Re: Ohio Workers' Compensation question, very detailed.

More | Report Post

On 9/30/00, Greg wrote:
> This message is for any attorney's opinion, or for that
> matter, anyone who has expertise as it pertains to the
> following, especially one who is familiar with Ohio
> Workers'Compensation Law. The question is quite simple, but
> I believe the answer to be much more difficult and needs
> researced. This is the ruling as filed by the Ohio
> Industrial Hearing Officer:
>
> "At hearing Claimant's counsel indicated that this claim is
> alleged as an occupational disease.
>
> It is the finding of this Hearing Officer that the Claimant
> did not contract an occupational disease in the course of
> employment.
>
> This order is based on the Jan. 8, 1999 letter from Dr.
> Francis XXXXXX, the claimant's allergist, who treated the
> Claimant as early as May 25, 1995. Dr. XXXXXXX stated the
> Claimant has had a history of chemical sensitivities (I
> don't know where that statement came from) and specifically
> indicated the Claimant exhibited past evidence of positive
> provocative tests to petrochemicals. In the Jan. 8, 1999
> letter Dr.XXXXXX explained his clinical analysis of how the
> Claimant's work at YYYYYY aggravated the Claimant's
> chemical sensitivities.
>
> In a letter dated May 24, 1999, Dr.XXXXXXX opined that the
> Claimant's work at YYYYYYY had not caused the Claimant's
> chemical sensitivities. Rather, Dr. XXXXXX felt the
> Claimant's work aggravated the Claimant's pre-existing
> chemical sensitivity condition.
>
> As this claim is alleged, per Claimant's counsel, as an
> occupational disease and the medical evidence indicates the
> Claimant aggravated a pre-existing condition, the Hearing
> Officer finds that State ex rel. Miller, v. Mead (1979) 58
> Ohio St, 2d 405, does not permit the recognition of this
> claim. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that an occupational
> disease must be contracted in the course of employment to
> be compensable.
>
> Therefore, this claim is disallowed."
>
> I would appreciate any input on this decision, as alot of
> important wording is suggested. For instance, if I had no
> prior chemical sensitivities that interferred with my prior
> work for the past 28 years, how could I have "exaggerated a
> pre-existing condition?" Is formaldehyde exposure (from
> carbonless copy paper and copying machine in unventilated
> room), the same as "sensitivity to petrochemicals,"
> assuming one accepts the "sublinqual provocative testing"
> as being acceptable evidence for a doctor's opinion? What
> exactly does "aggravation of a pre-existing condition
> mean?" Doesn't formaldehyde exposure constitute contracting
> an occupational disease while in my course of employment?
> As my current MD environmental doctor states:
>
> "Mr. B's illness developed as a result of "sick building
> syndrome." He was placed in an office without ventilation,
> which had copy machines and a large amount of copy paper.
> (tens of thousands piled everywhere in my room).
> Immediately upon entering this room he noticed an odor. Due
> to the type of work he was doing he had to keep the door
> closed. His severe symptoms including lack of
> concentration, shakiness, kidney infections, Candida, flu-
> like symptoms, sore throat, depression and panic attacks
> started to occur within 2 days of being in this office. It
> is my opinion within a degree of medical certainty that his
> illness was a direct result of formaldehyde sensitivity
> from the paper and copy machines.
>
> Prior to his exposure he was in excellent health. He worked
> for 28 years without any health problems. (My employer
> verified that in a letter). Now he is unable to function
> due to the severity of his symptoms. His numerous problems
> are secondary to the formaldehyde exposure developing into
> the "spreading phenomenon." He now reacts to many
> environmental toxins, which otherwise did not cause him any
> difficulty. He has developed severe neurologic and neuro-
> cognitive difficulties. His prognosis is guarded. He is
> under intense medical treatment and continues to be totally
> disabled due to the severity of his symptoms resulting from
> the formaldehyde exposure in the office at ZZZZZZZ."
>
> I would greatly appreciate all the research that I can get
> on this case as presented word for word, as my second
> appeal to the Ohio Industrial Commission was also denied. I
> have protested this personally to Gov. Taft. This is a
> result of big business's impact on the judicial system. It
> has to be rectified. My case is headed now to Civil Court,
> but I have plenty of time to ask and ask and ask. I know
> there are experts out there, so please post, as I cannot
> get back to you unless you leave your email address. I am
> not asking for free information and legal guidance. If you
> can benefit me, I will pay for it, as I have been totally
> taken advantage of and will not stop the fight no matter
> how sick I get.

As far as I can see the Dr. was correct with his diagnosis of
a pre-existing condition as the culpret. Due to the fact
that your own alergist stated that you had a history of
chemical sensitivities. Being that this Dr. has no reason to
lie when he states a fact such as this it is assumed that
there were prior problems which were known. For 28 years you
were a perfect bill of health with the exception of chemical
sensitivities as far as the court can see. Any of your past
medical history can be obtained and used against you to
prevent an injured worker abuse of the workers comp system.
Your objective goal is to proove beyond a reasonible doubt
that your environment caused your illness.
I think what you mean to say is an exacerbation of a previous
illness not an exaggeration. An exacerbation example is as
follows in 1999 I broke my foot, I had surgery to repair my
foot everything is now healed. In 2001 I broke the same foot
in the exact same place again. Now the 2001 injury is in
question was this injury caused by the mechanism of injury
(yes) or was the injury caused by the past injury (?). You
have to proove that the old injury has no relevance in this
situation. Things to take into consideration where did you
work for the past 28 years? How long did you do this job
before you had to stop working? Conditions like this should
disappear when you leave the environment but your conditions
still exist. It looks to me like there is some type
underlying condition which is being left out of the
equation.

Re: Ohio Workers' Compensation question, very detailed., 12/04/02, by b.

Legal Research Systems Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST