Posted by Greg, greg30@home.com, on 9/30/00

More | Report Post

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.

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

Legal Research Systems Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST