Hello to everyone in the Canadian Darkroom Disease Community.
As a longtime advocate and more recently licensed paralegal, I primarily represent injured workers in Ontario.
Because a number of my clients have DD, I have become very familiar with this condition and the horrendous discrimination to which such individuals are subjected.
It is extremely important to understand that all legislation in Canada, whether federal or provincial is framed within the human rights laws. In other words, unless so specified in a particular law that it is exempt, human rights legislation has primacy over that statute. Of course this is conveniently ignored or obscured by workers' compensation boards.
Nevertheless, the human rights "tool" is one which has not been used nearly enough. As injured workers, those with DD (which, but the way is one of many conditions that fall under the umbrella of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity - MCS) are treated very differently than injured workers with evident disabilities.
In Ontario a new regulation under the Accessibiltiy for Ontarians with Disabiities Act (AODA-2005) was enacted on January 1, 2008. It is entitled "Accessibility Standards for Customer Service, Ontario Regulation 429/07. It was made mandatory for numerous agencies on January 1, 2010. This regulation does not simply refer only to physical barriers. The principle of equal opportunity means having the same chance, options, benefits and results as others, In the case of services it means that people with disabilities have the same opportunity to benefit from the way goods and services are provided as others. They should also not have to accept lesser quality or more inconvenience.
It should be noted that the AODA grew out of the Human Rights Code of Ontario and can and should be used along with the Code.
For wcb's to deny benefits to injured workers with DD when those with other more "evident" or "visible" injuries is to treat the DD workers very differently and thus they have been subjected to serious discimination.
I do hope that many more advocates and lawyers will seriously consider using the applicable human rights legislation in conjunction with the workers' compensation legislation.
Although provincial wcb tribunals have the power and authority of "discretion", this power and authority does not give these bodies the rights to subject injured workers to violations of their human rights.
I look forward to receiving your feedback.
Cheers from Ontario
Hilary
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Friday, January 1, 2010
Three New Jersey Techs Awarded 2.8 million
PRINCETON: X-ray technicians received $2.8 million award
Monday, December 28, 2009 7:38 PM EST
By Lauren Otis, Staff Writer
A jury awarded three technicians at Princeton Regional Orthopedics $942,000 each in compensation for injuries they received because of the improper installation of an X-ray machine in their office.
The $2,826,000 award — to Shellie Austin, Elizabeth Hall and Gail Letizia — was made Dec. 9 following a jury trial from Dec. 7 to 9, according to court records. The trial was presided over by Mercer County Superior Court Judge Thomas W. Summers Jr.
The jury found Pompton Lakes-based A Walsh Imaging Inc. liable for the injuries caused by improper installation and ventilation of the X-ray machine at Princeton Township-based Princeton Regional Orthopedics.
The improper installation and subsequent failure to correct it caused the three technicians, all in their 50s, to inhale caustic gases over an extended period of time, which resulted in permanent respiratory damage for each, according to a release by the Lawrence-based law firm Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader. Law firm partner Steven Blader represented the plaintiffs.
According to court records, in January 2006, A Walsh Imaging improperly installed the Princeton Regional Orthopedics X-ray machine without appropriate ventilation, allowing the caustic fumes to escape. The next day, A Walsh Imaging returned, but incorrectly installed a ventilation hose, leading to nine months of further exposure to harmful gases. A third visit did not result in correction of the ventilation problem, which continued into 2007.
Ed Thornton, a partner with the Edison-based law firm Methfessel & Werbel, who represented A Walsh Imaging, said his client had admitted liability during the trial with the jury then needing to determine how much damage the exposure had caused the three women.
”I thought it was a little high,” Mr. Thornton said of the $2.8 million award, “but that’s what the jury awarded.”
There will be no appeal of the award, which already has been paid by A Walsh Imaging’s liability insurer, he said.
Mr. Blader did not return a call seeking comment at deadline.
”As a result of the negligent ventilation of X-ray machines, not just once, but on three occasions, these women were exposed to dangerous chemicals, including gluteraldehyde, over a period of months and will suffer for the rest of their lives. This should never have happened,” Mr. Blader stated in a released statement.
Sherri (Benus) Epstein
Princeton, NJ
Monday, December 28, 2009 7:38 PM EST
By Lauren Otis, Staff Writer
A jury awarded three technicians at Princeton Regional Orthopedics $942,000 each in compensation for injuries they received because of the improper installation of an X-ray machine in their office.
The $2,826,000 award — to Shellie Austin, Elizabeth Hall and Gail Letizia — was made Dec. 9 following a jury trial from Dec. 7 to 9, according to court records. The trial was presided over by Mercer County Superior Court Judge Thomas W. Summers Jr.
The jury found Pompton Lakes-based A Walsh Imaging Inc. liable for the injuries caused by improper installation and ventilation of the X-ray machine at Princeton Township-based Princeton Regional Orthopedics.
The improper installation and subsequent failure to correct it caused the three technicians, all in their 50s, to inhale caustic gases over an extended period of time, which resulted in permanent respiratory damage for each, according to a release by the Lawrence-based law firm Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader. Law firm partner Steven Blader represented the plaintiffs.
According to court records, in January 2006, A Walsh Imaging improperly installed the Princeton Regional Orthopedics X-ray machine without appropriate ventilation, allowing the caustic fumes to escape. The next day, A Walsh Imaging returned, but incorrectly installed a ventilation hose, leading to nine months of further exposure to harmful gases. A third visit did not result in correction of the ventilation problem, which continued into 2007.
Ed Thornton, a partner with the Edison-based law firm Methfessel & Werbel, who represented A Walsh Imaging, said his client had admitted liability during the trial with the jury then needing to determine how much damage the exposure had caused the three women.
”I thought it was a little high,” Mr. Thornton said of the $2.8 million award, “but that’s what the jury awarded.”
There will be no appeal of the award, which already has been paid by A Walsh Imaging’s liability insurer, he said.
Mr. Blader did not return a call seeking comment at deadline.
”As a result of the negligent ventilation of X-ray machines, not just once, but on three occasions, these women were exposed to dangerous chemicals, including gluteraldehyde, over a period of months and will suffer for the rest of their lives. This should never have happened,” Mr. Blader stated in a released statement.
Sherri (Benus) Epstein
Princeton, NJ
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)