Customer’s perfume made her sick: Is company liable?
December 21, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: Bizarre Accident of the Week, new court decision, Respiratory safety, Special Report, Workers' comp
PDF 
Imagine this: One of your employees complains that a customer’s perfume made her so sick that she needs permanent and total disability benefits. We’re not making this up: It actually happened.
Carol Ervin was an administrative professional at Richland Memorial Hospital in South Carolina. Part of her job was to greet hospital visitors and new patients.
One day she was exposed to perfume worn by a hospital visitor. Ervin claimed that exposure aggravated and exacerbated a preexisting condition (asthma) to such a degree that she became permanently and totally disabled.
The hospital argued this wasn’t a case for workers’ comp benefits because Ervin’s exposure in the workplace was no more than what she experienced in the general environment.
A workers’ comp commissioner who heard her case said Ervin had suffered a compensable injury by an accident arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment because her preexisting condition was aggravated and exacerbated by her job. She was found to be permanently and totally disabled, and her employer was ordered to pay a lump sum award and for related medical treatment for the rest of her life.
However, a workers’ comp Appellate Panel reversed that ruling, which has now been upheld by a trial court and an appeals court.
In the most recent decision by the appeals court, it noted that the South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that for an injury to have arisen out of employment, the hazard has to be unique to the workplace and not common to the general environment.
Since Ervin testified that she had or could have had reactions to perfume at church, the grocery store, a restaurant and department stores, the hazard was exceedingly common, and the injury didn’t arise out of her employment.
What do you think of the court’s decision? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
Ervin v. Richland Memorial Hospital, Court of Appeals of SC, No. 4636, 12/8/09.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: asthma, perfume, permanent and total disability, preexisting condition, Workers' comp
Loading ...
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:51 am
When a person is exposed to perfume at “church, the grocery store, a restaurant and department store” they have the option of leaving and/or avoiding those public areas entirely BY CHOICE.
But their responsibility on the job is to STAY in the environment that is causing them respiratory distress. The employee may very well be afraid to lose their job if they leave their post mid-duty.
Furthermore, any exposure “in public areas” are likely to be brief - whereas the exposure on the job may be chronic and persistent if the offender is a co-worker who perpetuates the distress for 8 hours/day and 5 days/week.
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:38 am
Great story and well done. I answer about 35 inquiries a day from people in the arts, and I get probably one a week about perfume effects.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:08 am
I totally agree wth the court’ decison. It was an ouside circumstance that could not even have been pevented and it very well could have occured anywhere. Would the company be responsible if this employee were doing an errand for her company and she became disabled from walking into Wal-Mart where someone had on the same kind of perfume? Gie me a break! This would be totally out of the company’s control as was the situation that occured within her workplace. If she were that sensitive to smells/odors, perhaps she should have took it upon herself to wear an N-95 face mask during work hours and even beyond.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:10 am
Really Now!!! Why is every one always looking for the FREE almighty dollar. Lets see what we can get from the company we work for. Some one like that needs to re pay every dollar that is spent to fight it. As a Safety Director for a construction company I see a lot of game players my self. Its really sad that some one would try to steal from any company.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:17 am
I agree with the courts final decision. This was what I feel is a frivolous waste of resources for what should have been abvious from the start. It is no wonder workers comp rates continue to rise at rediculous rates.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:25 am
Amen to the court’s final decision. What a crock of crap some people will do to get out of work. The problem with this nation of ours is the loss of respectability, integrity and honesty that once to stand for the greatest nation as far as a work force, no more due to bogus claims as this one. Then you wonder why American companies outsource work. With the unemployment rate being the highest in parts of the country in years, this person should have been grateful to have a job.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 am
If she was in an enclosed area during the exposure, the concentration may have been greater than normal and “Not common to the general environment”. Since it was her job, she could not just get up and move or leave as if she had been in church, the grocery, etc. so this may not have been as farfetched and frivolous as it may first sound. She also may be a victim of societies’ increasing weariness of frivolous lawsuits, where the suit sounds so ridiculous that the decision is almost predetermined in most people’s minds. I do not believe it is a permanent and total disability, as she could be moved to another area or position that could reduce her chances of exposure to fragrances. If the original decision had not been for permanent and total disability benefits she may have won or the company may never have appealed. I have seen violent asthma attacks (one even ended up ambulatory) to a thing, which one who does not suffer this ailment, could ever imagine causing such a reaction.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:31 am
Rediculous - Should have been never went to W/C board. Excellent dismissal by higher levels.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
Thank God the courts ruled that this was not unique to her employment. However, we have an employee who insists on wearing strong perfume while working in the same room with a co-worker who suffers from asthma. We have tried counseling her, she stops for a few days then conveniently “forgets” and starts wearing the perfume again. Very frustrating…
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:46 am
I agree with the reversed ruling. If carol can’t handle the heat then she needs to get out of the kitchen. She needs to find another job. Although, on her behalf, I think that people that bathe in cologne should be banned from public places. Many times I have been stuck behind a group of cackling old ladies that smelled like they just crapped a xmas tree. Much worse than cigarette smoke…. and we ban THAT from society…. Thank you very much.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Those who think the employee can not leave her post because of her job are incorrect.
Anyone with common sense can detect that something is bothering you, asked to be excused for a quick “bathroom break”, and complain to your manager of the smell. The manager can then step in and use a mask if necessary.
This is a ridiculous claim and a waste of time in the court system.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 am
I have asthma and I agree with Pauline. Ihave had many incidents of my asthma being aggravated by odors especially perfumes…. I had a new employee come into my office for orientation. With door closed I was consumed by the perfume and was wheezing before I knew it… enter rescue inhaler. But that didn’t even take the edge off… after she left I went to the HR person next door and she agreed that she had overwhelming perfume…I’m still fighting the effects of the exacerbation but hanging in there as Idon’t want to lose my job either! But I do agree Allergic bronchitis coupled with asthma is not a nice situation…on top of this all I’m a nurse so I do know what’s happening physiologically and our policy here states that we would like our personnel to wear no scent or very little perfumes, etc. as we do work with alot of clients/residents that have the same condition I do… so I agree with Pauline!
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:43 am
I agree with the reversed ruling. She had a pre-exsisting condition she new about. I worked in a up scale resturant and we were not allowed to wear perfume. It takes away from the smell and presentation of the food. If you can smell the perfume you are wearing after a few minutes you have put to much on.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:48 am
Permanently disabled doesn’t mean unable to breathe without assistance, rather unable to work in the same environment and under the same conditions as required by the previous position. The company could have offered her an equivalent position if it had assured her that she wouldn’t be exposed to the allergen during work. If unable to do that, a vocational survey of similar jobs would be made to determine if any would provide the same assurance. If someone becomes unemployable because there are no non-public (exposure free) positions that they qualify for or are simply not present within a given geographic area, then they would be considered disabled.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:50 am
I’m sympathetic with the asthma sufferers, but take some responsibility. As the court record shows, this could have happened anywhere. I know jobs are hard to come by for some, but know your physical limitations. I oversee the safety of 100+ people in a manufacturing environment, their safety and well being is paramount. This person should have spoken to her safety representative or manager regarding her potential health risks. I applaud the courts decision and highly suggest the Workers Comp Commissioner should look for another line of work.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:15 am
I guess I can say that I am confounded by the report of the Wokers’ comp commissioner who 1st ruled in the woman’s favor. Did we notice that the woman claimed that on (One) day, after (One) exposure she became permanently and totally disabled? I believe asthma itself is a permanent disabling aliment, of which there is no cure. Medicines out there helps people to deal with it on a daily basis. Like Asthma, there are food allergies, seasonal
allergies that can be aggravated, and exacerbated be many things. To say that One thing causes permanent dissability is frivolous. (Worker’s Comp Commissioner, doesn’t he worry any body, besides me??).
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:32 am
All I have to say is you have got to be kidding me! A greeter at a hospital will be “exposed” to lots of smells. If someone came in and had bad BO and it aggravated the asthma problem would that justify worker’s comp? Here’s an idea….work for a living and stop trying to get free money!
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:39 am
P.S. to Barbra: There is a huge difference between being in an open environment and a in an office with the door closed. When you are in a small confined space with no air circulation, yes I could understand how that would affect you, but when someone is greeting people at a front door, they are not in a small area and the door creates air flow, not to mention the forced air in the lobby of the hospital. In Pauline’s case, she has no justification.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:39 am
When you or your friends lose their jobs because the jobs have been sent out of this country, you need to remember this case and other cases of a similar nature. With all due respect to the serious health risk that Asthma poses, it may be better for anyone who has it this bad to stay away from places where they can be exposed to conditions which can trigger an attack. Settlements (and defense costs) like this are what make it far easier and cheaper for companies to ship jobs to other countries.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:57 am
I agree that the parfume exposure could have happened anywhere to include shopping at retail or grocery stores. Sine the exposure came from a customer, it was not generated by the employer and therefore, in my opinion, is not work related. Her disability would be covered under her private insurance and/or social security benefits, not worker’s compensation. Even her pre existing asthma is not work related, therefore, it is a personal condition having nothing to do with the employer.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I, myself, have perfume allergies. I do not have asthma, however when exposed to strong perfume I get a headache followed by dizziness, nausea, burning nasal passage and then cold symptoms. A strong dose of perfume can effect me for, as long as 3 days. The sad thing is that people that do not have these allergies have no idea what it feels like. We had a coworker that was coming to work wearing perfume that lingered in the air hours after she left a room. I, not only, suffered at work but was often forced to call in sick. I was not sure what I could do as I was feeling horrible at work and bad about using my holiday pay for something that was happening at work. Finally I did some research on the internet and in Canada this is an OSHA regulation. Perfume is not prohibited in the work place. They made this a regulation after discovering that some of the chemicals in perfume are actually more toxic to your health than cigerette smoke. I took this info to my HR and we decided to make it a policy. Perfume is not to be worn strong enough to smell within a 3 ft proxemity. I am extremly grateful and have not called in sick since. However I would not have filed a WC Case before taking this up with HR. I believe that people should really be more proactive in these types of situations. It is unfortunate that she had asthma and maybe she should have taken some precautions.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
While IN GENERAL the courts ruling seems appropriate, let’s play devil’s advocate…
Carol Ervin has asthma, and SHE claims to have been permanently and totally disabled. I am very surprised the article doesn’t mention any professional medical opinions on this fact, which makes or breaks the whole case.
If Carol Ervin was indeed permanantly and totally disabled, she SHOULD be covered by her employers Worker’s Comp plan until an appropriate transfer or reassignment can occur. Let’s be honest people, it happened at work, the company is responsible. If an outside contractor comes into a facility to do some construction work and an employee is injured, THE HOST COMPANY IS RESPONSIBLE, PERIOD. At the least, the company needs to communicate with employees about potential hazards they may encounter (Haz Com 101). Specific hazards (allergies or asthma for example) also need to be addressed.
In all honesty, if Carol Ervin has this severe of a sensitivity to perfume, she should not have been assigned to work at a front desk that has frequent exposure to the public.
I also would like to focus on what Jamie (previous poster) says: Jamie worked at an up scale restaurant. If a customer stretched their legs into an aisle and Jamie trips over them and hits a table causing a hip fracture, the restaurant is responsible; this is a hazard in the workplace. Jamie can no longer work in the currently assigned role. Customers are a recognized hazard of a restaurant.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
As far as preexisting conditions apply. If the company policy states that a condition of being hired entails tolerance to perfume exposure, then a pre-hire medical exam can be used as practical screen to ensure that employees meet the company’s standards of employment.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
The court made the proper decision. As Jen says, this employee could have excused herself and discussed the situation with her boss or a co-worker. Communication may have prevented this episode from going to court.
Lisa, your employee needs a reprimand to sharpen her memory. This is no different than an employee with BO being told to shower. There should be expectations of all of the employees and one of those is not to smell.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
If she knew that she was sensitive to perfumes, why did she apply for a job where she would greet the public? Why wouldn’t she look for a job AWAY from the public and general population.
People need to take responsibility for themselves. If she were scared of heights, would she wash windows in tall buildings?
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Barbara and Pauline, I hope both of you are working in places as employee at will. Meaning, you do have a choice to avoid the situation by finding another job that gauranteed with a policy of no perfume or cologne to be worn by anyone??? This is something that any employer can not control in any circumstances when dealing with business. On the other hand, did the worker ever report to her manager of her preexisting condition? This worker propably did not do it because she wanted this to happen. How do you work as a reception person in a hospital and expect this not to happen, remove all patients that smell like Cool Water / Tresor / ….. Please give me a break, it is foreseeable from the EMPLOYEE’S SIDE, why didn’t she find another job or ask for a transfer? America should get rid of those bogus claiming people because they are putting a dent on our economy…. go buy your own insurance and do a claim yourself!!!
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
As both a Safety Professional and an Astma suffer I find it interesting that of all the responses so far only “Stan” has a clue concerning the true issues. All of those folks who are jumping on the “just trying to get money” bandwagon need to read both your Workers Comp regs and a good medical description of astma and it’s triggers and responses. The worker should have been reassigned to another area of the hospital since everytime you have a response to a trigger it becomes much easier to have another response.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Temporary aggravation of a pre-existing condition maybe. Permanent and total from a single exposure? Odd that out of all the life exposures she had incurred, this particular one put her over the edge. The exposure was evidently visible enough that it presented the opportunity. This employee was looking for a free ride, and she almost got it. Thank god for a reasoned higher court.
We paid out $60,000 for an alleged spider bite to a nurse in CA. In a similar incident in IL it was the commission’s determination that the employee was exposed to no greater hazard than the general public. There were a lot of underlying issues with the CA incident, and in spite of an aggressive program we still got stuck while the employee took the summer off on our dollar. Gives us a real incentive to expand business in the “Golden State.”
The term “Applicant Friendly” did not appear out of thin air. I believe in providing everything an employee deserves in the face of a legitimate job-incurred injury or illness. But as long as we have hearing officers who make the employer automatically guilty unless proven otherwise with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, and at times in spite of that evidence, we will have employees trying to take advantage of the comp system and we will have billions of corporate dollars going to non-productive activity and costing the jobs of deserving employees.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
While i understand how the initial finding was that the asthma could have been agrevated by a work place occurance. I can even understand the stretch saying that it should be workers comp. I have a hard time with the permanent disability finding. I have worked with chemicals which can sensitise people over time, (TDI/MDI), and even when sensitised it only requires at worst that they do not work around these chemicals in the future. many who are sensitised can work as long as they have meds or ventilation. There is either much more to this story or the initial finding is a hatchet job.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
(One day) she was exposed to perfume worn by a hospital visitor.
Ervin claimed that exposure aggravated and exacerbated a preexisting condition (asthma) to such a degree that she became permanently and totally disabled.
One time she was exposed and the employer is responsible? Now I could see if they said “too bad, you either work there or we fire you”, (and the visitor kept coming back) but to be liable for one exposure? The courts made the right decision, or hopefully will.
My nephew (9) went to a friend of his who lived up the street from him. His friend had a new bunny rabbit. Well, my nephew picked up the rabbit, and within two minutes was almost unable to breath, his lips were severely swollen, eyes swollen shut, and he could barely breathe when his brothers got him back home. He has asthma, and thank God his father is a paramedic or he would not be with us today. He and my sister administered a breathing treatment to him and rushed him to the hospital.
No one knew he was allergic to rabbits, just like no one knew this woman was allergic to whatever perfume the visitor was wearing.
Her employer is no more liable to her than the rabbit was to my nephew.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I agree with the court ruling also. If workplaces have a policy in effect, like the restricting of cell phones in technical areas of the hospital and “no perfume allowed”, the decision might have been different. At my workplace, there is a restriction on perfume use, since so many people have allergies to it, including sick patients who do not need to smell strong perfume. If an employee continues to wear perfume after verbal warnings, it is grounds for dismissal. In any large musical
organization with singers performining in close proximity, there is a ban on perfume because it
affects the vocal chords of sensitive people. I see no future in the “perfume stocks” and I vote to
use good soap and water and occasionally a light “body splash” that disappears in a few minutes.!
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Geez. Most likely, we have all been around people wearing heavy perfume and gotten a little woozy while out and about, , asthma or not, but c’mon it is goofy to even think about taking it out on an employer or the workers comp system. It seems that the more we progress, the more entitled some feel towards things that are not rightfully theirs, and in the process ruin things for others while they gain individually - this is why businesses are weary to promote or sponsor health club memberships, rewards programs, or even Christmas parties. Look, if a person legitimately hurt on the job the workers comp system is available to ensure they get taken care of - this is fine. However, these clowns (her lawyer, her and the local WC board) should have to pay the court costs, plus be personally liable for bringing an absurd claim.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
While I agree a single exposure can aggravate asthma to a point where one cannot function, to carry it to a conclusion that a single instance constitutes permenent disability is far fetched. Permenant and Total disability should mean the person is now unable to perform any task at all, not simply fulfill a “meet and greet” position because of the possiblity of exposure. The appeals court was right.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I agree with the court’s ruling.
I am an employeer and my workers safety is very important to me. Without them there is no business and in that without my business they don’t this place to work. It is my thought that we need to work together to make things work. In this day and age though it seems like the ethics of some are not honorable and are only out for their own selves. They do not think of the way it will affect others that work with them or they work for. If someone is truly hurt then WC is a great tool, however, I have seen people use it as an insurance policy and make claims that was a preexisting condition and were not honest about it. This happened to me and it made our WC carrier drop us and we had to be put in the state pool and cost us about double from the year before. When this happens then there is less for raises and improvements. Everything is not just about the employee it is also about the work places in this country. Do we want new business to start up and existing ones or just have the big congonmerates have all the control.
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
The original Workers Comp Commissioner who heard this case and then ruled it as a permanent and total disability should be fired. Further he should be barred from ever holding a position where he arbitrates any disput or griveance and renders a ruling again.
This is a classic example of why we all have to pay excessive insurance premiums; to offset the frivolous, deceptive and sometimes down right fraudulent claims made by dishonest people, trying to steal money from their employer, the city or any other entity that they think has money. The sense of entitlement that motivates these bottom feeders to do or say anything that will get them another opportunity to steal money from us, so that they can live the good life while we pay their bills is beyond belief in many cases.
Any person who “truly suffers a legitimate serious injury,” on the job that materially alters their ability to lead the same life they had before the injury or accident, should be compensated, and made as close to whole as is possible.
Finally, a person who files a claim that is ultimately found to be without merit and denied should, along with the person who represented them, be liable for all cost incurred by the defending party. Further, if that claim is found to be fruadulent, jail time could be impossed. This should cause those who cheat or lie in the filing of a claim to have a hard time finding anyone to represent them, since the penalities are assessed against both the claiment and the attorney representing them.
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Although I agree with the notion that it may not have been a workplace concern, we need to realize that a condition such as Coproporphyria can exist. The hypersensitivity to chemicals such as formalin, can cause a rapid heart rate (specifically a suprventricular tachycardia) which can lead to disorientation and unconsciousness. It is a real disabilty and can be diagnosed by the Mayo Clinic and/or Oregon Health Science University’s environmental health department. The case I am most familiar with is treated as a disabillity and reasonable accomodations are enacted. Generally, it is cheap and easy to deal with a the workplace. N95 masks do not work, the use of HEPA filters may not be sufficient, but the use of an organic cartridge on a respirator seems to work very well. In the event of an emergency, standard Advanced Cardiac life Support (ACLS) measures work and is a required course for the national program for paramedics. ER physicians and nurses generally take the course as well.
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Interesting how those who believe it should be Workers’ Comp seem to be those WITH asthma. Question for you, when you first became asthmatic, was it cause by your Employer? Didn’t think so. A trigger to a pre-existing condition is not a Workers’ Comp issue. There are other laws that cover that.
Richard, Stan only poked holes in legal mumbo jumbo. You can poke holes in anything when you try hard enough. Sometimes (not often), ‘common sense’ prevails, which is what happened here.
Barbara, life’s not fair.. get another job.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I disagree with Pauline and Barbara from a safety perspective. I know for certain that if you find yourself in a hazardous location it is your duty and obligation to remove yourself from the hazard. I’m not going to deny the physical reactions this person claimed, but she had every right to leave the dangerous environment without punitive measures taking place.
Now, if she left and was ordered back then she would have a legitimate case. I do sympathize with allergy sufferers, but these are obstacles that need to be overcome. If perfumes, odors and such create a serious health risk then you either need to find work where they aren’t prevalent or be relocated to an area of the hospital where it doesn’t exist. Basically, a person with no hands can’t be a surgeon.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I am glad that workers’ comp Appellate Panel reversed the ruling. I’m assuming Ms. Ervin new her job description and the fact that she would be coming into contact with all sorts of people, of all walks of life. She probably should have chosen a different job - one with less exposrues of such common occurance smells, such as perfums, strong body odors, ect…
January 1st, 2010 at 8:41 am
Stan, you said “Permanently disabled doesn’t mean unable to breathe without assistance.” Are you reading the same article as the rest of us? If her asthma was “further aggravated and exacerbated,” that does mean she can’t breath without additional assistance. In most cases people with asthma are already using some type of assistance. Breathing is necessary to all jobs.
Exacerbate: transitive verb: An increase in the severity of something (such as a disease.)
Aggravate: transitive verb: to make heavy : to burden : to increase : to make worse, more serious, or more severe : to intensify unpleasantly : to produce inflammation in : etc…
Stan, what can you do without breathing, I mean besides expressing your opinion.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:12 am
Swiftchic & Joe2,
This article says she had asthma. No mention of previous “extreme” perfume sensitivity was mentioned that was any worse that any other asthmatic might suffer. Example - If there is a leak or release of a chemical in a factory a person can get a single contact that disables them for life or at least a long period (See; Union carbide / India). Even something as basic as stored swimming pool chlorine can damage your lungs in one or two breaths. Chemical warfare; i.e. something sprayed from miles away can kill or cripple or ruin your endocrine system, that is deactivate your entire hormone system, just by skin contact. If this was a one time heavy dose, it is too late to tell a manager or safety officer or even avoid it. We have all gotten a whiff of perfume so strong you could taste it in your mouth for half a day. Once you have been shot, it is too late to dodge the bullet.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:35 am
Ms Ervin may not have needed to inhale a perfume / chemical to have a reaction. Something as simple as DMSO, a chemical solvent that some people have used as a liniment is very mobile. If you put a drop on a q-tip and touch that on you finger, within a few seconds you can taste it in your mouth. It goes from your finger to your mouth thru your blood-stream in two seconds. Some chemicals have a short term effect and are the removed by the body. Others do damage before they can be removed.
The restaurant worker being tripped by a customer was a very good example. Ms. Ervin did not say that the employer caused her injury. She said it happened while she was on the job. If you own a home and a neighborhood kid is playing in your yard, with or without you permission and that kid gets hurt, YOU are liable. This is not an emotional issue, it is a simple matter of law.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:03 am
ptheoc, your posts are as exotic as you name. I am very familiar with chemical reactions and chemical warfare having spent time as an NBC warfare specilist in the military. I have had expreiance with chemical sensitivisation in several employees. The employees, while sensitized to the chemeical in question to the ppb range, were NOT permenantly disabled. They were simply moved to another job location where the chmical was not present. As for your matter of law, you can not be sued for something that occurs on your propety if it can not be forseen nor prevented nor controlled by you. For instance you can not be sued if a drive by shooting kills someone who happens to be in front f your house while it happens. (at least not successfully; but i am sure there is some idiot lawyer out there with an equally idiotic client who would take the case and appeal it to the supreme court). Last I checked the perfume industry was not engaging in chemiical warfare, though I am not positive about the French. We are not talking cyanides, blister agents, nerve agents or even your mamby pamby irritants like tear gas. We are discussing perfume. We are also not talking about a chemical manufacturing operation like bhopal india, we are discussion a receptionist. The employer is not responsible for an employees allegies. These are god given and therefore in a court of law fall into the act of god category. As for being able to taste a perfume for a half day after contact, the only time i can remeber that happening was after a rather memberable weekend on the Florida keys in my youth where there was way more than airborne contact with a strong perfume. This case was thrown out because the judge had some common sense. Something that is way to uncommon these days.
January 8th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
I do not think that Pauline should have filed for WC, however most of you people have no clue what
perfume is made of and what side effects it can trigger on anyone. Most perfumes have not been
tested to see if there is any harmful side effects on humans. It is made of synthetics, you know things like oil. Would you open a can of 10 w 30 and let it soak into your skin and blood stream. I would hope not. There is nothing natural about perfume at all. And I have these sensitivites myself,
and I feel like I have more compassion in my little finger nail then my co-workers have in their entire body or soul. (If they have a heart or soul that is). People who wear perfume are just like those who smoke, they do not give a damm how that second hand smoke effects others. They only care about their right to smoke or wear that toxic waste called perfume. They are not even smart enough to research what it is that makes up that toxic smell, and what it is they are putting on their skin and seeps into their blood stream. No wonder other countries see us the way they do, the lack of compassion in the U.S. is astonding.
January 11th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Susie,
I believe your comments are way out of order. Everyone on this list feels for this lady, however, compassion does not equal having a company compensate her for an event that could happen to anyone, anywhere, and is not an event the employer was responsible for, as the decision of the Supreme Court indicates. DO NOT call into question someones compassion for their fellow man - I for one, beieve that all of the countries you align yourself with are the ones without compassion. Where were they on 9/11? How about Katrina? I didn’t see them coming to our rescue. But you let something happen in another country and see who is asked, almost responsible to help - the US. I will tell you one thing lady, you haven’t been paying attention…If you believe what you wrote, go live somewhere else.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Sussie, There is no lack f compassion, just a lack of patience for a person that would waste time is a system designed to help INJURED workersget the compensation the need a nd deserve. My brother is allergic to 80 some things that we have identified. He carries an auto injector because of it. He has landed in the hospital 5 times in the last 3 years due to new and mproved allergies he has discovered. He discovered all but one of them on the job as a consultant while visiting varius clients. Guess how many he turned in on Woerkers Comp??? Can we say “None”??? This oerson was just trying to milk the system, especially the “permaently disabled” part. As for europeans being more compasionate, Try getting hurt over there. Be perpared to wait in line and then get an appoitment for all but obviously life threatening issues work related or not.
January 11th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
CAN WE IMAGINE THE BUSINESS OWNER OR MANAGER PUT ON A POLICY THAT “NOT ALLOWING” THEIR CUSTOMERS TO WEAR COLOGNE OR PERFUMES WHEN PATRONIZE THEIR FACILITY? PATHETIC, NO WAY… THIS WILL CAUSE THEM MANY ISSUES WAYS MORE THAN THE WC CASE. This is being selfish. I am working in a hotel industry and each of our employee deals directly with guests from all over the world. We can control the usage of cologne or perfume for our employees but we can not control the customers. So if you have problem, go to another country where they can prohibit the use of it…yeah, those country might dictate what underwear color you have to wear too…. this is another example of those lazy people that want a quick way out for everything.
January 11th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
correction of Susie’s post of Jan 8th… it was NOT “Pauline” who filed for WC.
i have been permanently disabled by “chemical sensitivity”. however i have lived for 10 years in an ultra reclusive and sequestered world to avoid chemicals and have NEVER NEVER NEVER filed a claim or received compensation/disability of any kind.
the original article is about a woman named “Carol” and i’m sure that’s what Susie intended to say.
January 26th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Mike J. - I had to look up NBC warfare specialist. Wow! First off; Thank you for your service to out country in ANY capacity let alone NBC warfare specialist. I appreciate it more than I can express, Sir.
Secondly. pTHEOc is just my middle name w/ first & last initials.
I am not a chemist. I am an amateur researcher. My reason for the research is my own personal ailing due to some similar things mentioned in these postings. You speak of PPB. I have dealt with PPM for a bit of perspective. However PPB applies here. I was in a Home Depot and “felt” a portion, molecule or what ever hit my Bronchia and or lung from a woman three aisles away. I was not able to smell it, I felt it. Soon after I felt it’s impact; swollen throat and tongue, difficult breathing, fatigue.
Again, I am not a chemist. Chemical warfare - old & basic. Per Wikipedia: “Chlorine is a toxic gas that irritates the respiratory system. Coughing and vomiting may occur at 30 ppm and lung damage at 60 ppm.” Lung damage does not recover. The blisters heal but the lung does not repair itself to it’s former state. Chlorine is a naturally occurring element however, it was developed as a Chemical Warfare Agent during WWI.
Again Wiki: Sulfur mustard - a class of related cytotoxic, vesicant chemical warfare agents with the ability to form large blisters on exposed skin. (exposed lungs maybe? You think?)
I know these perfumes are not launched at the enemy. I am speaking of a concept.
I don’t think that even the french use these tactics to promote their products (pun).
Do you remember the late 70′s / early 80′s at the malls these young girls would approach, spray a scent on a person & proclaim the products name as a promotion of the perfume? That ceased after a few near death situations.
Simple example isopropyl alcohol - If you are getting a rub down after a workout or a wash with isopropyl alcohol to reduce fever it can be refreshing, that is, if the room is well ventilated. Adversely, if you have a wound and pour isopropyl alcohol on a fresh wound, yee-ooow.
On some people, lungs, bronchia, etc… are tender and raw. And as part of some peoples symptoms the mucosa system no longer protects well (think of fish slime/protection) so even a few PPM or PPB can cause damage or further damage.
“As for your matter of law, you can not be sued for something that occurs on your property if it
can not be foreseen nor prevented nor controlled by you.” If you are a home owner you know if
a neighborhood kid is playing in your yard and falls or is injured at no fault of your own, your Homeowners insurance covers it. You can be successfully sued by a burglar that gets hurt on your property while he is robbing you.
In closing for now. “The employer is not responsible for an employees allergies.” Your military life will confirm this. A person may not be responsible but they are accountable for what happens to those in their charge. The employer has Workman comp to cover things that happen. Unless it was self inflicted, it falls to the Comp Co.
Please re-read - ptheoc Says: January 1st, 2010 at 9:35 am in regard to DMSO. Explain it if you can. Most Doctors cannot.
Again Sir, much respect, appreciation and gratitude.
Theo
April 28th, 2010 at 11:18 am
i currently work in an office where this is a big problem i didnt ask to have asthma for the ones who answer this and said it shoundnt of happen with the pay out and disability do some research ok
i have spoken to ppl about this e-mails have gone out even posters and ppl are still wearing it and i should leave my job i work for the goverment i am on three different meds cause of my asthma i doing everything i can to manage mine for the ppl who dont know what asthma imagne someon etaking a big rope and tighting it around your lungs and getting tighter and tighter where you can’t breathe and then i get a sore thoart and headace i am so frustated when i approach ppl in my office and you know you can smell it on them and nope i aint wearing any i take all the neccessary measures my boss has made excuses for ppl wearing it and then i went above him and that manger wears it so why should i have to leave my job of 10yrs it frustates me to here ppl comments ok maybe it wasn’t a workers comp problem ok i agree try human resources and if all else fails then try that please be more compassionate to ppl who have perfume allgergies i am dealing with this right now in my office
April 30th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Kristen, believe me, I feel for you. You DO NOT have to sit there and take it. If you must, play the other extreme and go into work with a respirator. Pick out something nice that will filter out the odors, maybe a positive pressure respirator so you don’t have to get a medical clearance to wear it, then charge it all to your supervisor. There are enough people now listening to this story that will back you up. In fact, there are lawyers that are chomping at the bit to take on a case like this. You GO Girl. Take them to the task.
July 20th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
I, too, have asthma and take several meds every day to keep it under control. I have found that no matter what you do, you will come into contact with triggers. However, I am also a safety professional, and there is no way Carol should have been entitled to Comp. She took a job she undoubtedly knew would put her into direct contact with her triggers. It was HER responsibility to refuse the job and hers alone. Thus, the result of being in contact with triggers is HERS alone to deal with. While I am allergic to about 50 things myself, I know I cannot realistically avoid all of them, so I do my best by using the meds I have been given, and try to minimize potential hazards to myself. Carol obviously didn’t and it appears she knew full well what the ramifications would be. She took the “chance” that she wouldn’t be able to work again and would be “permanently disabled”…. hmmmmm, what did she have to lose? What did she WANT to lose? Her job, that’s what!