There are no definitive OSHA standards for lifting and maximum weight. Instead of mandatory standards, OSHA recommends employers use a mathematical formula developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The NIOSH formula helps predict the risk of injury based on the weight being lifted and accounts for many confounding factors. Notwithstanding the absence of mandatory standards, OSHA theoretically can discipline employers for a failure to act in good faith to address recognized serious hazards under the General Duty Clause. See 29 U.S.C § 654. But these attempts to discipline have been largely unsuccessful.

Explanation:

Currently OSHA has no specific requirements or standards regarding a maximum weight for lifting. The regulation of lifting is encompassed under the broader term ‘ergonomics,’ and it includes other related activities such as pushing, pulling, operating hand tools, and other repetitive motions that might contribute to musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). When OSHA promulgated an ‘ergonomics rule’ in 2000, industry representatives strongly opposed the regulation. As a result of this pressure, Congress invalidated the rule, and it was removed from the code of federal regulations in 2001.

Since that failed attempt to regulate, OSHA has moved toward a more advisory approach to ergonomics, including lifting problems. In 2002, OSHA began a ‘four-prong’ comprehensive approach that includes: industry and/or task-specific guidelines. The guidelines are supposed to assist employers in recognizing and controlling hazards, and compliance with them is completely voluntary. Failure to implement a guideline is not itself a violation of the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act. Currently, the guidelines only cover the following workplaces: Shipyards, Poultry Processing, Retail Grocery Stores, and Nursing Homes.

If there are no guidelines specific to an industry (as in our case), the employer still has an obligation under the General Duty Clause (29 U.S.C § 654) to keep the workplace free from recognized serious hazards, including ergonomic hazards. OSHA will cite for ergonomic hazards under the General Duty Clause or issue ergonomic hazard letters where appropriate as part of its overall enforcement program. OSHA’s ergonomics enforcement program builds on the two OSH Review Commission decisions (Pepperidge Farm and Beverly Enterprises) recognizing that the OSH Act general duty clause may be used to require employers to address ergonomic hazards. The Beverly Enterprises case was eventually settled because of OSHA’s failure to conclusively prove lifting caused injury. In that settlement, the state dropped charges for numerous ergonomics violations against a nursing home company in exchange for the implementation of a detailed and comprehensive lifting policy.

What constitutes an ergonomic hazard will vary significantly depending on the facts, and the NIOSH equation of lifting is probably influential. If NIOSH method of assessing a lifting task is applied rigorously, it may be very difficult to assert that an employer has created an ergonomic hazard. According to NIOSH recommendations, a lifting task with a “lifting index” greater than 3.0 can clearly be linked to an increased risk of back and other injuries. The NIOSH equation for a recommended weight limit requires one to measure a numerous factors including: vertical distance of lift, horizontal distance of carry, load weight, coupling or gripping position, location of the load, etc. Because of the multiplicity of lifting factors, maximum weight of the load can significantly. See examples below:

Examples:
(1) In a 2003 advisory letter online, an OSHA representative asserted that “carrying a 160-pound weight up and down five flights of stairs three times” gives that task a ‘lifting index’ of 3.1.

(2) NIOSH’s “Applications Manual for the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation,” example 3.2.1, “Loading Punch Press Stock” calculates the lifting task of a roll of paper weighing 44lbs from the ground to a height of 5ft. 3 inches, and its precise installation in a machine. This task had a “lifting index” of 2.7 to 3.0.

For purposes of the NIOSH equation, dangerous or impermissible lifting index would be hard to quantify without knowing more about the conditions in which Ms. Mason was lifting. But for preliminary purposes, a weight of 50lbs can, under some circumstances, generate a high enough lifting index. Also helpful to Ms. Mason is OSHA’s e-tool for electrical contractors, “Materials Handling: Heavy Lifting,” which recommends that one limit weight to no more than 50 lbs, and suggests lifting 50lbs + that one use two or more people to lift the load. Also NIOSH’s “Ergonomic Guidelines for Manual Material Handling” also lists: lifting loads over 50lbs as a risk factor in its Hazard Evaluation Checklist for Lifting, Carrying, Pushing, or Pulling.

In sum, there is a clear reluctance on the part of regulatory bodies to impose a mandatory limit on lifting, but guidelines and training tools do suggest 50lbs as a threshold weight when more care should be taken to minimize strain on employees.

Appendix: General Duty Clause, §5(a) – (b) of OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. § 654
(a) Each employer—
(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
(2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this chapter.
(b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this chapter which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.

References:

NIOSH, Applications Manual for the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation, available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/94-110/ (last visited November 9, 2009).

NIOSH, “Ergonomic Guidelines for Manual Material Handling,” NIOSH publication No. 2007-131, available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2007-131/ (last visited November 9, 2009).

OSHA, Technical Manual, Back Disorders and Injuries, available at: http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_vii/otm_vii_1.html (last visited November 9, 2009).

OSHA, Electrical Contractors – Materials Handling: Heavy Lifting e-tool, available at: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/electricalcontractors/materials/heavy.html (last visited November 9, 2009).

OSHA, Ergonomics: Enforcement. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ergonomics/enforcement_plan.html (last visted November 9, 2009).

Scalia, Eugene. “OSHA’s Ergonomic Litigation Record: Three Strikes and It’s Out.” CATO Policy Analysis paper. Available at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa370.pdf (last visited November 9, 2009).