SafetyNewsAlert.com » Did smoking or workplace dust cause employee’s COPD?

Did smoking or workplace dust cause employee’s COPD?

November 14, 2011 by Fred Hosier
Posted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, new court decision, Special Report, Workers' comp


An employee was exposed to harmful dust at work due to an inadequate ventilation system. He had also been a smoker for many years — from one to four packs per day. Can he get workers’ comp for his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)?

The argument in this case revolved around medical opinions. However, a state appeals court said that wasn’t the only thing to be considered in deciding this case.

Clifford Rich worked at Circle R Machine Shop. His duties included grinding tools.

An OSHA inspection found that the shop’s ventilation system was inadequate to protect employees from airborne dust and the concentration of cobalt dust in the air exceeded the permissible exposure limit.

After working at Circle R for five and a half months, Rich’s breathing gradually worsened, and one day he went to a hospital emergency room.

Tests showed Rich had moderate to severe COPD.

Rich said at the time he was smoking four cigars per day. He had also smoked since age 15 and previously smoked one to two packs of cigarettes a day. A medical history given by Rich two years earlier states he used to smoke as much as four packs a day.

What the medical pros said

A doctor stated Rich’s smoking history most likely caused his breathing problems. However, the doctor also said he was not able to rule out possible dust exposure as the cause of the lung problems.

An advanced practical nurse wrote in a report that Rich was having difficulty breathing when he was around the dust at work.

The doctor eventually recommended a job change.

A key in the case was a report from the nurse who wrote that Rich “continues to work in an environment that is most likely the main contributor to this shortness of breath and he has not changed his working environment at all.”

An administrative law judge found the dust exposure did not cause Rich’s COPD, but it did temporarily aggravate it. Aggravation of a preexisting condition is compensable. The company was ordered to pay workers’ comp benefits, and it appealed the decision. It was upheld by the full workers’ comp commission, and the company appealed again to a state court.

That court noted, “An employer takes an employee as he finds him, and employment circumstances that aggravate preexisting conditions are compensable.”

The judges also noted that the nurse stated Rich’s employment was “most likely” the cause of his problems. That was enough to satisfy the question of whether his COPD arose out of and in the scope of employment.

The court said the language used by the nurse is more definitive than terms such as “may,” “could” or “possibly” that the state’s supreme court had held do not meet the requirement.

The judges also said in addition to the medical opinions, there was other evidence to support the commission’s decision:

  • the OSHA finding that the dust was above permissible limits
  • the inadequate exhaust system, and
  • testimony that an employee who held Rich’s job before him had also experienced breathing problems.

The ruling: Rich should receive workers’ comp benefits.

What do you think about the court’s ruling? Let us know in the comments below.

(Qualserv v. Rich, Court of Appeals of Arkansas, No. CA 11-311, 9/21/11)

  • Share/Bookmark

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: , , , ,


7 Responses to “Did smoking or workplace dust cause employee’s COPD?”

  1. Connie Says:

    Sounds pretty cut’n dry to me. I think the courts got this one right.

  2. Michelle Says:

    I totally agree with the court. Because of the conditions at his place of employment the company should pay for the costs.

  3. Jason B Says:

    Big suprise, 4 packs a day… and he has breathing issues? Can’t be his fault… must be the companies!

  4. Gigi Says:

    What would be the difference between this case and the case of Mrs Chriestenson at Russell Stover Candies?

    She was also a heavy smoker (according to the report) and was exposed to methyl bromide fumes that aggravated her already multiple chemical sensitivity problem. The case has been going on for 13 years. She was granted short-term medical benefits not permanent and case is not close yet.

    On the other hand in the case of this very heavy smoker, the court ruled in favor and grant him work’s comp benefits.

    It will be interesting to compare facts as to why the different outcomes.

  5. Cindy C Says:

    As someone who knows first hand the problems of working in dusty environments, exposure is the issue not what the employee did before. I watch someone who did not smoke come done with an occupational lung disease. The company complained that if that person could be out in public they could work. He was suppose to stop living life. The thing I found interesting, when they went in to test the environmental conditions, within 2 hours 20% of the people they tested also had issues. They did not even make through a full 8 hour shift. He will have issues the rest of his life. They did not even tell those employees that they had a health issue. For Shame!

  6. Pipster Says:

    In this instance looks like both parties were short-sighted. The company could have spent a little money for masks, better ventilation, or both. The claimant is dodging reality if he thinks his lungs are in great shape after years of smoking.

  7. Bob Says:

    The company certainly has a responsibility to provide a hazard free workplace. However, anyone smoking today after the overwhelming evidence of the health hazards related to smoking should bear the bulk of the responsibility of any lung related disease. Shame on the employee and the employer. The real losers are those of us who bear the cost of this negligence through increased government regulation and taxes.

Leave a Reply

IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)

What is 11 + 10 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
 characters available

advertisement

    Quick Vote

    • Do you support the NTSB's call for states to ban all use of all cell phones by drivers?

      View Results

      Loading ... Loading ...



  • advertisement

    Recent Popular Articles