Faribault Service Center: A Case Study

proactive measures I have instructed all the leads onsite to discuss safety with OSHA (See pic #5

In this case with Williams Construction the company was put under investigation after a trench collapse, which resulted in the death of one employee Jose Aguiniga and a serious injury to another employee Adam Palomar. After the investigation, OSHA charged Williams Construction

During interviews that were conducted during the investigation, it became evident that a lot of employees are no understanding of the OSHA regulations and had received no training on trench safety. The second violation states that Williams did not ensure that their employees did not have to travel more than twenty-five feet to a safe zone. The trench that the employees were working was more than forty-five feet long and only had one exit. At the time of the collapse the employees in question were deep into the trench trying to clean out the water pumps that were in place. This causes a hazard for them because they were unable to reach safety or escape once the walls collapsed. The third violation stated the there was no “competent person” on the job that had extensive knowledge of trench safety. It is regulation by OSHA to have at least one person on cite that is able to spot existing and potential hazards on the job cite. During the investigation it was clear that no employees had knowledge of OSHA or any of the regulations related to trench safety. The fourth and final violation was that Williams failed to ensure that the walls of the excavation were either sloped or supported. It was stated early in the case that the support provided by a hydraulic jack was removed the night before the collapse causes the walls and work environment to be un-stable.

R. Williams Construction Company v. OSHRC is a case regarding the rules and regulations of OSHA verse the practices of a construction company. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) is a government regulated organization that was created to ensure the safety of employees while on the job. The regulations of OSHA have been put in place to eliminate and/or reduce the number of on the job injuries and deaths. Therefore, legal issue of this case is whether or not the courts should hold the construction company responsible for specific violations of OSHA standard regulations. Yet, in the case of Williams Construction the company was put under investigation by OSHA after a trench

In 2008, Lowe’s Companies, Inc. have failed to ensure a sustainable safety environment, put in place a health program, and maintain adequate record keeping on work-related injury and illnesses claims for certain locations in the state of Ohio. This employer has been made aware of OSHA requirements for its industry and has been cited many times for similar infractions. OSHA regulators have imposed stiff penalty fines that have cost Lowe’s Companies Inc. thousands of dollars. The record-keeping violations at the

A,B) Drew expressed his desired outcome for Esmrel is for him to do well in school. For him to behave at home, and he expressed Esmrel is doing all those things now. He explained working with MSTT he has learned how to handle certain situations in a different manner meaning how to control his anger by utilizing coping skills, and etc.

I would ask that Dynamic Duo conduct the informal conference with the local OSHA office and then follow through with a contest proceeding if the informal conference proves unsuccessful. It is imperative to inform Dynamic Duo that during the informal conference, it is very important that the employer displays support for the company and carefully listen to all the allegations presented. Therefore, OSHA Area Directors may decide to provide the photos and facts they claim support the citation during this meeting. It is advisable to make detailed notes of all the evidence OSHA presents. Additionally, it is vital the employer remember that despite the informal setting, he or she is voluntarily attending a legally binding interview with government inspectors. This is not the time to make any acknowledgements, concede on any points, or acknowledge the company has violated any rules or

Your role in the In-Service will be more discussion-oriented. The itinerary I have for the In-Service will feature 8 different activities (mostly video-based) that help other student advisors and ProStaff members familiarize themselves with different concepts of diversity and intersectionality such how white people discuss race, racism within the gay community, male body image issues, etc (I can send you the itinerary I have, if you want). Then you and various other members apart of the Truman community who apart of the panel will share their knowledge and experience about concepts of diversity, factors they related to or wanted to expand on that were featured in the videos or their own personal experience with how they balance intersectionality of their identities. The whole In-Service should last about an hour to an hour and a half, depending on the audience response (which will other student advisors and ProStaff of Residence Life) with the material. If you have any more questions/concerns. Please let me know. Thank you.

The problem: University of Nevada Cooperative Extension (UNCE), ALL4Kids and Little Cooks & Little Books, are funded by Supplemental Nutrient Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed). SNAP-ED, has imposed a new policy that there are no reoccurring services allowed at the SNAP-Ed school sites. The policy created more community based instructors (CBI) then SNAP-Ed available school sites, because of the new policy both programs are struggling. On the structural totem pole shareholders and the community can dictate what can happen with SNAP-Ed funded programs. UNCE teams are strong, and ALL4KIDS, and Little Books & Little Cooks teams are have experience and education people and their focus is finding new sites to serve.

It is alarming to know that each year there are over 4,500 scaffold injuries and 65 deaths (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], 2016). In addition, there is a high risk for construction workers to be struck from objects falling off scaffolds. With these facts in mind, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s (OSHRC) 2013 case of the Secretary of Labor v Performance Contracting, Inc. (PCI) raises questions as to why violations of OSHA’s scaffold standards are sometimes considered “other-than serious.” Understanding that OSHA gives the Secretary of Labor the tasks of rulemaking and enforcement of its rules, it also gives the task of carrying out the legal process to the commission which both parties accepted, as well as PCI “engaging as a business affecting interstate commerce” (Secretary of Labor v. PCI, 2013, pp. 2-3). Knowledge of the case’s background, parties involved, arguments presented, cases used to reach a verdict, and final ruling provide insight to the penalties assessed, significance, and personal opinion.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the government body in charge of managing Medicare and Medicaid programs. CMS likewise runs the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which is mutually financed by the Federal and State governments and managed by individual States. ACA created major change in CMS's implementation responsibilities.

The focus for action has been on the following key areas; the amendment of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 so only children and young people who are suspected, on reasonable grounds, to be at risk of significant harm should be reported to FACS.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) is a minimum standard, outlining the rights and responsibilities of the workplace parties. The OHSA in conjunction with the Industrial Establishments Regulations provide requirements for reporting workplace accidents that result in fatalities and critical injuries, occupational illnesses, and disabling injuries (Workplace Safety and Prevention Services, 2011). The OHSA covers workers in most workplaces in Ontario. There are however some exceptions with regards to private residences, specific farming operations, teachers and self-employed persons. These exceptions are covered under subsections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b) and 4 of the OHSA (Is my job covered? (n.d.)).

Working with victims of sexual assault and domestic violence at Coordinated Victims Assistance Center was very rewarding. Victims suffer a tremendous amount of physical and psychological trauma and when explaining their situation they can be reliving their worst days. One must be empathetic and nonjudgmental. Providing brief counseling to victims will allow them to regain a sense of safety. If victims are harmed by loved ones or people who they trust it can be difficult for them to press charges since they can still be in a state of shock. I assisted victims in receiving food, clothing, and referred them to shelters for their safety. I would assist victims on completing restraining orders against their perpetrators and some would request

Service Centers – the most basic type of responsibility center, are primarily responsible for ensuring that services are provided to a population in a manner that meets the volume and quality requirements of the organization. Service centers have no budgetary control; their main responsibilities revolve around scheduling, directing and monitoring the staff and providing direct patient care. Service centers are responsible for patient care, but the budget is kept at the next higher level in the organization.