
doi: 10.1002/ajim.10352
pmid: 15029564
AbstractBackgroundIn 1999, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed regulations designed to reduce work related inquiries by limiting worker exposure to “ergonomic risk factors.” Congress subsequently overturned the regulations. We provide additional evidence on earnings losses attributable to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), and thus on the need for an ergonomic standard.MethodsRegression techniques are used to analyze data from a survey of injured workers that has been matched to employer‐reported earnings data covering pre‐ and post‐injury periods, and to workers' compensation claims records.ResultsMSDs lead to large and persistent earnings losses. Cost estimates used by OSHA to justify the 1999 EPS are corroborated. Losses are greatest among workers who file workers compensation claims, but nonclaimants also have losses.ConclusionsEarnings losses and lost productivity associated with work‐related MSDs are substantial and an ergonomic standard could be cost effective. Am. J. Ind. Med. 45:329–337, 2004. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Data Collection, United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States, Occupational Diseases, Insurance Claim Review, Cost of Illness, Risk Factors, Government Regulation, Income, Humans, Workers' Compensation, Ergonomics, Musculoskeletal Diseases
Data Collection, United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States, Occupational Diseases, Insurance Claim Review, Cost of Illness, Risk Factors, Government Regulation, Income, Humans, Workers' Compensation, Ergonomics, Musculoskeletal Diseases
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 8 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
