ACOEM claiming they are victims of industry????? GAG ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

So now ACOEM is claiming THEY are the victims of industry? GIVE ME A BREAK!

_http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1349381/doctors_feel_push_to_downplay_inj

uries_group_tells_osha_of/index.html?source=r_health_

(http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1349381/doctors_feel_push_to_downplay_injur\

ies_group_tells_osha_o

f/index.html?source=r_health)

Doctors Feel Push to Downplay Injuries: Group Tells OSHA of Pressure By

Companies

Posted on: Saturday, 19 April 2008, 12:00 CDT

By Ames , The Charlotte Observer, N.C.

Apr. 19--NEW YORK -- A leading group of occupational doctors is taking the

unusual step of speaking out publicly against pressure from companies to

downplay workplace injuries.

To outline their concerns, the physicians have sent a letter to federal

workplace safety regulators and held a conference session in New York City on

Monday. They're also planning to testify before Congress.

If successful, their campaign could affect the treatment of injured workers

and might help change how the government assesses workplace safety.

" Our members feel they are being methodically pressured ... to under-treat

and mistreat, " said Dr. McLellan, president of the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine. " ...This is a grave ethical concern

for our members. It's a grave medical concern. "

His group represents 5,000 doctors; some treat workers referred to them by

employers, while others work directly for companies.

Employers are supposed to record all injuries requiring time off work or

medical treatment beyond first aid. It's an honor system, and the injury logs

are used by regulators and others to gauge plant safety. Low injury rates allow

companies to avoid scrutiny from workplace safety regulators and may help

managers earn four-figure bonuses.

In a hotel meeting room in New York, doctors said this helps explain why some

employers urge them not to treat injuries in a way that would make them

reportable. A cut, for instance, must be recorded if the worker gets stitches,

one doctor told the room of more than 60 colleagues. But if the doctor simply

covers the cut with a bandage, it doesn't have to be reported.

Workplace injury and illness rates -- a key factor in determining whether

regulators inspect a company -- have been declining nationwide in recent years.

But some experts suspect that's partly because employers aren't reporting all

on-the-job injuries.

McLellan, an associate professor at Dartmouth Medical School in New

Hampshire, says he thinks employers are " vastly underreporting " the extent of

workplace injuries.

" Players in the system may willfully produce records that don't reflect

reality, " he said in an interview.

He said he grew more concerned about corporate pressures on doctors in

September, during a conference in the Carolinas. Since then, he said, he has

heard

from dozens of doctors.

That led him to contact the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, and he expects to discuss his concerns with top agency officials

next

month. His group will likely propose that OSHA more vigorously investigate the

accuracy of company injury logs. It may also ask regulators to rely on a

broader array of workplace safety measures -- and to rewrite rules so that

companies have fewer incentives to underreport.

McLellan also wants occupational doctors to testify before congressional

committees examining workplace safety.

Ethical physicians sometimes lose business to those who bend to the wishes of

employers, some doctors and workers' compensation lawyers say.

In the Carolinas and some other states, injured workers generally must visit

doctors approved by their employers if they want workers' compensation to pay

for the treatment. Companies incur higher costs for compensating workers for

medical care and lost wages when they're injured on the job.

Employers tend to send workers to doctors who can help them keep costs low

and productivity high, according to attorneys who represent injured workers.

Doctors become popular with companies if they rarely order time off work for

injured employees, or if they seldom recommend costly treatments or conclude

injuries are work-related, those lawyers say.

" If you get past the infirmary and sent to a doctor, you're getting sent to a

doctor that lives on the plant, " said lawyer Davila, who until

recently worked in Columbia, S.C.

Atlanta lawyer Bruce Carraway has represented more than 400 injured poultry

workers and says that in more than half of those cases, independent physicians

gave different assessments than the company doctors.

Dr. phus Bloem, an orthopedic surgeon from Rocky Mount, said he used to

get referrals from Perdue Farms. But in the 1990s, the company became unhappy

that he usually recommended surgery for workers with carpal tunnel syndrome.

" Their top doctor once visited me and complained that I was too expensive,

which I took as pressure to review my approach, " Bloem said. Not long

afterward, the referrals stopped.

Dr. Merrill, Perdue's chief medical officer, said the company had

discovered that many workers who got less invasive treatment -- such as

splinting, exercise and ibuprofen -- fared better than those who got surgery.

" We had

a better way to treat folks, " he said.

But Bloem wondered whether health concerns were the only factor. " In the

end, " he said, " the money wins. "

In their quest to keep injuries off logs, company officials without medical

training sometimes provide inappropriate treatment, doctors at the New York

conference said.

Dr. Peggy Geimer, corporate medical director for a chemical company in

Connecticut, spoke of the " tremendous amount of pressure " on company staff to

provide treatment beyond their level of expertise.

She recalled how one supervisor dealt with an injured worker who spilled an

acidic chemical on his arm: He applied potash, which is sometimes used to

clean up chemical spills -- unaware that it would only make the burn worse.

McLellan said he doesn't recall his group ever before taking such a strong

stance on the issue. As one doctor at Monday's conference put it: " We need to

treat the patient. Not the log. " -- Staff Writers Garloch and Franco

Ordonez contributed.

-- Ames : 704-358-5060

Many injuries unreported in poultry industry

In a recent investigation of working conditions in the poultry industry, the

Observer found that many on-the-job injuries aren't being reported.

One N.C. poultry company, House of Raeford Farms, has repeatedly failed to

record injuries on government safety logs. The newspaper also found that some

company first-aid attendants have prevented poultry workers from receiving

care that would cost the company money.

House of Raeford says it follows the law, provides good care and strives to

protect workers.

A record-keeping expert for the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health

Administration told the Observer that his agency is allowing employers

nationwide to

vastly underreport the number of workplace injuries. The true rate for some

industries, including poultry processors, is likely two to three times higher

than government numbers suggest, Bob Whittier said.

-----

April 6, 2006

Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer

2031 Arborwood Place

Escondido, California 92029

760-822-8026

_Snk1955@..._ (mailto:Snk1955@...)

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

25 Northwest Point Blvd.

Suite 700

Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007-1030

Mr. Barry Eisenberg, MA Executive Director

Ms. nne Dreger, Communications Director

Board of Directors,

Cheryl S. Barbanel, MD, MBA, MPH, FACOEM

Tee L. Guidotti, MD, MPH, FACOEM

K. McLellan, MD, MPH, FACOEM

L. Mueller, MD, MPH, FACOEM

J. Key, MD, MPH, FACOEM

A. Avery, MD, FACOEM

U. Halberg, MD, MPH, MS, FACOEM

P. Hartenbaum, MD, MPH, FACOEM

Mark J. Upfal, MD, MPH, FACOEM

T. Warner Hudson III, MD, FACOEM

R. Orford, MD, MS, MPH, FACOEM

Mark A. , MD, PHD, FACOEM

Gregg M. Stave, MD, JD, MPH, FACOEM

B. Faulkner, MD, MHA, FACOEM

Pamela A. Hymel, MD, MPH, FACOEM

F. Wintermeyer, MD, MPH, FACOEM

Yarbrough, MD, MPH, FACOEM

Dear Mr. Eisenberg, Ms. Dreger and Members of the ACOEM Board,

I am requesting permission for an associate and me to come speak before your

Board Members at the upcoming May 6th Board Meeting in Southern California.

The subject we would like to discuss is the ACOEM’s retraction as a Position

Statement representative of 7000 physicians, the Adverse Human Health

Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment, Accepted October 27,

2002.

The document has been improperly used to stifle medical understanding and as

a legal weapon against the ill, who find themselves caught in the web of the

“Toxic Mold Issueâ€. The paper is not based on legitimate scientific

evidence. Nor are its findings significant and conclusive enough to be

provided

the elevated stature of a Position Statement of an influential medical

association.

As an example, the ACOEM Mold Statement is frequently cited in litigation as

an authoritative reference indicating serious human illness from mold and

mycotoxin exposure within an indoor environment is not plausible. Yet, not a

single one of the 83 references listed for this document come to this

conclusion.

The amount of devastation and misery caused to thousands of innocent

families by this improperly written, improperly peer reviewed and improperly

Board

endorsed paper is immeasurable. I am attaching a document, via email to Mr.

Eisenberg and Ms. Dreger that is indicative of much research by numerous

individuals, physicians and researchers regarding the ACOEM Position Statement.

I

am certain Mr. Eisenberg and Ms. Dreger have the capability to forward this

letter and the attached emails to the Members of the Board.

The attached document is entitled “ACOEM Exposed - A Case Study in Sham Peer

Review and Conflicts of Interest in Modern Medicine†aka – “The Rats That

are Saving the Insurance Industry Billionsâ€. I extend my apologies for the

severity of the very pointed and direct document. But the damage done to

thousands by the ACOEM’s reckless endorsement of this paper has also been very

severe and direct. We have no interest in looking at the past. We have much

interest at looking at the future. This document needs to be retracted as a

Position Statement of the ACOEM for the betterment of the citizens of the US.

I may be reached at the above referenced contact information. We look

forward to presenting information to the Board Members in the hopes that we may

all

work together to assure people, who have been made ill from mold/mycotoxin

exposure, are able to obtain proper medical treatment.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer

Attachment via email:

ACOEM Exposed, Parts 3 thru 9

Conflict of Interest Statement

Subj: RE: Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May 6th Email 1

of 2

Date: 4/11/2006 10:52:19 AM Pacific Standard Time

From: _beisenberg@..._ (mailto:beisenberg@...)

_SNK1955@..._ (mailto:SNK1955@...)

CC: _mdreger@..._ (mailto:mdreger@...) , _barbanel@..._

(mailto:barbanel@...) , _eohtlg@..._ (mailto:eohtlg@...) ,

_jborak@..._ (mailto:jborak@...)

Page 1 of 3

Monday, April 17, 2006 America Online: SNK 1955

Dear Ms. Kramer,

We have received all of your materials. As I relayed to you over the phone,

I regret that the agenda for our May meeting (which is less than a full day)

has been set for some time and that we cannot accommodate your request.

Best regards,

Barry S. Eisenberg

ACOEM Executive Director

Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May 6th Email 1

of 2

Dear Mr. Eisenberg and Ms. Dreger,

Attached is a letter and noted references regarding the ACOEM Mold

Statement. I am requesting

permission to come and speak before your Board.

I believe the attachments may be too large to send in a single email. I will

email the remainder in a

second email. Please let me know the Board Members' response to this request

as soon as possible so

we may get our presenting material in concise order.

Sincerely,

Sharon Noonan Kramer

I will also cut and paste the letter here:

Subj: Re: Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May 6th Email 1

of 2

Date: 4/11/2006 11:26:11 AM Pacific Standard Time

From: SNK 1955

_beisenberg@..._ (mailto:beisenberg@...)

CC: _mdreger@..._ (mailto:mdreger@...) , _barbanel@..._

(mailto:barbanel@...) , _eohtlg@..._ (mailto:eohtlg@...) ,

_jborak@..._ (mailto:jborak@...) , AESPIELS,

_richard@..._ (mailto:richard@...) ,

KahnLawOffice, _gkvpc@..._ (mailto:gkvpc@...) ,

_hmm@..._

(mailto:hmm@...) ,

_scottw@..._ (mailto:scottw@...) ,

_jmiller@..._ (mailto:jmiller@...) ,

_Coopit2me@..._

(mailto:Coopit2me@...) ,

_witzer@..._ (mailto:witzer@...)

Page 1 of 1

Saturday, April 22, 2006 America Online: SNK 1955

Dear Mr. Eisenberg,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I am disappointed in your answer. I believe

I could make " my case " for the

necessity of an expediant retraction of your mold position statement in less

than 15 minutes time.

With the understanding of this short time period required, I am asking

again. May I come present before your

Board of Directors? Have you forwarded to the board members my request and

accompanying documents? If

so, I am surprised at your reply. I would be inclined to believe the members

of the Board of Directors of the

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine would understand

how many lives continue to

be damaged while this inaccurate position statement is allowed to stand by

your nationally influential medical association.

Will you please reconsider your response?

Sincerely,

Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer

Subj: RE: Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May 6th Email 1

of 2

Date: 4/17/2006 12:20:11 PM Pacific Standard Time

From: _beisenberg@..._ (mailto:beisenberg@...)

_SNK1955@..._ (mailto:SNK1955@...)

CC: _mdreger@..._ (mailto:mdreger@...) , _barbanel@..._

(mailto:barbanel@...)

Page 1 of 1

Saturday, April 22, 2006 America Online: SNK 1955

Per my previous note, we are not able to comply with your request at this

upcoming meeting. I have forwarded all of the materials you’ve provided to the

committee that will be reviewing the statement in question, as part of our

regular review process.

Subj: Re: Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May 6th Email 1

of 2

Date: 4/17/2006 4:23:55 PM Pacific Standard Time

From: SNK 1955

_beisenberg@..._ (mailto:beisenberg@...)

CC: _mdreger@..._ (mailto:mdreger@...) , _barbanel@..._

(mailto:barbanel@...)

Page 1 of 1

Saturday, April 22, 2006 America Online: SNK 1955

In a message dated 4/17/2006 12:20:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,

_beisenberg@..._ (mailto:beisenberg@...) writes:

" Per my previous note, we are not able to comply with your request at this

upcoming meeting. I have

forwarded all of the materials you’ve provided to the committee that will be

reviewing the statement in

question, as part of our regular review process. "

Thank you for your reply, Mr. Eisenberg. Did you also share the information

with the board members to whom I had addressed the email letter with all the

attachments? Are you aware how many people are currently having their workers'

comp claims and other insurance claims denied while that document is allowed

to stand as a position of the ACOEM? Would you be interested to know? Does

the ACOEM board realize the devastation that this document, which is not based

on science, is causing to the lives of many?

Sharon Kramer (http://www.redorbit.com/news/archive/#category4)

**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car

listings at AOL Autos.

(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)