Small contractors with no employees except themselves had complained that the law passed in 2008 would have cost them as much as $8,000 annually. They said thousands of small contractors would have become unemployed or would be forced to work under the table had the original legislation gone into effect.

The compromise bill before the legislature clarifies those self-employed contractors who choose not to buy workers' compensation insurance will not be eligible for coverage under a general contractor's policy. General contractors had originally opposed the opt-out provisions out of fear that uncovered subcontractors would make claims against them for workers' compensation.

To be eligible for an exemption, a small contractor must own at least 30 percent of the company he works for and must pay an annual $50 filing fee. With the compromises, the workers' compensation bill gained the support of both small and large contractors in the state.

The new law has a few more hurdles to clear in the legislature but is expected to pass and be ready for the governor's signature in time to take effect July 1, according to The Tennessean.

In 1999, the Disability Redesign Prototype initiative eliminated the reconsideration step from the application process in one state from each region: Alaska, Alabama, California, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York and Pennsylvania. The initiative was expected to result in earlier decisions and reduced waiting times for claimants. However, the opposite has occurred.

The application process begins with an individual filing a request for benefits at a local disability determination services office. These offices make the first judgment on the request within three to four months. Nationwide, about 60 percent are rejected. Half of those initially rejected withdraw their claim for benefits. In the 40 states exempt from the redesign initiative, individuals who wish to appeal their rejection can seek a hearing from the local office. In Michigan and the nine other states, this step was eliminated in 1999, forcing individuals to appeal to a board of administrative law judges. By 2007, the percentage of initial decisions that ended up at the hearings level increased fivefold.

Instead of speeding up claims, the initiative has clogged the appeals process. The 10 prototype states now account for nearly one-third of all claims that reach the appeals level. "Reinstating reconsideration would allow a significant number of cases to be allowed at reconsideration, resulting in earlier payment to those claimants and a reduction in the number of hearing requests," states an April 2010 Social Security report to the House Ways and Means Committee.

However, opponents argue that reintroducing reconsideration may result in even longer waits for claimants. "It's going to make a bad situation worse," says Cliff Weisberg, a Detroit-area attorney whose firm manages about 2,000 cases each year. "What good is it ... if by the time you get to a hearing, the client is dead?"

About 40,000 people in Michigan are waiting for the Social Security Administration to decide their appeal for disability benefits. The state has boosted efforts to clear the backlog by opening two new hearings offices and is considering hiring 175 new employees to reduce the initial claims processing times and to re-implement the reconsideration step. They are also allowing claimants to appeal their cases to administrative law judges in other states via video hearings.

The FMCSA, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, aims to reduce safety violations and fraudulent records by moving toward upgraded, automatic in-cab tracking of hours on the road. In 2012, it will enact a policy requiring new electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) in every vehicle operated by companies with serious levels of hours-of-service violations. The EOBRs are attached to each vehicle to automatically track driving time.

The new rule takes effect in June 2012 for companies that record at least 10 percent hours-of-service violations in their required compliance reviews. An estimated 930 companies will need to use the devices at first. For at least two years, those companies will be required to install EOBRs that meet new federal guidelines.

The agency is also considering a broader rule requiring EOBRs for all carriers; this may eventually cover 5,700 companies. In exchange, companies that employ the EOBRs will not have to file toll receipts and other supporting documentation for logbooks.

This concession is not adequate for many trucking companies or the American Trucking Association. They are concerned that the new guidelines will make the new EOBR devices prohibitively expensive. The new devices must work effectively from minus 40 degrees to 85 degrees, and must operate through a USB port. This will require replacing many existing EOBRs with a more expensive model.

The FMCSA defends the new requirements by claiming the requirements will boost safety and save money in the long run. The agency estimates that the new requirements will cost the industry $139 million per year, but could amount to $182 million in positive safety-related benefits.

In February, the New York Times obtained a confidential Food and Drug Administration report that linked more than 300 deaths to Avandia within a three-month period. The report recommended pulling the drug from the market.

The new FDA data follows a U.S. Senate Finance Committee report released in February. The senate report alleges that GSK knew of the health risks prior to 2007 but concealed them.

Avandia first hit the market in 1999 and sales peaked at more than $3 billion in 2006. In 2007, doctors and federal officials began raising health concerns over the drug. The FDA first issued a warning after the Cleveland Clinic released a study linking the drug to heart problems. Hundreds of thousands of diabetes patients still use the drug, though many doctors no longer prescribe it.

Meanwhile, GSK faces mounting legal pressure that could cost the British-based pharmaceutical company billions of dollars. This month, the FDA report prompted the largest county in northern California to sue the drug giant. The Santa Clara County suit accuses the company of suppressing evidence of health concerns and seeks restitution for all Avandia users in the state. The county is seeking triple damages because Avandia advertising was aimed at diabetics, who are considered disabled under state law.

A UBS financial analysis this month estimated that GSK could be liable for up to $6 billion if personal-injury lawsuits over Avandia are successful.