Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Appeals Resolution Officer Decision
Decision Number: 20150038
Decision Date: April 25, 2015
Objecting Party: Worker
Represented by: Worker Representative
Respondent: Employer
Represented by: Employer Representative
Hearing: Hearing in Writing
Heard by: L. Diaz, Appeals Resolution Officer
ISSUE
The worker is objecting to the restriction of all epoxy use, contending the only precaution required is to avoid exposure to high volume or frequency use of epoxy L-5105. The employer concurs with this precaution.
BACKGROUND
Entitlement in the claim was granted in January 2014 for allergic dermatitis related to the worker’s occupational exposures to epoxy resin. In July 2012, the worker sought medical attention for swollen and red eyes. Patch testing in October 2012 confirmed an allergy to epoxy resin for this then 43 year old worker. The worker was granted a 3% Non-Economic Loss (NEL) award on October 17, 2014 for her allergic contact dermatitis related to epoxy resin.
Adjudicator’s decision
According to the January 15, 2014 decision which granted entitlement in the claim for allergic dermatitis, it was also determined the worker was permanently restricted from exposure to epoxy.
Worker’s position
The worker contends the only epoxy she cannot work with is L-5105, and that she should not be restricted from working with the other epoxies.
AUTHORITY
The following Operational Policies apply:
11-01-01 Adjudicative Process
11-01-02 Decision-Making
11-01-05 Determining Maximum Medical Recovery (in effect until October 31, 2014)
ANALYSIS
I find the present medical evidence does not support the worker is only permanently restricted from working with the specific epoxy L-5105. Policy 11-01-05, Determining Maximum Medical Recovery, identifies that decision-makers determine when MMR is reached and a permanent impairment is evident principally by reviewing medical evidence such as clinical reports, specialist’s reports, and other medical opinions and reports.
The worker first sought medical attention for her condition at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre on July 26, 2012. The report indicated the worker had itchy eyes last night and in the morning awakened with both eyes lids swollen, running and red. Although it was noted the worker had no allergies, the final diagnosis was ‘allergy’. The worker returned to the Peterborough Emergency room the following day with worsening symptoms. Prednisone was prescribed.
On August 15, 2012, the worker was assessed by an Allergist & Immunologist who documented the onset of symptoms, as noted in the emergency reports. He recorded the only thing different about her work was that the resin had quite a pungent odour. He indicated he would attempt to secure the epoxy resin MSDS sheets for review. By September 5, 2012, the specialist was of the opinion the worker could return to her previous work area, which would help in determining whether her problem was indeed work-related. His September 26, 2012 follow-up report confirmed that after returning to her regular work, the following morning she woke up with a swollen right eyelid.
The worker underwent a dermatological assessment on October 1, 2012. Patch testing to the North American standard and preservative series, with readings at 48 and 72 hours confirmed the worker tested positive to epoxy resin. No further medical information was submitted to file for review.
The employer indicated in their submission the worker did not report any difficulties working with any epoxy other than the Red Resin Epoxy, L-5105. It was noted on particular days to which she was exposed to other epoxies such as L-5142 that she had no reaction to it. The worker had a reaction to exposure to L-5105 epoxy in (a particular) department – it was the only area where she had a problem as the exposure was greater in that department. She was also exposed to other epoxies in the same department, however, reported no reactions to them. In addition, the worker advised the employer that at one time she was reacting mostly at home. In summary, the worker and employer contended they did not agree that she has a permanent restriction which included exposure to all epoxies.
In response to the above concerns raised, it is quite possible, as was noted in part by the employer, that there may be a correlation between the quantity of the epoxy resin exposure and the onset or degree of the allergic reaction. Nonetheless, the issue of quantity would not negate the positive allergic findings.
The second and more important issue raised by the employer and the worker is their belief that the worker is only allergic to the L-5105. Although they were of the view the worker did not develop symptoms while exposed to other epoxies such as the L-5142, the possibility exists that the lack of symptoms might be due to having taken medication such as Prednisone at the time, or it could also have been due to the quantity of the exposure in question.
Although the possibility exists the worker may in fact only be allergic to a certain type of epoxy resin, namely the L-5105, the current medical information confirms an allergy to epoxy resin in general. The available medical evidence does not distinguish between an allergy to one single type of epoxy. As a result, in the absence of medical information confirming otherwise, I cannot conclude the worker is only allergic to the L-5105 epoxy resin. Consequently, at present, I find the restriction of avoiding exposure to all epoxies is appropriate.
Should additional detailed medical information be submitted to file to support the worker’s and employer’s contention that the worker is only allergic to the epoxy L-5105, then this decision may certainly be reconsidered.
CONCLUSION
I conclude the worker’s restriction has been correctly determined to include the avoidance of all epoxy resin exposure.
The worker’s objection is therefore denied.
DATED April 24, 2015
L. Diaz
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division