![\"\"](\"http:\/\/jordanbarab.com\/confinedspace\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/re_brmc_sign-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Which statement below represents reality?<\/p>\n
This one?<\/p>\n
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES OF BRMC WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION PLAN<\/strong> Bergen Regional Medical Center (BRMC) is proud to report that our Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (WPPP) has once again been found to be compliant<\/strong>,<\/em> as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has agreed in a settlement to completely withdraw the citation issued to BRMC last year related to our WPPP. (emphasis added)<\/p>\n Or this one?<\/p>\n OSHA, New Jersey medical center reach agreement on violence prevention<\/strong> The U.S. Department of Labor\u2019s Occupational Safety and Health Administration and one of the nation\u2019s largest public hospitals have resolved litigation by reaching an agreement that requires the center to enhance its efforts to prevent violence in the workplace<\/strong><\/em>….A February 2015 agency inspection found BRMC\u2019s workplace violence program to be inadequate<\/strong><\/em> in that workplace violence hazards had not been addressed effectively, and in that the workers\u2019 safety and health continued to be jeopardized due to exposure to workplace violence. \u201cThis settlement holds Bergen Regional Medical Center L.P. accountable for ensuring it has an effective workplace violence prevention program that makes employee safety and health paramount,\u201d said Robert Kulick, OSHA regional administrator in New York. (emphasis added.)<\/p>\n The first statement<\/a> was issued by the Bergen Regional Medical Center (BRMC) and the second statement <\/a>was issued last Thursday by OSHA’s Region II.<\/p>\n So which is it? Does BRMC have an “inadequate” workplace violence program that needs to be “enhanced” or does BRMC have a program that has “once again<\/em> been found to be compliant” with …. something — probably OSHA’s General Duty Clause, which requires employers to provide a safe workplace?<\/p>\n BRMC\u00a0is one of New Jersey’s largest licensed nursing homes and one of the nation’s largest hospitals, providing long-term, behavioral health and acute care. The hospital is represented by\u00a0the\u00a0Health Professionals and Allied Employees (HPAE), an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers.<\/p>\n In September, 2015,\u00a0OSHA issued two citation<\/a>s against BRMC, a $6,600″repeat” citation\u00a0for failure to keep accurate records and a $7,000 General Duty Clause violation<\/a>\u00a0for failing to protect workers against assaults\u00a0and threats from patients and visitors. The citation, which followed a worker complaint, noted eight specific incidents of assaults against workers, “including one in which a nurse suffered a laceration and bruises attempting to stop an attack on a patient.” In addition, “employees reported incidents that involved patients barricading workers in a room, threatening them and exposing them to bloodborne pathogens. Several employees experienced being bit, punched, kicked and threatened by patients.”<\/p>\n OSHA’s General Duty Clause, paragraph 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act<\/a>, requires employers to maintain a workplace \u00a0“free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees,” and is used by OSHA to enforce safe working conditions where there is no specific OSHA standard.<\/p>\n The 2016 citation followed a “Hazard Alert Letter<\/a>” (HAL) sent in 2014 warning the hospital that “you have not developed or implemented adequate measures to protect workers from assaults at\u00a0your workplace” and made several recommendations. \u00a0The 2015 inspection found that the hospital had not acted adequately on the recommendations in the HAL. Hazard Alert Letters are issued by OSHA when serious problems are identified, but they aren’t enough to meet\u00a0the legal criteria of the General Duty Clause.<\/p>\n Assaults on workers continued at the institution after the OSHA visit with workers reporting<\/a> in May 2016 “that in one three-hour span last December, law enforcement recorded four assaults that left two patients bleeding, an aide requiring X-rays and two guards with bite marks on their arms.”<\/p>\n The settlement announced on June 1\u00a0withdraws the workplace violence citation\u00a0and leaves only the recordkeeping violation which was increased to $14,000. The settlement also describes a workplace violence program that BRMC had allegedly already implemented\u00a0and would continue to implement.\u00a0BRMC also allows OSHA to enter the facility to verify compliance with the settlement until September 30, 2017.<\/p>\n So, What’s\u00a0Going on?<\/strong><\/p>\n When an employer contests a citation, OSHA has three choices: withdraw the citation, reach a settlement (which sometimes withdraws one or more citations in return for actions by the employer that go beyond simple compliance), or pursue\u00a0the case through a\u00a0lengthy and costly legal process.<\/p>\n What we have here is a cave-in by the Department of Labor who agreed to a weak settlement, rescued\u00a0somewhat by a good OSHA press release that more accurately describes the serious ongoing problems at the hospital.<\/p>\n How can SOL force OSHA to withdraw a citation when technically, OSHA is SOL’s client? In reality, no workplace violence citation, no settlement and no decision to move through the legal process proceeds without SOL approval. In some cases, where there is strong disagreement between SOL and OSHA in the regions, the final decision may be elevated to the national office.<\/p>\n Why did BRMC put up such a huge fight against a\u00a0tiny $7,000 workplace violence citation? Why was it willing to take the case to court despite the fact that the legal process would cost many times more than the paltry $7,000 penalty?<\/p>\n Probably\u00a0because the hospital, which is is owned by Bergen County, is actually leased to Bergen Regional Medical Center LP, a private operator. That lease runs out at the end of September\u00a0and the company wants to renew it. As the\u00a0Bergen County Register<\/a>\u00a0suggests, having a serious workplace violence citation on the books might not look to good when the decision is made next month to choose a new hospital operator:<\/p>\n Next month, Bergen County officials are expected to select a new manager for the hospital from one of several bidders, including the current managers,\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>who have submitted separate proposals to operate\u00a0the 1,070-bed hospital. \u00a0The 19-year-contract between the for-profit managers and the Bergen County Improvement Authority expired in March. A short-term pact is in place until Oct.\u00a01, when new managers are expected to assume control of the facility.<\/p>\n Bidders include a coalition of North Jersey hospitals \u2013 Hackensack University Medical Center, Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck, Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, The Valley Hospital in Ridgewood and Christian Health in Wyckoff. Other bids include a joint venture by Rutgers University, Care Plus NJ \u2013 a Paramus based mental health outpatient company – and Integrity House, a Newark based addiction treatment center.<\/p>\n The willingness\u00a0to take chances to better protect workers is apparently no longer present in the Department of Labor.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n What caused SOL to back off when it was so clear that BRMC had not adequately addressed the ongoing life-threatening problems at BRMC? We don’t know exactly. But\u00a0DOL solicitors are often a conservative bunch — in the sense that they are often reluctant to take chances with cases that aren’t sure winners — especially with General Duty Clause cases that are much harder to win in court than a simple violation of an OSHA standard. \u00a0Former Obama administration head Solicitor\u00a0Patricia Smith often had to push her regional solicitors to\u00a0be more assertive, figuring sometimes it’s better to take a chance — and even sometimes better to lose — on important issues like workplace violence, than not to fight at all. If this case is any indication, the willingness\u00a0to take chances to better protect workers is apparently no longer present in the Department of Labor.<\/p>\n Workplace violence is a huge problem for workers. In 2015, 417 worker deaths were workplace homicides and violence was responsible for 26,540 lost-time injuries, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Women, African America, Asian and Hispanic workers bear a disproportionate share of workplace violence fatalities. \u00a0In 2014, 52% of workplace violence incidents reported to the BLS occurred in healthcare. More than half of nurses and nursing students have been verbally abused and more than 20% physically assaulted, according to a 2014 survey of 3,765 registered nurses and students conducted by the American Nurses Association.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n What’s Wrong with the Settlement?<\/strong><\/p>\n Settlements generally do two things: they readjust the citations and penalties, and they direct the employer to take certain actions that go beyond simple compliance with the law. This settlement withdraws the workplace violence citation, and then takes an weak and unprecedented approach to directing BRMC to make improvements.<\/p>\n If you\u00a0have the time and patience, compare\u00a0the BRMC settlement<\/a>\u00a0with other OSHA settlements, like this 2013 settlement<\/a>\u00a0between OSHA and the North Suffolk Mental Health Association Inc. The North Suffolk settlement\u00a0directs that the employer “shall take the following measures….” whereas the BRMC settlement basically tries to rewrite history by saying that BRMC has\u00a0already been doing lots of good stuff and this agreement is just a reminder that they should\u00a0continue to do that stuff.<\/p>\n Statements like this appear throughout the BRMC settlement, despite the fact that’s not what the OSHA inspectors found or the workers reported:<\/p>\n And there are many more concrete specific examples of disparities between the conditions OSHA described in the citation, what the settlement states has already happened, and what the workers report about actual current conditions:<\/p>\n What Does It All Mean?<\/strong><\/p>\n BRMC has abated some of the violations that OSHA identified in its inspection. \u00a0But while immediate abatement can sometimes result in reduced “good faith” penalty reduction, \u00a0OSHA citations are based on what inspectors see at the time of the inspection, not the improvements made after the OSHA inspectors arrive.<\/p>\n The hospital’s contention\u00a0that its workplace violence prevention program “has once again<\/em> been found to be compliant” is false. \u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n A settlement that withdraws the workplace violence citation and states that the hospital is already doing what it should be doing is highly valuable\u00a0to BRMC in its campaign to keep the contract. But the hospital’s contention\u00a0that its workplace violence prevention program “has once again<\/em> been found to be compliant” is false. The fact is that BRMC was not found to be compliant in 2014, OSHA found BRMC\u2019s workplace violence program to be “inadequate”\u00a0\u00a0in 2015, and the hospital’s workplace violence program\u00a0still has major problems today<\/a>.<\/p>\n This year, 62 incidents have been reported to a workplace violence committee, said Bernie Gerard, vice-president of the Health Professionals and Allied Employees.\u00a0A nurse was punched in the face on May 4, an emergency department nurse was punched multiple times in the face and her right hip was injured on May 14 and another employee was smacked in the arm and kicked in the leg on May 18, Gerard said.<\/p>\n But the real problem here is not just\u00a0BRMC’s anxiety about its future and the overly cautious\u00a0behavior\u00a0of DOL Solicitors; for a variety of reason this settlement sets a dangerous precedent that may\u00a0impact worker safety at BRMC and across the country.<\/p>\n First, as any mental health professional will tell you, the first step in curing\u00a0a problem is admitting that you have a problem. To that extent, BRMC is failing and its leadership lives in a seriously troubling state of denial: “‘The Medical Center has demonstrated through multiple audits and inspections by federal and state regulators that its Workplace Violence Prevention Plan is robust, effective, and compliant,’ said hospital spokeswoman Donnalee Corrieri,” according to the Bergen Register<\/a>.<\/p>\n The state of denial is encouraged\u00a0by problematic\u00a0tweets like this from BRMC’s attorney:<\/p>\n Actually, #OSHA<\/a> withdrew the citation b\/c the Hospital demonstrated its WPVPP was compliant. Committed only to continue its existing Program<\/p>\n \u2014 Eric J. Conn (@OSHA_Guy) June 2, 2017<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nMay 22,2017<\/p>\n
\nJune 1, 2017<\/p>\nBackground<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/jordanbarab.com\/confinedspace\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/Hospital-Dotter-300x200.jpg\")
Note that I say a “Department of Labor” cave-in, and not just an OSHA cave-in. That’s because although OSHA issued a good, well documented citation, but BRMC contested and refused to accept any workplace violence citation. Sources report\u00a0that Department of Labor Solicitors (SOL), who act as OSHA’s lawyers, forced the agency to withdraw the violence citation before it went to court .\u00a0 This surrender occurred despite the fact that SOL had approved the initial citation and OSHA had commissioned a report by an outside expert, which, according to those who saw the report, strongly upheld the substance\u00a0of the citation.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n