Ergonomic Rule Bill Moves

By Steven Brostoff, Washington Editor

NU Online News Service, June 19, 4:24 p.m. EST,Washington?Legislation mandating that the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration issue a new rule on ergonomicinjuries has been approved by a Senate panel on a party line vote11-10.

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensionsapproved S. 2184 despite concerns from insurers that its languagecould be construed to allow OSHA to promulgate a rule thatconflicts with state workers' compensation laws.

S. 2184, which is sponsored by Sen. John Breaux, D-La., sets atwo-year deadline for OSHA to promulgate a new rule. A rule issuedin the closing days of the Clinton administration was nullified byCongress last year using a statute called the Congressional ReviewAct.

While it sets a deadline, S. 2184 also says that a new ruleshould not apply to non-work related injuries and should not expandstate workers' compensation laws.

However, John Savercool, vice president of federal affairs forthe Washington-based American Insurance Association, said that theworkers' comp language is ambiguous.

While it may be intended to limit any potential conflict withstate workers' comp laws, he said, it does not effectively doso.

The issue is what is called "work restriction protection," whichwas part of the earlier rule issued under the ClintonAdministration, he said.

Under the heading of work restriction protection, OSHA mandatedspecific levels of compensation for ergonomic injuries, despiteexisting statutory language barring OSHA from interfering withactual compensation under state workers' comp laws, he said.

OSHA, Mr. Savercool said, took the position when it wrote theearlier rule that work restriction protection does not expand theapplication of state workers' compensation laws, but merelysupplements it.

Under S. 2184, he said, OSHA could take the same position.

To clear up any ambiguity, he said, S. 2184 needs to be amendedto expressly prohibit OSHA from promulgating an ergonomics rulethat has compensation provisions.

Ken Schloman, Washington counsel with the Downers Grove,Ill.-based Alliance of American Insurers, added that the Allianceis also disappointed with the committee's action.

The Alliance, he said, supports the position of the Bushadministration that any standards should be flexible. The Allianceopposes a "one-size-fits-all" approach, Mr. Schloman said.