I partially crawled under the van and found an in-line fuel filter against the frame of the vehicle. I removed one clip on the engine side of the filter in order to determine whether or not the filter was blocked. As it turned out, it was not and gasoline sprayed over my shirt and body. The trouble light I was using was exposed briefly to some of the gas that was being sprayed. The next instant there was a loud popping noise as the glass bulb in the trouble light exploded igniting into flames the gasoline which covered my entire upper extremities. I instinctively slid on my back out from under the van, which had also burst into flames.

Once I got out from under the van, I stood up. The only thing I could hear was the roar of the fire which was burning me from the waist up. I immediately dropped to the ground and rolled. This did not stop the fire completely. I rolled once again. I then patted out the remaining fire with my hands.

Fortunately for me and my family, my neighbors immediately responded. The fire was put out. The fire department came shortly thereafter. I was then taken to the hospital for treatment.

I have been advised that approximately 20% to 25% of my body has sustained second degree burns. I’m expected to have a complete recovery. There is a small possibility that some of the burns on my left hand constitute third degree burns which will necessitate skin grafts. I should know this next week.

On behalf of myself and my family, I wish to thank all of the well-wishers who have extended personal sympathy and prayers. My wife, who is my office administrator, literally fielded hundreds of calls which flowed in after the accident.

I have been humbled by the experience, and needless to say, I am probably one of the most thankful individuals around. I have been informed that my “beautiful” face will return to normal in approximately one year.

Again, I wish to thank everyone for their help and prayers which have been so lavishly extended.

When Must An Employee Be Provided A Claim Form

nce in awhile I receive a file that has literally dozens of claim forms in it.  Upon review of these claim forms, it is apparent that the employer has been providing their employee a claim form whenever the employee so much as stubs his toe.

While it is important to document any event which occurs in the workplace which might relate to a workers’ compensation claim, it is not necessary for the employer to give an employee a claim form whenever a very minor event occurs. A careful review of the statutes explains why.

Labor Code §5401 states that, “within one working day after receiving notice or knowledge of injury under §5400 or §5402, which injury results in lost time beyond the date of injury or which results in medical treatment beyond first aid, the employer shall provide, personally or by first-class mail, the claim form and a notice of potential eligibility of benefits under this section to the injured employee, or in the case of death, to his or her dependents. As used in this subdivision, “first aid” means any one-time treatment of minor scratches, cuts, burns, splinters, or other minor industrial injury.” “Minor industrial injury” shall not include serious exposure to hazardous substances as defined in subdivision (i) of §6302...”

Therefore, if you are dealing with a first aid only injury, you do not have to provide a claim form to the injured worker. The employer doesn’t even have to fill out an employer’s report of injury (Form 5020. See Administrative Rule 14005). The only time the employer must file a report of injury is when the injury results in lost time beyond the date of the injury or illness, or which requires medical treatment beyond first aid. See Labor Code §6409.1.

It doesn’t make any difference whether or not the employee was treated by a doctor. It is the nature of the injury which determines whether or not it is first aid, not whether a doctor is involved or not. As defined within Labor Code §5401, it includes minor scratches, cuts, burns, splinters, or other minor injury.

The only time an employee needs to be given a claim form is when the injury is beyond first aid. However, I do think that it would be wise for an employer to document all incidents, including first aid only. Even though an injury is first aid only, the employee is entitled workers’ compensation benefits for that injury. Sometimes a very minor event develops into a very serious injury sometime later. If the employer has a very good system of documenting all injuries, this should prove to be helpful later on.

Power Press Rule Applies Only if Manufacturer Informed Employer of Need for Guard

anet Bryer filed civil action for damages after she was injured on a pasta machine. She alleged that her injury allowed her to sue the employer directly under the “power press” exception as set forth in Labor Code §4558. Defendant had filed a summary judgement motion requesting a dismissal of the applicant/plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant asserted that the applicant/plaintiff’s remedy was worker’s compensation only.

The defendant submitted affidavits which established that the defendant had purchased a pasta machine secondhand and had never “received information of any kind” from the manufacturer of the pasta machine. Plaintiff submitted affidavits which attempted to dispute this proposition. Her affidavits showed that defendant had “noticed the hole in the machine” which indicated to defendant that a safety device should have been in that location and was missing. The individual who had sold the pasta machine to defendant indicated that he had probably pointed out the absence of the safety device when defendant purchased the machine. The trial court granted defendant’s summary judgment motion and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff filed an appeal.

Labor Code §4558 states in part,”An employee...may bring an action at law for damages against the employer where the employee’s injury or death is proximately caused by the employer’s knowing removing of, or knowing failure to install, a point of operation guard on a power press, and this removal or failure to install is specifically authorized by the employer under conditions known by the employer to create a probability of serious injury or death”. This section further provides, “no liability shall arise under the section absent proof that the manufacturer designed, installed, required, or otherwise provided by specification for the attachment of the guards and conveyed knowledge of the same to the employer. Proof of conveyance of this information to the employer by the manufacturer may come from any source.”

The defendant’s affidavits established to the court’s satisfaction that there was no communication between the manufacturer of the pasta machine and the defendant. The only express communications defendant received regarding the pasta machine were the representations of the individual who sold the machine to the defendant. However, plaintiff points out that defendant acquired knowledge of the absence of a safety device from defendant’s observation of “the hole” in the pasta machine. The court reasoned that this information alone was not adequate to constitute a conveyance of knowledge from the manufacturer of the need for a point of operation guard. At most, the hole, as evidenced in the machine was only an indication that something was missing from the machine. The “hole” conveyed no description of the nature of the missing part, and it certainly did not convey the specific fact that the manufacturer required the point of operation guard.

Judgement was affirmed.

Janet Bryer v. Santa Cruz Pasta Factory, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13833, October 16, 1995.