Court of Appeals Denies Occupational Disease Claim
In Serrato v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 11-1186 (Iowa App. March 28, 2012), the Court of Appeals denied the claim that claimant suffered from COPD as a result of his occupational exposures at a meatpacking plant. Claimant had argued that chemical residues left on the machines at the plant as a part of his duties cleaning the plant had led to his COPD. The case was originally analyzed by the deputy as an injury case under Chapter 85, but was adjudicated at the commissioner's level as an occupational disease under Chapter 85A.
The claim was denied at both the deputy and commissioner levels, which noted that there was little evidence directly linking claimant's exposures at work to his COPD. One of claimant's doctors indicated that work at Tyson was an aggravating factor, but all the doctors noted that claimant's 1-3 pack per day cigarette smoking was of greater consequence in causing the COPD. The commissioner concluded, based on his review of claimant's IME, that the COPD arose from a hazard that was equally present outside of the work environment.
Ultimately, the court found that substantial evidence supported the position of the commissioner denying benefits. The court also addressed the issue of whether the fact that the deputy had addressed the issue as an injury rather than an occupational disease affected the outcome of the case. The court noted that despite that "glitch", the deputy's fact finding and credibility decisions offered solid footing for the ultimate decision of the commissioner. Moreover, since the commissioner had reviewed the case as one of occupational disease, any error was cured.
Finally, the court concluded that the agency had not applied the proximate cause standard of tort law rather than the more generous causation standard used in workers' compensation claims. The court found that the agency had reached its decision based on the fact that claimant had failed to prove that the chemical exposure alleged by claimant was not proved at hearing. This was supported by substantial evidence.
The claim was denied at both the deputy and commissioner levels, which noted that there was little evidence directly linking claimant's exposures at work to his COPD. One of claimant's doctors indicated that work at Tyson was an aggravating factor, but all the doctors noted that claimant's 1-3 pack per day cigarette smoking was of greater consequence in causing the COPD. The commissioner concluded, based on his review of claimant's IME, that the COPD arose from a hazard that was equally present outside of the work environment.
Ultimately, the court found that substantial evidence supported the position of the commissioner denying benefits. The court also addressed the issue of whether the fact that the deputy had addressed the issue as an injury rather than an occupational disease affected the outcome of the case. The court noted that despite that "glitch", the deputy's fact finding and credibility decisions offered solid footing for the ultimate decision of the commissioner. Moreover, since the commissioner had reviewed the case as one of occupational disease, any error was cured.
Finally, the court concluded that the agency had not applied the proximate cause standard of tort law rather than the more generous causation standard used in workers' compensation claims. The court found that the agency had reached its decision based on the fact that claimant had failed to prove that the chemical exposure alleged by claimant was not proved at hearing. This was supported by substantial evidence.
It is the right of an employee to file for a work accident claim for compensation from sustaining an injury at work after an accident due to poor or unsafe workplace.
ReplyDelete