Dr. Somerville

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for bladder cancer and loss of earnings (LOE) benefits.

The worker argued the bladder cancer was caused by occupational exposures in the petrochemical industry or by radiation treatment for a previously accepted follicular lymphoma claim.

The Appeals Resolution Officer dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that occupational exposures or the limited radiation treatment significantly contributed to the bladder cancer, noting the worker's smoking history as a major risk factor.

The claim for LOE benefits was also denied as the worker retired without functional limitations from the accepted lymphoma, and the bladder cancer was deemed non-compensable.

The estate of the worker appealed the denial of initial entitlement for lung cancer.

The worker had been employed in the rubber manufacturing industry for nearly 30 years and had a significant smoking history.

While the Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker did not meet the criteria for lung cancer due to asbestos exposure under Policy 16-02-13, the appeal was allowed based on the merits and justice of the case.

Relying on findings from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the worker's prior compensable claim for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, the Officer concluded that the worker's occupational exposures significantly contributed to the development of lung cancer, notwithstanding the non-occupational risk factors.

Initial entitlement to lung cancer was granted.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for colon cancer, alleging it resulted from occupational exposures to chemicals and asbestos while employed in the rubber industry from 1954 to 1989.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed medical and occupational hygiene evidence, including opinions from Occupational Medical Consultants and OHCOW.

The ARO found that the epidemiological evidence did not establish a significant association between rubber industry work and colon cancer.

The appeal was dismissed, as it was not shown that the worker's occupational exposures significantly contributed to the development of the disease.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) allegedly caused by occupational exposure to mineral oil between 1969 and 1973.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker was exposed to mineral oil and BCC is a Schedule 3 occupational disease, the statutory presumption was rebutted.

Medical evidence, including a surgical pathology report and an occupational medical consultant's opinion, established that the worker's significant sun exposure from decades of outdoor construction work was the main cause of the skin cancer.

The appeal was denied.