The number of contractors and Hispanic workers who died on the job increased in 2013 even as the overall tally of worker deaths declined, according to preliminary data released Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In all, 4,405 workers died from injuries sustained on the job last year — 223 fewer than the BLS reported in 2012. That equates to a rate of roughly 3.2 deaths for every 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, down slightly from 2012.
The new tranche of data came on the same day that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration released a final revised rule requiring employers to notify OSHA within eight hours if an employee dies and within 24 hours when an employee is hospitalized, suffers an amputation or loses an eye. Previously, employers were only required to report deaths and the hospitalization of three or more employees.
“Forty-four hundred five on-the-job deaths is 4,405 too many,” David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, said on a conference call with reporters. “We can and must do better.”
The Dallas Morning News uncovered some surprising and troubling statistics concerning deaths in the workplace in Texas. After conducting a statistical review of workplace deaths, Texas was the deadliest state for construction workers, experiencing 4,593 deaths, which is 579 more deaths than researches expected to find. This is in stark contrast to the state of California, whose construction work force is larger than Texas, but experienced over a thousand less deaths than expected.
I am a board certified personal injury specialist. I have devoted my entire legal career to representing individuals and families who have suffered a tragic loss, either a life-changing injury or the death of a loved one, because of the negligence of someone else. After trying numerous cases in front of juries and judges, and being entrusted with hundreds of my clients’ caes over the years, I feel confident in answering this: no.
The insurance companies representing people and businesses that have been careless, reckless and/or negligent have been trained in negotiation, claims handling, and how to get the best deal that he/she can for the insurance company. In other words, adjusters are paid to save the insurance company money, not to take care of you or your family. They do this very well, and the insurance companies’ profits are proof of this. The bottom line is that insurance companies are billion dollar companies, and they got there by making the best deals for themselves, not for you, the injured person. Insurance companies and their employees are specifically trained to know how get away with paying as little as possible to take care of you and your family, why not have someone in your corner who knows how to make sure that the insurance companies are covering all of your harms and losses? Why not have someone who will present evidence and proof of all of your harms and losses, with the goal of making you 100% whole again?
We at Montes Law Group, PC are trial lawyers. We hold 3 Board Certifications between us, which means all of our attorneys have tried numerous cases to a jury, passed a rigorous test, and received the praise of fellow colleagues and judges we have practiced in front of.
A deposition is the best way to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of both your case, as well as your opponent’s case. It also enables you to gauge your adversary. Often, an adversary who conducts himself poorly at deposition, will exhibit the same poor behavior at trial.
Other discovery devices are available which will help gather information and evidence about your case, such as written discovery, comprised of interrogatories, requests for production of documents and things, and requests for admission, none is so valuable as the deposition.
Oral depositions give you the chance to realize the nature and degree of the deponent’s knowledge. Depositions should always be taken with trial in mind, as though a jury were present. Taking a witness’ deposition will serve to put you on notice of the testimony which can be expected at trial. On occasion, a deponent will be unavailable to testify at trial, and the use of a deposition will effectively preserve that testimony and be useful at trial. Similarly, exhibits which have been marked at deposition, along with transcript testimony, are very effective cross-examination devices.