WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
decision number: 20100021
OBJECTION BY: Widow
PARTICIPANTS: Widow, Widow’s representative
HEARING: N/A
ISSUE
The widow claims entitlement for the worker’s colon cancer as caused by his exposure to asbestos in his employment between 1969 and 1982.
HOW THE ISSUE ARISES
This claim was initiated with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) for colon cancer which the worker claimed was related to his employment exposures to asbestos in various jobs between 1969 and 1982.
The WSIB had accepted a claim for pleural plaques, without evidence of a permanent impairment.
In order to determine the worker’s exposures, a statement was obtained from him and a co-worker. It was confirmed that between 1969 and 1982, he may have had intermittent and occasional exposure to asbestos. The worker’s employment history documented on file indicates that he was employed from July 1969 to June 1971 as a parts clerk at an automotive dealer. He worked in the parts area and entered the garage three to four times per day. In this area, the mechanics blew out brake drums and worked on asbestos brake shoes. He entered this area occasionally and was also exposed to asbestos from packing away the used brake pads.
From June 1971 to August 1971 (three months) he worked as a truck driver and did not have any asbestos exposure.
From September 1971 to April 1972, he worked in packaging at a chemical company and did not have asbestos exposure.
From April 1972 to June 1972 he worked as a parts manager performing counter and inventory work with a car dealership. He had occasional exposure to asbestos from the packaged packaging of used brake shoes.
From July 1972 to July 1982 he worked as a truck driver. He was exposed to a number of chemicals during the loading and unloading process. He travelled to various plants in the chemical valley (Sarnia Area). He delivered regularly to Sarnia area foundry. The worker himself stated that as a truck driver during this interval, he took approximately one hour at each delivery. He did five to ten deliveries a day.
The worker indicated that from 1982 up to the time of the establishment of the claim (2004), he did not have asbestos exposure as he was employed in a supervisory capacity.
The WSIB accepted the earlier claim for pleural plaques likely related to his exposure to asbestos from the brake dust and from his deliveries at the foundry.
The medical evidence indicated that the worker was diagnosed with colon cancer in May 2007. Unfortunately, the cancer spread to his liver and he passed away on October 11, 2008.
The claim was denied on the basis that the worker’s exposure to asbestos did not meet the Operational Policy Manual (OPM) document of a clear and adequate history of occupational exposure. It was determined that the worker’s exposure was not of a continuous and repetitive nature.
AUTHORITY REFERENCE
Operational Policy Manual (OPM) Document 16-02-11 – Gastro-Intestinal Cancer-Asbestos Exposure.
Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (the Act) Section 2 (1) and 15
RESOLUTION METHOD AND PROCESS
The representative made a written submission dated February 17, 2010.
ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
WSIB OPM Document 16-02-11 allows for entitlement of gastro-intestinal cancer in asbestos workers as peculiar to and characteristic of a process, trade or occupation involving exposure to asbestos. The WSIB OPM document notes that based on medical studies, claims are favourably considered if the following circumstances apply:
- there is a clear and adequate history of occupational exposure to asbestos dust, and while such occupational exposure cannot be quantitatively described, it should be of a continuous and repetitive nature, and should represent or be a manifestation of the major component of the occupational activity,
AND
- There is a minimum interval of 20 years between the first exposure to asbestos and the diagnosis of gastro-intestinal cancer.
The worker meets the latency of 20 years as he was first exposed to asbestos around 1969 and diagnosed with the colon cancer in 2007.
The question is whether the worker meets the criteria of a clear and adequate history of occupational exposure to asbestos dust and whether the exposure was of a continuous and repetitive nature which represented the major component of the occupational activity.
With respect to the worker’s exposure to asbestos dust, the available evidence on file does not support that there is a clear and adequate history of occupational exposure to asbestos dust. In addition, the exposure to asbestos dust was not of a continuous and repetitive nature and did not represent the major component of his occupational activity. I note the following:
The worker provided a statement to the claims adjudicator under his prior claim and this is contained in the Memo dated January 6, 2004. The worker indicated that he was employed as a truck driver from 1972 to 1982 and delivered products to plants in the chemical valley, including Holmes, Dow Chemical and Imperial. He loaded and unloaded items inside the plants, which took approximately one hour each delivery. He did five to ten deliveries a day. He delivered insulation, chemical products (bags and drums), and general merchandise. Although the worker did not know for certain how he was exposed to asbestos, he believed it may have been in use in the plants he visited on a daily basis or in products he delivered.
The worker also noted that in his earlier employment with the car dealerships, he worked in the parts department and entered the service area where he was exposed to asbestos when mechanics cleaned brake drums with air hoses. He noted that he worked near the garage and entered the area on average three to four times per day. He also packaged the old brake linings for return.
The similar employment history is confirmed in the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers (OHCOW) report on file.
The available evidence therefore does not support that the workers occupational exposure to asbestos dust was of a continuous and repetitive nature. In his job at the car dealerships, the worker was exposed to asbestos occasionally when entering the work area which he noted to be three to four times per day. In addition, he also packaged the used brake pads for shipping elsewhere.
At his truck driving job between 1972 and 1982, he did five to ten deliveries per day and spent approximately one hour at each delivery. He agreed that there was the possibility of exposure to asbestos dust at the locations themselves or from delivering material. In addition, he noted that he may have been exposed to asbestos while cleaning out his truck. All of these activities on a daily basis were intermittent and not continuous.
The fact that the worker suffered with pleural plaques is not an indication of the intensity or severity of his asbestos exposure. This is confirmed by the opinion of Dr. T in his letter of October 5, 2009 to the representative. He states the following:
“For the purposes of medical surveillance, the presence of pleural plaques does constitute evidence of exposure to asbestos. However, the development of pleural plaques can be highly variable in different individuals. There is a relationship between the development of pleural plaques and “time since first exposure” as well as a dose response relationship. However, the presence of pleural plaques in any one individual cannot be equated with a certain degree of cumulative exposure or duration of exposure, based on the current literature…”
With respect to other causal factors, following are a list of known causes of colon cancer which is the third leading cause of cancer in males, the fourth leading cause of cancer in females, in North America.
Diet. Diets high in fat are believed to predispose humans to colorectal cancer. In countries with high colorectal cancer rates, the fat intake by the population is much higher than in countries with low cancer rates.
Colon Polyps. The worker did have colon polyps on examination.
Ulcerative Colitis.
Little is known about the workers dietary habits and his family history appears to be negative for colon cancer.
Having reviewed the available evidence, I conclude that the weight of the evidence does not support that the worker meets the criteria for a clear and adequate history of occupational exposure to asbestos dust which was of a continuous and repetitive nature and represented the major component of his occupational activity. The causal relationship has not been established between the development of the workers colon cancer and his occasional and intermittent exposure to asbestos.
CONCLUSION
A causal relationship has not been established between the worker’s development of colon cancer and his employment exposures to asbestos.
The objection of the widow is denied.
Dated: March 23, 2010
N. Kissoore
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Branch