Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
By: J. Michael Parsons, Esq. with valuable assistance from his associate, Amanda
Conley, Esq., both of Parsons Law Group, LLC in Marietta, Georgia
For Worker’s Compensation Legal Advice Contact www.parsonslawgroup.com
Introduction
claims have posed a challenge to legislators, lawyers, and claimants. Over time, more
and more diseases have been accepted as at least potentially occupational in nature.
However, occupational disease claims still differ significantly from traditional workers’
compensation claims both in the methods for proving the claim and the likelihood of
compensability. First, the burden of proof is considerably higher for occupational disease
article will discuss a few of those methods, including how they can be successfully
implemented and why they are useful to satisfy the requisite statutory elements of proof.
Historical Overview
employment has existed. Some of the oldest references to occupational diseases can be
Hippocrates described a severe attack of colic due to lead poisoning in a man who
1
KISSIAH, RICHARD C., GEORGIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW § 7.03, p. 335 (2nd ed. 2002).
1
Atlanta Work Injury Attorney www.parsonslawgroup.com
worked as a miner extracting metals.2 Hippocrates also noted the correlation between a
paralysis in the hand and the worker’s occupation involving the twisting of twigs.3 Other
European physicians described lung diseases afflicting miners during the sixteenth
century:
[S]ome mines are so dry that they are entirely devoid of water and this dryness
causes the workmen even greater harm, for the dust, which is stirred and beaten
up by digging, penetrates into the windpipe and lungs, and produces difficulty in
breathing and the disease which the Greeks called asthma. If the dust has
corrosive qualities, it eats away the lungs, and implants consumption in the body.
In the mines of the Carpathian Mountains women are found who have married
seven husbands, all of whom this terrible consumption has carried off to a
premature death.4
stone cutters and cleaners of cesspits. It was Ramazzini who revised the Hippocratic art
employed.6 Ramazzini described hand pain and numbness among professional scribes and
notaries:
The maladies that afflict the clerks arise from . . . incessant movement of the hand
and always in the same direction . . . Incessant driving of the pen over paper
2
1Chojnacki, Robert J., “Occupational Disease Under the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law,” 42
ST. JOHN’S LAW REV. 473, 475 (1968), citing D. Hunter, THE DISEASES OF OCCUPATIONS 9
(1957).
3
Dembe, Allard E., Occupation and Disease, How Social Factors Affect the Conception of Work-Related
Disorders, 27 (1996).
4Chojnacki, supra, at 476, quoting Hunter, supra, note 1, at 26-27.
5Id., at 477, citing Hunter, supra, note 1, at 32.
6Id., at 478.
5
6
2
causes intense fatigue of the hand and the whole arm because of the continuous
and almost constant strain on the muscles and tendons, which in the course of
time results in failure of power in the right hand. An acquaintance of mine, a
notary by profession, still living, used to spend his whole life continually engaged
in writing . . . and he made a good deal of money by it; first he began to complain
of intense fatigue in the whole arm, but no remedy could relieve this, and finally
the whole right arm became completely paralyzed. In order to offset this infirmity
he began to train himself to write with the left hand, but it was not very long
before it too was attacked by the same malady.7
more rigidly and with more suspicion than traditional workplace accidents.8 The reason
is clear. It is simply more difficult to prove that a claimant suffered a work-related injury
when there is no specific accident.9 You also need medical evidence to show that an
medical certainty. In the case of an illness, it is much harder to prove that the illness
resulted from conditions of the claimant’s employment where there are several potential
causes, even if workplace exposure is one accepted cause. For instance, smoking can
cause lung cancer. However, the daily breathing of silica dust, smoke and fumes can also
cause lung cancer. Concern about this issue resulted in the earlier Georgia workers’
7
Dembe, supra, note 2, at 27. Quoting Ramazzini, B. 1713, Diseases of Workers, p. 229, 421, 423.
8
Brandt-Rauf, Sherry I. & Brandt-Rauf, Paul W., Compensation for Occupational Disease: Hidden
Agendas, HEALTH AFFAIRS, 73, 77 (Fall 1998). This article notes that twenty-one states, including Georgia,
“limit coverage to diseases peculiar to the workplace, thereby excluding ordinary diseases of life and
eliminating coverage for a significant amount of occupationally related disease.” Employers and their
insurers tend to view these claims with skepticism, with “60 percent of diseases claims initially denied.” Id.
9
Id. at 77 (“Occupational disease is often unpredictable before the fact, and the relationship between the
workplace toxins and illness may be subtle and confounded by synergistic effects and multiple causes.”);
Hancock v. Modern Indus. Laundry, 878 S.W.2d 416 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994).
10
Kissiah, supra note 1, at § 7.01. See also, Lohman, Judith S., Occupational Diseases Under the Workers’
Compensation Law, Office of Legislative Research, Connecticut General Assembly (Sept. 14, 1995).
3
The original Georgia Workers’ Compensation Act excluded all disease from
coverage, viewing all disease as ordinary. In 1946, the Act was amended to include four
types of compensable occupational diseases: “(1) poisoning by certain agents; (2) disease
condition caused by x-ray or radioactive substance exposure; (3) asbestosis; and (4)
silicosis.” The 1971 amendment to the act added the catch-all category, including its five
section still excludes partial loss of hearing due to noise, psychiatric and psychological
problems, and heart and vascular disease, standing alone, from coverage under the Act.
O.C.G.A. § 34-9-280(2).
If a claimant’s disease did not appear on the list, or it could not logically be
included in an existing category, the claim was not compensable.11 The justification for
this list was that the selected illnesses were closer to occupational injuries rather than
occupational diseases.12 The current law is arguably more flexible, with the exception of
the four types of disease that remain excluded, but the current state of the law continues
states that an occupational disease must “arise out of and in the course of the particular
disease.”13 In addition, § 34-9-280(2) qualifies this definition with five additional factors
11
Kissiah, supra note 1, at § 7.01.
12
Id. at § 7.03.
13
O.C.G.A. § 34-9-280(2).
4
“(A) A direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is
performed and the disease;
(B) That the disease follows as a natural incident of exposure by reason of the
employment;
(C) That the disease is not of a character to which the employee may have had
substantial exposure outside of the employment;
(D) That the disease is not an ordinary disease of life to which the general public
is exposed;
(E) That the disease must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with
the employment and to have flowed from that source as a natural consequence.”14
As with all other workers’ compensation claims, an employer is liable where “the disease
arose out of and in the course of the employment in which the employee was engaged
under such employer . . . and has resulted from a hazard characteristic of the employment
other hand, compensation for an occupational injury requires only that the injury arise out
of and in the course of employment.16 Thus, the burden of proof for an occupational
The burden of proving these five factors is on the claimant. Therefore, what
evidence will be most helpful in establishing what is essentially a very strict element of
causation? Under these circumstances, discovery can be used to establish the crucial
connection between an employee’s harmful exposure in the workplace and the disease
they currently suffer from. A physician’s opinion that the illness resulted from the
claimant’s employment is essential,17 but often that opinion must be bolstered by other
as a part of the patient’s history, a physician may want evidence of hazards in the work
14
Id.
15
O.C.G.A § 34-9-281.
16
O.C.G.A §34-9-1(4).
17
Ring v. Stone & Sons Monument, Ark. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, Claim No. F305003 (April 5, 2004).
5
disease. Therefore, these discovery tactics focus on the workplace itself once the
The first option is to perform an inspection of the premises, which falls under the
purview of Sections 9-11 of the Georgia Civil Practice Act governing discovery. Section
9-11-34 governs entry upon land for purposes of discovery, and states that a party may be
permitted entry upon land or property in the possession and control of another party “for
the property or any designated object or operation thereon.”18 Such request must also fall
In the case of occupational disease claims, entry upon land would apply to the
employer’s premises. Although the claimant will have already described the workplace
and the conditions of their employment to his/her attorney, an actual visual inspection
can be a valuable tool. The attorney may notice something important that the employee
did not think to mention, and will at least gain a better understanding of the conditions
their client worked under. The inspection can also be performed by a specialist employed
by the attorney, who will have a greater understanding of the hazards to look for. It also
creates an undesirable situation for the employer. Business owners generally do not want
lawyers and industrial engineers snooping around their establishment. Filing a request
for entry upon land can create significant leverage. I analogize it to taking an adjuster’s
Air quality testing arguably falls under the same discovery provision, and can be
used to much the same effect.20 Many occupational diseases involve the breathing of
18
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(a)(2).
19
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(b)(1).
20
See, O.C.G.A § 9-11-34(a)(2), which refers to both “testing” and “sampling” the property.
6
dust, fumes and smoke over time. Thus, retaining the services of a clinical air quality
tester can be useful to test the air at the workplace for possible contaminants. The
attorney will have to be diligent in hiring such an expert who will need to have some
litigation experience on the stand and have excellent credentials. You can be sure that the
employer/insurer will have testing conducted to combat any evidence you obtain..
Nonetheless, if you have concrete scientific evidence that the air in the workplace
contains contaminants and is harmful, you have gone a long way in proving that the
claimant suffered a workplace exposure pursaunt to part (B) of the statute.21 Obviously,
retaining an air quality tester to conduct air quality testing could be done in conjunction
with a general inspection of the premises, yielding a broad view of the claimant’s
workplace, but they can also look for any conditions that could result in illness.22 The
industrial hygienist would have to meet the qualifications for an expert witness to testify
at a hearing on the claim, but as long as they use testing methods typical to their
profession, this burden should be easily met.23 At a hearing, the industrial hygienist can
testify as to the state of the workplace upon inspection, as well as any conditions that
could have caused the plaintiff’s illness. Even if the hygienist’s report is never used as
21
O.C.G.A § 34-9-280(2)(B).
22
See generally, http://www.abih.org/general/cihcaih.html. The website for the American Board of
Industrial Hygiene discusses in detail what an industrial hygienist is, what types of services they can render,
and the qualifications necessary to become an industrial hygienist. The Board also notes eight areas of
practice in this field, including occupational disease.
23
O.C.G.A. § 24-9-67.1(b).
7
evidence in a hearing, it provides support for the claim that the illness is directly
chemicals, the attorney may also request copies of all Material Safety Data Sheets
manufacturers to inform their customers of the hazards of those chemicals.25 Per OSHA
regulations, all chemicals used in the workplace must be properly labeled and the
employer must provide MSDS’s and safety training to all exposed workers.26 First,
requesting copies of these reports allows an attorney to know exactly which chemicals
the claimant was potentially exposed to. Without this knowledge, it may be difficult for a
physician to link a particular disease with a specific cause inside the workplace. Second,
the employer may have violated OSHA regulations on this point and either not have the
required MSDS’s or have failed to properly train their employees. Although workers’
compensation is a no-fault system, the employer does not want to be caught disregarding
important safety precautions especially OSHA who has the federal authority to levy fines
and even shut down plants. Again, when you request MSDS’s in your discovery, the other
side will know you have done your homework and you will have made a safety manager
very uncomfortable. Admitting the MSDS’s as evidence at a hearing can be done under
context. If an employer has been cited in the past for violating OSHA regulations, these
24
See, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-280(2)(A) and (B).
25
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hazardcommunications/index.html.
26
Id.
8
occur. Whether the violations were remedied can also be important in proving
occupational exposure, because they show that the employer knew there were health
hazards but failed to address the problem. These violations can also establish that certain
health hazards existed in the workplace in the first instance, which may be necessary for
Illustrative Cases
A former client, let’s call him Jim Parks, sustained carpal tunnel syndrome and
elbow injuries while on the job. He also had some hearing loss as a result of driving a
During the course of representing Mr. Parks, I discovered that he had also
developed bladder cancer. At first, Mr. Parks did not think the bladder cancer was work
related but after a visit with a clinical toxicologist, his opinion started to change. The
toxicologist was concerned about a recent urine sample which detected abnormally high
levels of benzene in his body. Benzene is a known carcinogen and while not directly
related to bladder cancer, the toxicologist certainly could not rule out benzene exposure
as the cause of his bladder cancer. The toxicologist would not state with a reasonable
degree of medical certainty that the benzene exposure led to the bladder cancer but said
At that point, I did not feel that I had quite met my burden of proof and began to
engage in discovery. I was also concerned that bladder cancer would not satisfy section
(D) of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-280(2) which states: “That the disease is not an ordinary disease
9
of life to which the general public is exposed.” Certainly, cancer is an ordinary disease of
life. Therefore, I had to demonstrate that by virtue of Mr. Parks’ employment, he was
much more at risk than the general public for developing a more rare type of cancer.
I determined that the employer did not maintain MSDS’s even though Mr. Parks
had daily exposures to benzene. I also was able to discover many other hazardous and
cancer-causing chemicals from which Mr. Parks was exposed. I retained an expert in
workplace exposures to testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Mr. Parks’
workplace exposures directly caused his bladder cancer especially in light of the fact that
Mr. Parks did not ever smoke or engage in any of the other contibuting factors. We were
also able to retain an industrial hygienist to show that Mr. Parks had sustained severe
hearing loss from driving the chemical tankers. The case was settled very favorably for
Mr. Parks who retired and was able to keep his medical benefits.
2. Pulmonary Fibrosis
assembled brakes and struts for automobiles. He developed pulmonary fibrosis as a result
of a thirty two year history of exposures to smoke, dust, chemicals and asbestos
pulmonologist who examined him to determine his candidacy for a lung transplant. This
second doctor opined that my client had idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis but could not rule
out occuptional exposures as a causative factor. The employer had four other
pulmonologists review the medical records and all four determined that my client had
10
idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. However, none examined my client or obtained any
In discovery, we were able to obtain MSDS’s and past OSHA violations from the
employer. Importantly, one of the chemicals that my client was exposed to created quite a
concern for the treating physician. She testified that repeated exposure to chromium
causes severe respiratory problems that could lead to pulmonary fibrosis. The OSHA
violations for unclean air and inadequate ventilation provided an excellent platform for
the treating physician to testify that the totality of the occupational exposures caused my
An inspection of the plant by an industrial hygienist also confirmed the poor air
quality in the plant even though the employer made a valiant effort to “clean up” for the
inspection.
Unfortunately, my client passed away during the pendency of this claim and the
matter is still pending after three years due to repeated delays and continuances.
Conclusion
expensive. Nonetheless, there are good cases out there that deserve aggressive
representation. Hopefully, some of these discovery tactics will be useful in your practice.
www.parsonslawgroup.com
11