The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An Estimate of the U.S. Government’s Undercount of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries
Abstract
Learning Objectives Estimate how many workers—and in which occupations—are presently excluded from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Illnesses and Injuries. Consider possible reasons for under-reporting of injuries by private firms and their employees. Provide the best estimate of the degree of under-reporting, and note the possible consequences for workers’ health. Debate surrounds the size of the underestimate of nonfatal occupational injuries produced by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). We developed models that separated categories of injuries: BLS Annual Survey, federal government, agriculture, state and local government, self-employed outside agriculture, and all other. The models generated varying estimates depending on the assumptions for each category pertaining to job risks and amount of underreporting. We offered justification for the assumptions based on published studies as well as our own analyses of BLS data. The models suggested the Annual Survey missed from 0% to 70% of the number of injuries (from private firms, excluding the self-employed) it was designed to capture. However, when we included firms and governments the Annual Survey was not designed to capture, and considered reasonable assumptions regarding underreporting, we estimated the BLS missed between 33% and 69% of all injuries. We concluded that there was substantial undercapture in the BLS Annual Survey, some due to the excluded categories of government workers and the self-employed, as well as some due to underreporting.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Global estimates of occupational accidents
Hämäläinen, P., Takala, J., & Saarela, K. L. (2006) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2005.08.017 · Cited by 417
How Much Work-Related Injury and Illness is Missed By the Current National Surveillance System?
Rosenman, K. D., Kalush, A., Reilly, M. J., Gardiner, J. C., Reeves, M., & Luo, Z. (2006) · Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000205864.81970.63 · Cited by 349
Randomized Government Safety Inspections Reduce Worker Injuries with No Detectable Job Loss
Levine, D. I., Toffel, M. W., & Johnson, M. S. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1215191 · Cited by 212
Metadata
- Authors
- Leigh, J. P., Marcin, J. P., & Miller, T. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 10-18
- ISSN
- 1076-2752 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1985757851
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 41.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Estimate of the U.S. Government’s Undercount of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.jom.0000105909.66435.53
- The paper
- Leigh, J. P., Marcin, J. P., & Miller, T. R. (2004). An Estimate of the U.S. Government’s Undercount of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jom.0000105909.66435.53
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.