Heavy smoker says work chemicals made her sick
October 10, 2011 by Fred HosierPosted in: Chemical safety, Illnesses, new court decision, Respiratory safety, Special Report, Worker health, Workers' comp
PDF 
A worker with chemical sensitivity who is also called “a fairly heavy smoker” by a doctor says exposure to substances at work caused her to be permanently and totally disabled. Can she prove that, and can she get workers’ comp?
Deborah Chriestenson worked for Russell Stover Candies (RS) in Iola, KS, for 20 months as a plant nurse, safety coordinator and workers’ compensation benefits coordinator.
She’d been diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivity about 11 years before starting at RS.
Chriestenson smoked cigarettes before, during and after her employment at RS. Her doctor said she was a “fairly heavy smoker.”
Her office was located across the hall from the plant’s laundry facility, and Chriestenson said she could smell bleach on a regular basis.
She also claims she was exposed to methyl bromide fumes in a room where nuts were fumigated, and occasionally to fumes from pesticides, truck exhaust, paint and anhydrous ammonia.
Her final chemical exposure at RS occurred when the floor of her office was stripped and rewaxed. RS allowed Chriestenson to move from the office, but she says she was exposed to fumes in the room for about 15 minutes while she collected her things.
Ten days later, Chriestenson’s employment at RS was terminated. Ten days after that, she filed for workers’ comp. In the application, Chriestenson only listed the incident involving the floor rewaxing in her office.
Chriestenson was seen by several doctors who didn’t agree on whether her exposure to chemical fumes at RS caused permanent injury.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) found Chriestenson had experienced temporary symptoms from chemical exposure at RS, but she didn’t sustain any permanent illness that required future medical treatment.
Chriestenson appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB).
Decision hinged on expert
Three members of the five-person board found “it is more probably true than not that [Chriestenson] is unable to engage in substantial and gainful employment. Consequently, [Chriestenson] is entitled to receive permanent total disability benefits.”
The three members said their opinion was due largely to testimony by chemical sensitivity expert Dr. Grace Ziem.
However, the other two board members agreed with the ALJ and wrote a dissenting opinion. They said Chriestenson “should be denied benefits beyond short-term medical treatment for the temporary aggravations suffered while employed by [Russell Stover].” The two dissenters said the majority should not have based its conclusions on the opinions of Chriestenson’s expert, because Dr. Ziem:
- is not board certified in this specialty
- had no information regarding the strength of the chemicals Chriestenson may have been exposed to at RS nor the duration of the exposures
- only had information provided by Chriestenson more than seven years after her employment at RS ended
- did not review any of Chriestenson’s previous medical records, and
- believed Chriestenson’s history of cigarette smoking before, during and after her employment at RS was irrelevant to her workers’ comp claim.
RS took the case to the Court of Appeals of Kansas, which noted the Kansas Supreme Court has ruled the actual level of exposure for multiple-chemical sensitivity must be shown — a point made by the dissenting members of the WCB.
So the appeals court ruled Chriestenson did not suffer a permanent and total disability arising out of or caused by her employment at Russell Stover. The court said the WCB should deal with any benefits Chriestenson may be entitled to because of aggravation of her preexisting chemical sensitivity while employed by RS.
A couple of notes: In its opinion, the appeals court wrote that its research had revealed that several courts across the U.S. had also had difficulty with opinions expressed by Dr. Ziem, including courts in Georgia and Tennessee.
And Chriestenson left her job in December 1998. This case has been winding its way through the workers’ comp system and courts for almost 13 years.
(Chriestenson v. Candies, Court of Appeals of KS, No. 104,412, 9/9/2011)
What do you think about this case? Let us know in the comments below.
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: anhydrous ammonia, bleach, chemical sensitivity, methyl bromide, pesticides, Russell Stover, smoker, Workers' comp
Loading ...
October 11th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
How can a worker with multiple chemical sensitivities be a heavy smoker? She’s sensitive to a few chemicals at work, but not the hundreds in cigarette smoke?
October 11th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
I think the appeals court got it right. Since the MD was out of her area, along with the long history of cigarette smoke (that we all know exasperates almost all lung type of issues), she should be given benefits for the short time exposure, but nothing else.
October 11th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
So they have stalled for 13 years and now seek to cut her off, doesn’t sound fair. It would seem that RS must have known about her sensitivities to a wide range of chemicals but still put her in harms way, sounds like she should get perm. dsability including the payment of her legal cost, it’s about time the little people get some justice.
October 11th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
I’m sick and tired of poeple trying to abuse the system. If she has a sensitivity to chemicals then why was she inhaling them with every drag of her cigaret. This country is full of greedy poeple that want money but don’t want to work for it.
October 11th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
I have to agree with Dave & Todd!!! This is just someone who wants something for nothing! Has she quit-or tried to quit-smoking??? Maybe, but probably not. Give me a break, people!! In this case, I believe the appeals court got it right.
October 11th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
“This country is full of greedy people” and hypocrits!
October 11th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
I think she should be prosecutued for attempted WC fraud, along with her quack Doctor.
October 11th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
As far as i can understand, Mrs Christenson was not cut off completely. The dissenting members of the board were on target -to my opinion. A lot to say about the employee’s character and her expert ethics -Dr. Ziem. The court ruling was fair enough, permanent disability would have been outrageous.
October 11th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
I believe that the appeals court, along with the two dissenting board members got it right - short term disability and treatment for acute chemical exposure - that’s all, folks!
“Deborah Chriestenson worked for Russell Stover Candies (RS) in Iola, KS, for 20 months as a plant nurse, safety coordinator and workers’ compensation benefits coordinator.” THIS SPEAKS VOLUMES! She is a nurse for goodness sakes - she KNOWS the ramifications of smoking and inhaling numerous toxic chemicals, especially when diagnosed with sensitivity to a number of chemicals. She KNEW the ropes of the position as safety coordinator and workmans comp coordinator. If the area was deemed “unsafe”, it was HER JOB to rectify it and make it safe! I don’t buy into it - I feel that she is using the knowledge of the system to her advantage since RS terminated her employment. I would be curious to know if anyone else from RS filed a claim for chemical fume exposure.
October 11th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
This is a definite case of abuse of the system! With this person’s “multiple chemical sensitivities” did no one in the legal field say, “Wait a minute?” If she has so many issues with “chemicals,” why was she smoking & fairly heavy, at that? This is just another case of someone not taking responsibility for themselves & wanting someone else to “take care” of them. Was RS was actually aware of all her sensitivities? Or is this another time when an applicant wasn’t completely forthcoming with information? I handle WC in my business & am constantly surprised by the # of applicants who “forget” to mention a chronic issue that affects how the person may be able to do the job; but companies are frequently pictured as the bad guys. When will it STOP???
October 11th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Aggravation of her preexisting chemical sensitivity while employed by RS. ???
People are so chem-i-phobic at work but have no problem with chemicals in their personal lives (ie smoking) Fumes from pesticides, truck exhaust, paint and ammonia are present outside of the work place as well. And yes, methyl bromide is also used to treat tobacco.
October 11th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Seems a great deal more likely that any disability she may be suffering is the result of her years of heavy smoking, not what she could smell at work. She couldn’t get support for her allegations from the medical community so she hired a paid “expert” with questionable credibility. Bogus claim, plain and simple.
October 11th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
If she is the safety person shouldn’t she be looking into the chemical fumes and possibly having all workers exposed to those fumes in respirators? She’s a thief trying to bilk the system‼
October 12th, 2011 at 8:32 am
This woman is in the Safety Field and she didn’t take the proper precautions to insure and protect life and health? I am a Safety Director and have been for different companies for quite some time - Methyl Bromide is a Federally Regulated Pesticide. Prior to it’s use, you must post a warning for 48 hrs to inform people in the surrounding area of the intent to use this chemical. It is deadly-you have to be trained and licensed to handle this pesticide & wear PPE. As far as the truck exhaust -do you not ever drive in heavy traffic? The ammonia, bleach and floor wax - come on lady - do you not ever clean your house? These are only dangerous when mixed together! The courts should have consulted an toxicologist about the methyl bromide - the effects from vapor as the trailers are being cleared are not permanent - just crappy while you are experiencing them. If she had been in the trailer’s while the fumigation was taking place - that’s another story. Been there - I have also been to Pesticide classes through A&M Univ. as part of my education. She is playing the system in my personal and professional opinion. Shame on her!
October 12th, 2011 at 8:55 am
I totally agree with the ruling, heavy smoking causes respiratory problems in itself, she shouldn’t get anything but the patch.
October 12th, 2011 at 11:36 am
She’s the Safety Coordinator. Did she even bother to read the MSDS and wear the appropriate PPE when exposed to areas that contained chemicals requiring PPE? If those areas did require PPE, as the Safety Coordinator, did she ensure that employees working in those areas wore their PPE? Although I do not have the actual MSDS for the methyl bromide in this situation, one document I found for methyl bromide has the following language on its MSDS: “Hygiene measures: When using this material, do not eat, drink or smoke. Safety shower and eye bath should be provided. Do not eat, drink or smoke until after-work showering and changing clothes.” Gee, I wonder if she did smoke breaks while at work or if she went home, showered, smoked, and then returned to work. If she did not go home and shower and change clothes than that goes against what this MSDS says to do. Whose to blame in that situation? Not the company.
October 12th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
This caught my eye because of my own chemical sensitivities and difficulty at work being accomodated. In my case I suffer from migraines. To this case and why I bothered to read these comments. The claimant probably shot herself in the foot with this claim because of her known personal history of being a smoker “heavy or not”. Workman’s Compensation is to help injured people. It isn’t welfare to provide a living wage because someone doesn’t want to work. I believe that the final decision was correct in that she should have received some type of compensation for her temporary condition. OWCP should not have taken 13 years and law suits to resolve this issue. That is the disconnect for me in all of this. She was after something that was determined she was not entitled to but why did it take that many years to resolve. The tax payer’s pockets supported this for way too long.
October 20th, 2011 at 10:20 am
More American greed. No clear on the job injury, yet this is allowed to go on and on. Thanks again to liability lawyers for making the US a very cramped place to try to live and function under a load of liability fears.
All lawsuits should be loser pays all. This would end so much of this greed.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Why are some of you so quick to judge after reading such a short article? How do you know the “facts” in this article are true & what else is not being told in this article. I am the woman who has been fighting RSC since 1998. Let me fill you in on a few things before you judge me. First of all, I was NOT a heavy smoker & I do not smoke. Prior to having a sudden 2nd exposure to anhydrous ammonia at RSC is when I began having breathing problems. How did I get such a severe exposure? Well, RSC did not want to lose production, so they shut the alarms off in the plant, put on their SCBA masks & shut doors to production areas. I was making a quick safety walk through when I opened the doors to the area where the broken pipe was that leaked the anhydrous ammonia. As the safety coordinator, I should have been told of the broken pipe, but I wasn’t. Why does RSC use anhydrous ammonia? They use it to cool their plants with. Also, I’ve been judged as it was “my” job to make sure the plant was safe. Yes it was & I tried to do that, but I could not get them to listen - especially if it would cost an extra dime or interrupt production. I also have more health problems associated with the exposures than just breathing problems. But, I guess since I’m an ex-smoker, that is the first thing that is picked up on. As for working, I would LOVE to be able to go back to work as a nurse. I don’t enjoy what so many of you think is a “free ride”. I am not getting 1 dime at this time. Why would I want to give up a good paying job in the nursing field to “possibly” get a small pittance from RSC? I also took a cut in pay to go to work for them. Plus, some of you think that the case is resolved? It is not. So, please don’t be so quick to judge someone before you know ALL the facts of a story. If you have a question, I’d be more than happy to answer it for you - but please don’t start with name calling & judging or I won’t respond. I don’t need anymore…
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:01 pm
I suggest you contact the Safety Newsletter Alert and clarify any misinformation. They are the ones stating the case with facts about your medical condition, doctor’s opinions, former employer and WC board rulings.
The majority of comments -including mine were based on these. As you know, whatever we think and write is irrelevant at the end. These are just comments from people interested in all kinds of safety issues presented by the site.
On the other hand, I sincerely hope that those who do know all the facts will come to a final ruling, and your case comes to a just resolution after so many years of waiting.
November 3rd, 2011 at 9:42 am
Wow, people. Everyone has the ability to remain anonymous on the internet so they feel this gives them a certain right to attack someone, belittling them, and making at-a-glance judgements. If you came face to face with a person would you still have the spine to say it?
And what if you knew Mrs. Chriestenson? Does it not make sense that she may have smoked early in her life like the rest of her generation did? Like when it was legal to smoke on airplanes even! It is hard to quit. Ask anyone with any addiction. An alcoholic will feel like crap the next day but that may not stop them from grabbing the bottle. But she herself has stated that she has quit and should be lauded over for that triumph alone.
Maybe she does or does not deserve lifetime disability, however, the more important issue is bringing MCS to the forefront of medical terminology. In fact, ‘detoxing’ has been huge commercially for people wanting to feel healthier, lose weight, etc. So could it be that maybe someone’s body does not handle chemicals or may store them incorrectly in the body? Like lactose or that some people can not handle protein efficiently and can become poisoned by their kidneys.
The true essence is you have no right to judge, as I have no right to judge. If she is sick, then let those who work in the judicial field make that decision. If not, than that is the choice they made. I in no way have MCS but I do work around chemicals in my job on a frequent basis. I do know what they CAN do. High school chemistry should have left that impression on anyone.
And milking the system? I doubt it. A little bit of research shows that she has indeed work for many years prior to this incident and her husband runs a very successful business. I highly doubt money is the central issue in this case. Thank you for all of your very informed and snap judgements.
November 3rd, 2011 at 12:53 pm
To Annoyed: I thank you for your comments & it is obvious by your statements that you have researched this a little further than just what Safety News Alert wrote.
For the rest of you who are so quick to judge me - My husband does run a very successful business, so this isn’t about money or me being lazy. In fact, I offered to settle with RSC for treatment only & asked for absolutely no monetary award & they refused. So, don’t be so quick to judge. If you really researched my case, you would see who has drawn the case out for 13 years.
I’m not sure how I’m “lazy” when I had worked all of my life - starting at age 14. Up until the first chemical exposure, I had never been sick - other than 3 day measles when I was in H.S. I had always been a very active person & loved traveling.
I would also like people to know that it isn’t just my lungs that was damaged. I also have CNS (Central Nervous System) damage & PNS (Peripheral Nervous System) damage, and fibromyalgia & several other diagnosis. I have also paid for the majority of my treatment. The only time W/C paid for any treatment was when it was court ordered for me to receive treatment. That treatment ended as soon as RSC filed an appeal.
The damage that chemicals can do to you can’t always be fixed with a 1 time treatment. So much depends on what the exposures were & how much of the chemical a person is exposed to & for what length of time. As for MCS, I liken it to allergies. Once the chemical has done the damage & you are “sensitive” to it, it’s like being allergic to penicillin or bees or any other type of allergy. If you had an anaphylactic reaction to a medicine, you wouldn’t endanger your life by taking the medication, would you? The same goes for me & MCS. I avoid chemicals if at all possible.
For those who think I’m getting “rich” by doing nothing - think again. I am not receiving SSD or Worker’s Compensation at the present time. I was receiving SSD, but…
November 4th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Editor’s reply: At the bottom of this article, readers can find a link to the Court of Appeals of Kansas decision in this case.
The first paragraph states this: “Although it is undisputed that Chriestenson’s preexisting chemical sensitivity may have been temporarily exacerbated while she was employed by Russell Stover in 1997 and 1998, there is no substantial competent evidence in the record that Chriestenson suffered a permanent and total disability caused by her work at Russell Stover.”
The fifth paragraph of the opinion says this: “Additionally, Chriestenson smoked cigarettes before, during and after her employment at Russell Stover. According to her physician, Chriestenson was a fairly heavy smoker.”
The statements are part of the court record, which was used to write this article. Ms. Chriestenson can dispute what is in the court’s written decision, but it is part of the legal record.
November 4th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Upon reading the Court of Appeals document versus Ms Chriestenson, it is surprising that OSHA did not carry an investigation concerning RS safety. By the way she describes her working conditions and RS safety, this company must have a lengthy record of violations and fines.
Maybe Safety News Alert can provide more RS hazardous chemical related incidents and OSHA findings -that would be interesting…
November 4th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
The court of appeals document also states I filed a worker’s compensation claim 10 days after I was terminated from RSC. That is incorrect. I filed a W/C claim on 12/8/2008 - the day of the final exposure. As for my smoking. Yes, I smoked for years, but no longer smoke. As for being a “heavy” smoker, I guess everyone has their own opinions of what “heavy” is. But, I do not consider a pack a day a “heavy” smoker. I also did not have any breathing problems until the leak of anhydrous ammonia into the plant. I would also like to point out that they did not agree with Dr. Grace Ziem. I’m not sure why when our own government recognizes her as an expert in her field. I also saw Dr. William Rea in Dallas who performed numerous tests. They are far more knowledgeable than a psychiatrist/neurologist .. who admitted he did not know how chemicals affect the body. They also did not recognize the fact that the tests showed toxic chemicals were found in my system. Dr. Zwibelman (who the appeals court favored) did not do 1 single test on me - and certainly not a thorough neuro exam. In fact, when I was in his office, I had trouble concentrating & vocalizing because of a strong smell. I told him this, but he never mentioned that in his report. I had a witness to that. I find it strange that RSC & the courts recognize that I had MCS prior to my employment, but when they exacerbate my condition, they don’t want to recognize it as a known condition. I worked all the years prior to RSC with employers who did accommodate me with my MCS & I was able to work without problems. There are other inconsistencies in the appeals decision that will be corrected in the documents my lawyer has written to the State Supreme Court. I wish you could see ALL of the documents, including copies of letters that I wrote to RSC about the safety hazards. I’m sure you would see a clearer picture.