Skip to main content

How the Coronavirus Spread

Interesting article on the spread of Coronavirus.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/22/world/coronavirus-spread.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Comments

  1. reiki therapistJuly 14, 2026 at 11:37 PM

    Workers compensation for solar installers is essential coverage that protects employees working at dangerous heights and with high-voltage electrical systems. This insurance provides medical benefits and wage replacement if a worker suffers injuries from falls, burns, or equipment accidents while installing solar panels. For solar companies, carrying proper workers' comp is not just a legal requirement—it's a vital safeguard that mitigates financial liability, promotes workplace safety, and ensures compliance with state regulations. Given the high-risk nature of rooftop installations, having tailored coverage helps protect your workforce while giving your business peace of mind.

    ReplyDelete
  2. reiki therapistJuly 18, 2026 at 12:08 AM

    Managing a solar installation business means balancing high-voltage electrical work with labor at extreme heights. Solar Workers Comp insurance is essential to protect your crew and your business from the financial strain of on-the-job injuries. Whether a worker suffers a fall, a strain from lifting heavy panels, or an electrical burn, this coverage steps in to pay for medical treatments, rehabilitation, and lost wages. Investing in a robust **Solar Workers Comp** policy ensures your business stays legally compliant, reduces liability risks, and provides your team with the vital peace of mind they need while working on the roof.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CESPEDES V YELLOW TRANSPORTATION

This April 24, 2013 1DCA opinion affirmed in part and reversed in part Judge Portuallo's JCC decision. in this case, the claimant argued that the JCC erred by: (1) improperly shifting onto Claimant the burden to prove  the compensable injury was the major contributing cause (MCC) of his disability and need for surgery;  (2) finding  that the medical services at issue did not constitute “emergency care or services,” and that lack of notice to the  Employer/Carrier (E/C)  precluded authorization or payment; and  (3) finding  the opinion testimony from the emergency room physician, Dr. Acebal, is not admissible  pursuant to the “self-help” provisions contained in chapter 440.  The 1DCA reversed on the first two grounds raised and affirmed on the last. As background, the Claimant injured his lower back in 2006.  the Claimant declined surgical treatment, and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Miami Dade County School Board v Russ

This May 29, 2012 1DCA decision reverses Judge Hill's JCC decision. The claimant filed a PFB and the JCC determined that the “initial response” was the November 9 documents prepared by the EC (notice of appearance, request for production, letter of representation, notice of deposition, and letter to the mediator) the JCC concluded that because the E/C did not assert an SOL defense, the E/C had waived that defense. The E/C argued that its initial response to the Petition for Benefits was filed on November 10, 2009. Based on the case of Certain v. Big Johnson Concrete Pumping, Inc., 34 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), the 1DCA ruled that that the “initial response” has to explicitly state a position either denying or conceding the particular claims therein.
Post a Comment
Read more

Falcon Farms v Espinoza

This February 23, 2012 1DCA decision affirmed in part and reversed in part Judge Hill's JCC decision. The issue at the JCC trial was a change in primary care physician. The JCC awarded the change of physician but also denied compensability of the accident. Both parties appealed. The E/C argued that the Claimant was not entitled to a change of physician because her condition was non-occupational. The Claimant cross-appealed arguing that the JCC’s finding of noncompensability is legally inconsistent with the  award of a change of physician.  The 1DCA addressed the cross-appeal first. The 1DCA affirmed the JCC's decision denying compensability of the accident. The 1DCA indicated that the claimant did not show that the JCC erred in ruling the accident not compensable. "The sole basis of Claimant’s challenge on compensability is that the order is incongruous with the award of a change of physician. Claimant did not present this argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more