| It is important that seriously injured workers and | | | | had a wife and two children. Under the California |
| their families understand how California work | | | | workers compensation system they were entitled |
| injury law operates. In order to illustrate California | | | | to receive Death Benefits. The family received |
| worker injury law the following is a workplace | | | | less than $290,000, an extremely unjust and |
| case study for a fire and explosion work place | | | | unfair amount in the face of the devastation of |
| accident in California. The discussion includes a | | | | losing a husband and father. |
| California workers compensation analysis and a | | | | The Joe's Paving employees were also entitled to |
| California third party work injury liability analysis. | | | | benefits under the California workers |
| A Case Study - Explosion and Fire - - Death and | | | | compensation system. However, California |
| Serious Burn Injuries | | | | Workers' Compensation benefits are low and they |
| Loony Demolition, Inc. installs, removes and junks | | | | are in a continual battle with the workers |
| gasoline pumps and underground tanks. A Loony | | | | compensation carrier over appropriate medical |
| Demolition, Inc. worker was using a portable | | | | treatment. After almost two years of enduring |
| power saw to cut a storage tank that had been | | | | the unfair California workers' compensation |
| used for underground storage at a gas station. | | | | system these workers and their families were |
| The company failed to adequately purge the tank | | | | barely making ends meet. |
| and test for vapors before beginning to cut and | | | | Third Party Work Injury Analysis: |
| an explosion ensued, killing the employee and | | | | The family of the Loony Demolition, Inc. |
| seriously injuring three others. | | | | employee whom died has no third party |
| The three injured workers in the explosion | | | | defendant to sue. The family is only entitled to |
| worked for a different company, Joe's Paving. | | | | California workers compensation death benefits. |
| They all suffered full thickness burns and had to | | | | The employees of Joe's Paving have a strong |
| be resuscitated at the local Burn Unit. On a daily | | | | liability case against Loony Demolition, Inc. Loony |
| basis they endured a horribly painful burn | | | | Demolition, Inc. was clearly responsible for the |
| treatment called debridement. Debridement is the | | | | explosion and fire. In this case, Loony Demolition, |
| process of surgically removing dead tissue around | | | | Inc. is termed a "third-party." The three injured |
| a burn. Living Hell is a much more telling and | | | | workers from Joe's Paving bring a third party |
| accurate description. They were discharged from | | | | work injury lawsuit against Loony Demolition, Inc. |
| the hospital with amputation, scarring, | | | | The workplace explosion was caused by the |
| disfigurement and indescribable pain. All three | | | | failure of the third party, Loony Demolition, Inc., to |
| workers were unable to return back to work due | | | | test the tank prior to cutting, this breached |
| to their injuries. | | | | established guidelines for gas-freeing. Including, API |
| Investigation: | | | | procedures, OSHA requirements and longstanding |
| An investigation into the Loony Demolition, Inc. | | | | custom and practice in the industry. These horribly |
| incident revealed: | | | | injured employees recover many millions of dollars |
| 1. Failed to test the atmosphere in tank prior to | | | | for their injuries. |
| work or cutting. | | | | However, money is not the true issue. The |
| 2. Failed to establish guidelines for gas-freeing. | | | | money can never replace what these |
| 3. Failed follow the recommended procedures set | | | | catastrophically injured workers have lost. No |
| forth in American Petroleum Institute (API) Bulletin | | | | matter what the sum. The pain and despair are |
| 1604, "Recommended Practice for Abandonment | | | | unbearable. |
| or Removal of Used Underground Service Station | | | | Disclaimer |
| Tanks". | | | | The foregoing is a case study. Any resemblance |
| 4. Failed to train employees to recognize and then | | | | to actual events, persons or companies is purely |
| avoid unsafe conditions while working with tanks | | | | coincidental. It is not legal advice. It is simplistic in |
| which have previously contained flammable liquids. | | | | order to achieve clarity. Each case is different and |
| This is in violation of 29 CFR 1926.21(b)(2) and the | | | | has separate challenges, difficulties and/or |
| California equivalent. | | | | nuances. There is no guarantee that your case will |
| Workers Compensation Analysis: | | | | have a similar result as discussed in this case |
| The Loony Demolition, Inc. employee whom died | | | | study. |