to explore the possible connection further.

Source:

Study publication

Longshore & Harbor Workers Compensatoin Laws are found primarily in United States Code Title 33,CHAPTER 18.

LHWCA
TITLE 33 NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
CHAPTER 18
LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

• § 901. Short title
• § 902. Definitions
• § 903. Coverage
• § 904. Liability for compensation
• § 905. Exclusiveness of liability
• § 906. Compensation
• § 907. Medical services and supplies
• § 908. Compensation for disability
• § 909. Compensation for death
• § 910. Determination of pay
• § 911. Guardian for minor or incompetent
• § 912. Notice of injury or death
• § 913. Filing of claims
• § 914. Payment of compensation
• § 915. Invalid agreements
• § 916. Assignment and exemption from claims of creditors
• § 917. Compensation a lien against assets
• § 918. Collection of defaulted payments; special fund
• § 919. Procedure in respect of claims
• § 920. Presumptions
• § 921. Review of compensation orders
• § 922. Modification of awards
• § 923. Procedure before deputy commissioner or Board
• § 924. Witnesses
• § 925. Witness fees
• § 926. Costs in proceedings brought without reasonable grounds
• § 927. Powers of deputy commissioners or Board
• § 928. Fees for services
• § 929. Record of injury or death
• § 930. Reports to Secretary
• § 931. Penalty for misrepresentation; prosecution of claims
• § 932. Security for compensation
• § 933. Compensation for injuries where third persons are liable
• § 934. Compensation notice
• § 935. Substitution of carrier for employer
• § 936. Insurance policies
• § 937. Certificate of compliance with this Act
• § 938. Penalty for failure to secure payment of compensation
• § 939. Administration by Secretary
• § 940. Deputy commissioners
• § 941. Safety rules and regulations
• § 942. Annual report
• § 943. [Repealed]
• § 944. Special fund
• § 945. [Repealed]
• § 948. Laws inapplicable
• § 948a. Discrimination against employees who bring proceedings; penalties; deposit of payments in special funds; civil actions; entitlement to restoration of employment and compensation, qualifications requirement; liability of employer for penalties and payments; insurance policy exemption from liability
• § 949. Effect of unconstitutionality
• § 950. Separability provision
• §§ 951 -- 980. [Reserved]

For questions about the Longshore & Harbor Workers Compensation Act, contact your Longshore Lawyer.

When an employee is injured on the job in Louisiana, his or her employer is required to report the injury.

For job injuries that fall under the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act, the employer the employer must timely complete LWC-WC-1007.pdf for purposes of providing work related accident and injury information to the State of Louisiana Office of Workers Compensation Administration.

For job injuries that fall under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, the employer is required to timely report a REPORTABLE INJURY - Any accidental injury which causes loss of one or more shifts of work or death allegedly arising out of and in the course of employment, including any occupational disease or infection believed or alleged to have arisen naturally out of such employment, or as a natural or unavoidable result from an accidental injury. The injury is reported on LS-202 PDF.pdf

There are also OSHA reporting requirements. See PART 1904 - Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses as well as other reporting requriements for employees that fall under other compensation systems.

LWCC's list of handpicked company doctors and other company oriented healthcare providers can be found online at LWCC's OMNET database. OMNET is LWCC's occupational medicine network recommended to employers for treatment favorable to the employer and its LWCC insurer's pocketbooks. LWCC uses OMNET to direct injured employees to company doctors who treat them at overall lower price points. LWCC doesn't want injured employees to treat with "cost intesive providers". Cost intesive providers are healthcare providers most likely not found in the OMNET database and who spend more money on the injured worker than OMNET providers.

The company doctors are bound by two conflicting ideals: serving the medical needs of their patients while protecting the company's bottom line.

Injured employees who are covered by the Louisiana Workers Compensatoin Act have the right to choose one doctor in each specialty. While LWCC may want the injured worker to choose his or her physician from the OMNET company doctor list, the injured worker is not required to pick his or her physician from the OMNET list. Some savvy injured workers search the OMNET database to avoid choosing an OMNET company doctor or provider.

Is your physician found in the OMNET Database of Company Doctors?

For questions about your work injury case, contact Louisiana Workers Compensation Benefits Lawyer.

The Network of Employers for Traffic Safety, NHTSA AND OSHA have set forth a 10-Step Program of what an employer can do to improve traffic safety. They include:

• Senior Management Commitment & Employee Involvement
• Written Policies and Procedures
• Driver Agreements
• Motor Vehicle Record (MVR) Checks
• Crash Reporting and Investigation
• Vehicle Selection, Maintenance and Inspection
• Disciplinary Action System
• Reward/Incentive Program
• Driver Training/Communication
• Regulatory Compliance

Source:

OSHA_NHTSA & NETS_Guide.pdf

By the end of this year, Ingalls Shipbuilding division of Northrop-Grumman plans to Layoff 642 people from its Pascagoula, Mississippi Shipyard. The first 292 affected workers were given 60 days notice under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. This recent announcement follows Northrop Grumman's WARN announcment this month that it would layoff 205 employees at the Gulf Coast shipbuilding facilities at Avondale, La. and Tallulah, La.

Shipfitters and other employees from Avondale, Tallulah and Ingalls who have been injured on the job and who have returned to work with restrictions and then are laid off for economic reasons may have their wage loss indemnity benefits reinstated because the resulting job loss is of no fault of their own. Affected injured workers should contact FARA, the third party administrator for self-insured Northrop-Grumman and demand reinstatement of indemnity payments. FARA can be reached at (800) 259-8388.

Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901 et seq ("LHWCA") provides that if an alternative position within an injured employees work restrictions becomes unavailable with the employer of injury due to an economic layoff, full indemnity payments must be reinstated until such time as suitable alternative employment can be established by the employer.

Resources:

Workplace Standards: Notices for Plant Closings and Mass Layoffs

As some 34,000 workers labor to contain the oozing oil surging in to the Gulf of Mexico, concerns over the potential health effects of the BP oil spill have mounted.

In a U.S Institute of Medicine panel led last week by Linda McCauley, dean of Emory University's School of Nursing, McCauley expressed concern for the health of the clean-up workers and called for increased transparency from BP regarding safety precautions.
In the months following the April 20th spill, efforts to coordinate resources and organize health monitoring have been slow and reminiscent of post 9/11 efforts to access and monitor the health of emergency responders.

" Large gaps in the data" are making it difficult for scientists and health professionals to gather conclusive information on the health of spill workers. Many Institute of Medicine panel members shared McCauley's concerns and called for the U.S government to fund a long-term effort to routinely monitor and track levels of toxin exposure amongst clean up and maintain coherent data.

While much is unknown about the long-term health effects of such a massive oil spill, the National Institute of Health has pledged $10 million towards the study of the public health impact of the spill. Gulf residents and cleanup workers have already experienced acute exposure symptoms including headache, nausea, throat irritation, eye pain, cough, and dizziness. Over 450 oil exposure complaints have been reported to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, the majority concerning fume inhalation by cleanup workers.

Although spill workers are most likely to experience negative health consequences as a result of the spill, untrained cleanup volunteers and children also represent vulnerable populations. According to Irwin Redlener, member of the National Commission on Children and Disaster Preparedness, children are at an increased risk of health problems associated with ingestion, skin absorption, and inhalation of spill materials. Redlener also expressed concern for the psychological health of tGulf Coast children who may experience increased stress levels as a result of both 2005's Hurricane Katrina and the oil spill.

Kenneth Olden, dean of New York's CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College, cited cancer, birth defects, and miscarriages amongst the oil spill's potential adverse human health effects. Although early data indicates the risk is low for pregnant women and their unborn babies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a warning to " everyone, including pregnant women" to avoid spill-affected areas and cautions spill workers to wear proper protective gear and avoid working in extreme heat.

As efforts to contain the oil and clean up the spill continue, the lasting impact of our nation's largest oil spill on human health is not yet estimable.

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana said yesterday that Northrop has advised the State of Louisiana that Avondale Shipyard near New Orleans may shut down due to lack or orders beyond 2012. This move would put about 5,000 employees out of work.

Shipfitters and other Avondale employees who have been injured on the job and who have returned to work with restrictions and then are laid off for economic reasons may have their wage loss indemnity benefits reinstated because the resulting job loss is of no fault of their own.

Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901 et seq ("LHWCA") provides that if an alternative position within an injured employees work restrictions becomes unavailable with the employer of injury due to an economic layoff, full indemnity payments must be reinstated until such time as suitable alternative employment can be established by the employer.

Additional Resources:

Gov. Jindal: We Will Do Everything to Save Avondale Shipyard

Seventy-one cases of oil spill-related illnesses have been reported to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) to date, according to a report released today. Fifty of those involved workers on oil rigs or those involved in the oil spill clean-up efforts, while 21 illnesses were reported by the general public.

Epidemiologists and scientists with DHH continue to work closely with other state, regional and local officials, as well as hospitals, clinics and mobile health units to monitor in the impacts of oil and dispersants on Louisiana residents, workers and volunteers along the coast.

The Department has put out calls for doctors and medical facilities to report all illnesses and injuries related to the oil spill for an ongoing database. Each exposure-related complaint is followed up on by Office of Public Health staff.

Worker Illnesses

Most workers who reported exposure-related illnesses experienced symptoms such as throat irritation, cough, shortness of breath, eye irritation, nausea, chest pain and headaches. Eight workers were hospitalized. These hospitalizations averaged one day.

Illness Reported by General Public

Most of the illnesses reported by the general public have been related to odors from the oil spill. Officials have urged those who may be sensitive to the odors to stay indoors with doors and windows closed, and to run their air conditioning. Residents with pre-existing medical conditions, such as asthma or other respiratory illness, should consider contacting their physician if they feel symptomatic.

Breakdown of Illness by Category

• Of the workers who reported illnesses, 48 were male, two were female. Of the general public, six were male, while 15 were female. Most of those individuals who reported illnesses were between the ages of 18 and 64.
• Most workers either utilized an emergency room or urgent care center, or a clinic or physician's office (18 and 28, respectively). For those members of the general public who reported illnesses, 13 called the Louisiana Poison center, four utilized an emergency room or urgent care center, three went to a clinic or physician's office and one called a DHH hotline.

Questions about exposure-related illnesses can be directed to the Louisiana Poison Center: 1-800-222-1222. The Poison Center is staffed 24-hours a day and can provide medical management advice. To report an exposure-related illness, call 1-888-293-7020.

The full Oil Spill Surveillance Report is available here. The report will be generated by DHH weekly and posted on www.dhhemergencynews.com.

DHH's Office of Public Health, Section of Environmental Epidemiology & Toxicology gathers and analyzes information provided by surveillance sites, including hospital emergency departments, outpatient clinics, physician's offices and the Louisiana Poison Center

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a field hearing entitled "Local Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill" on Monday, June 7, 2010, in Chalmette, Louisiana. The hearing examined the impact of the oil spill at the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig site on the Gulf region.

At that hearing, Wilma Subra testified on behalf of Subra Company, Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) and the Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper (LMRK) concerning the issues of human health associated with the Deepwater Horizon Crude Oil Spill. The main points of her testimony concerning human health are:

• The crude oil spill has resulted in human health impacts to residents in the coastal communities and to workers toiling to contain and clean up the oil in the Gulf of Mexico and the coastal wetlands and estuaries.
• BP's crude oil spill and ongoing failure to control the source of the spill have resulted in the formation of crude oil aerosols in the air which have moved on shore ahead of the crude oil slick and continues to move on shore. These crude oil aerosols have caused community members along the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to experience odors. In Louisiana, the crude oil aerosols have resulted in health impacts including headaches, nausea, respiratory impacts, irritation to eyes, nose, throat and lungs and asthma attacks and have been experienced by people living along the coastal areas in St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, Lafourche and Terrebonne parishes as well as in the New Orleans metropolitan area. These symptoms have also been experienced by workers and fishermen in the general area of the crude oil slick and areas where tar balls have washed onshore.
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) web site state "some of these chemicals may cause short-lived effects like headache, eye, nose and throat irritation, or nausea."
• Local Fishermen Hired To Contain and Cleanup the Crude Oil Spill and Resulting Health Impacts
• On May 4, 2010, Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) and Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper (LMRK) received and began distributing protective gear to the fishermen to utilize during cleanup activities. The protective gear consisted of half face respirators with organic cartridges, goggles, gloves and sleeve protectors. LEAN and LMRK have continued to provide protective gear to fishermen and individuals going into the polluted areas.
• Workers hired by BP began reporting health symptoms such as severe headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, and dizziness. However, the workers including the fishermen were reluctant to report their health symptoms for fear they would lose their jobs. The wives of the fishermen spoke out over concern for the health of their husbands. Soon the wives stopped speaking out for fear their husbands would lose their jobs.
• The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and Louisiana Department of Health and Hospital (LDHH) stated that oil cleanup workers "should avoid skin contact, and oral cavity or nasal passage exposure to oil spill products [by] using appropriate clothing, respiratory protection, gloves and boots."
• On May 7, 2010, returning to U.S. District Court, the fishermen challenged BPs attempt to put the responsibility for compliance with technical safety laws related to hazardous substances on the fishermen. Judge Engelhardt ordered a consent agreement wherein BP agreed to take responsibility to ensure workers were properly trained in Haz-mat protocol and provided all necessary equipment at BP's expense.
• BP continued to fail to provide adequate protective gear to the fishermen. Subra Company, LEAN, and LMRK provided information to the EPA on the lack of compliance by BP with the terms of the consent agreement in not providing proper training and protective gear to the employed fishermen, and the lack of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enforcement of worker safety regulations in conjunction with the response efforts.
• On May 16, 2010, OSHA issued a detailed directive on the training required for specific task responders and stated that OSHA has officials monitoring the training and observing cleanup efforts to insure that the cleanup workers are provided protective equipment and comprehensive instruction.
• Still BP failed to provide respirators to the workers exposed to the crude oil and the workers experienced health impacts. The workers were afraid to speak up due to the potential to lose their jobs. Those fishermen who attempted to wear respirators while working were threatened to be fired by BP due to the workers using respirators.
• Shrimpers employed to use their shrimp boats as oil skimmers have not been provided with the appropriate protective gear. The oily skimmers and pads are being pulled into the shrimp boats, by the boat crews, with bare hands and no protective gear.
• On May 26, 2010, a number of worker became ill on the job and were transported to the hospital. The workers reported headaches, nausea, dizziness and chest pains. On Friday, Nay 28 two additional workers became ill with severe headaches and chest pains and were also transported to the hospital.
• The protection, safety and health of the fishermen and other workers performing the deployment of booms, collecting the crude oil residue and cleaning up the environment are of great concern to Subra Company, LEAN and LMRK.
• Decision have been made that have and will continue to result in detrimental impacts to human health and the environment as a trade off for attempts to reduce the quantity of crude oil from reaching the shores, estuaries and wetlands of the northern Gulf of Mexico.
• The actions to reduce the quantity of crude oil slick from reaching the shores, estuaries and wetlands of the northern Gulf of Mexico have included burning of the floating heavy portions of the crude oil slick, application of dispersants to the floating crude oil slick and subsurface application of dispersants to the crude oil near the point it flows into gulf waters near the well head, 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. These actions have resulted in negative impacts to human health by polluting the air, by burning of the heavy portions of the crude oil slick, and by aerial and ship board application of dispersants. The actions have had detrimental impacts to the water column, sediment, biota and wetland areas by dispersing the crude oil into the water column, sediments and wetland areas. The dispersing of the crude oil also has resulted in a much larger area of impact in the Gulf of Mexico than has been covered by the surface crude oil spill.
• The failure to control the source of the crude oil spill has resulted in the shutting down and evacuation of five production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico due to the presence of the crude oil slick in the area of the platforms. Other well locations have been warned to be prepared to shut-in their production and evacuate. One rig had to be shut-in due to workers on the rig becoming ill from the air emissions from the crude oil slick.
• BP is using the dispersants Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500 to disperse the surface crude oil as well as the crude oil as it exits the well head, 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. These dispersants were preapproved for surface application for oil spills on water. The dispersants were not preapproved for sub-surface applications. Corexit 9527 contains propylene glycol and 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE). Corexit 9500 contains propylene glycol. The other components in the dispersants are proprietary. Propylene glycol and 2-BE are toxic and bioaccumulate up the food chain.
• Initially BP used Corexit 9527 to disperse the crude oil on the surface of the Gulf waters through the use of air planes. When the supply ran out, BP switched to the slightly less toxic Corexit 9500. Additional supplies of Corexit 9527 were secured and are currently being used on an ongoing basis. The application of the dispersant to the crude oil on the waters surface is being applied by air planes and boats.
• Because the dispersants were not preapproved for sub-sea application, the Environmental Protection Agency required that the use of the dispersant sub-sea be suspended until test could be performed. The first two testing efforts were flawed. The third test was performed May 10th and 11th. As a result of the testing, the EPA and NOAA approved the use of the dispersant for subsurface application on Friday, May 14, 2010. The use of the dispersant for sub-sea application must follow requirements established in the EPA's Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive. The Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive should have included requirements to monitor sediments, establishment of requirements for a monitoring grid system and frequency of monitoring, establishment of action levels which require discontinuation of application of the dispersant when the action levels are exceeded, and analysis of the dispersants in the water column and the air.
• The dispersants being used by BP suspends the crude oil from the surface water into the entire water column and the sediment of the Gulf of Mexico. The dispersed crude oil and dispersants distribute throughout the water column, contaminate the water and sediment and damages and destroys aquatic species. The dispersed oil will be washed on shore and contaminate the wetlands and estuaries, will be distributed in the Gulf waters and sediments and serve as a source of contamination that will bioaccumulate up the food chain for a long period of time. In addition, the dispersed crude oil and dispersants will add additional stresses to the Dead Zone off the Louisiana coast.
• The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Wildlife and Fisher expressed their concerns to BP about the potential dispersant impacts on Louisiana's wildlife and fisheries, environment and public health. The agencies are concerned about the impacts of the use of the dispersants and requested BP's commitment that the dispersants being used will not cause irreparable, short-term or long-term harm to our wetlands, coast, environment, marine life wildlife or people.
• NOAA has issued predicted maps of the location of the oil slick plume along the coastal areas of the northern Gulf of Mexico on a daily basis. Subra Company, LEAN and LMRK have consistently requested that the federal agencies prepare and issue maps of the dispersed oil plume in order to prepare for the consequences of the movement of the dispersed crude oil and dispersants.
• Each decision being made in response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill event has some positive and some very negative impacts to human health, the environment and the ecosystems along the coastal areas of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. These decision are being made for the most part by the federal agencies that make up the Incident Command and with limited input from the populations most impacted by these decisions.
• Subra Company, LEAN and LMRK have worked extensively with the communities being impacted by this catastrophic disaster to monitor the ongoing activities and detrimental impacts, provide information, education, and methods of addressing the situations, engage the communities in the response efforts and decision making processes and provide protective gear to community members and workers being exposed to the environmental impacts of the disaster.
• In order to capture and document the human heath impacts resulting from the various aspects of the Deepwater Horizon crude oil and natural gas spill, Subra Company developed a human health survey instrument and through LEAN, provided the instrument to community members in the impacted areas and areas to be impacted. The results of the human health impacts documented in the surveys will be used to assess the severity and magnitude of the human health impacts associated with the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
• Subra Company, LEAN and LMRK need the assistance of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the federal governmental agencies in order to protect the health of coastal community members and the fishermen from the destructive impacts associated with the crude oil disaster and desperately need the existing laws and regulations to be enforced.

There are ongoing reports of injuries and illness among workers hired by British Petroleum and its subcontractors and the number of reports are steadily increasing These reports concern the State given that BP is looking to bring and additional 3,000 more people to Louisiana's coast to aid in the clean-up efforts.

DHH is receiving daily reports of injuries and illnessesnd is concerned that proper protections are not being taken and protocols followed. DHH and DEQ request OSHA:

• An official report detailing that review, method of investigation, findings and any citations issued or recommendations made.
• Details of OSHA's footprint in the area including how many people are on site to monitor worker safety and plans for regular inspection and monitoring of worker safety.
• A list of any worker complaints made directly to OSHA and the disposition of those complaints.
• A comprehensive review of training protocols for workers that includes an investigation of how consistently and fully that training is done.
• A strategy for providing regular reports to us outlining ongoing monitoring, complaints and citations.
• Any information on monitoring, such as air monitoring, on vessels and other work sites as it pertains to worker safety.

Additional Resources:

Louisiana Department of Health And Hospitals News Release