WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
decision number:
20150089
DECISION DATE:
August 27, 2015
OBJECTING PARTY:
Worker
REPRESENTED by:
Self-Represented
RESPONDENT:
Employer
REPRESENTED by:
Employer Representative
HEARING:
Hearing in Writing
HEARD by:
R. Sheridan, Appeals Resolution Officer
ISSUES:
- Case Managers’ decision of October 31, 2013 granting initial entitlement
- Case Managers’ decision of March 3, 2015 denying entitlement for Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) cost relief
BACKGROUND:
On May 24, 2013 this then 56-year-old worker reported physical symptoms after exposure to Barbeque fumes. At the time of injury the worker had been employed with (the company). as an Inventory Associate since March 25, 2006.
The worker experienced symptoms of red and swollen eyes, fluid in the nose, and a lump in her throat. She left work and went to a local emergency department where she was treated with oxygen and Benadryl.
After review the Case Manager allowed the claim for inhalation exposure. As the medical reporting did not support any lost time the claim was allowed for health care benefits only.
The employer then requested entitlement for 100% Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF) cost relief.
After review this request was denied on the basis that there was no medical documentation confirming either a pre-existing disability or a pre-existing condition.
The employer formally objected to the allowance of the claim and the denial of SIEF cost relief on July 3, 2015.
RESOLUTION METHOD AND PROCESS:
On July 31, 2015 the employer, through their representative, requested that a decision in writing be rendered.
The worker participant form was not returned regarding this objection.
This decision is therefore based on the information as contained in the Board record and as argued by the employer through the original objection form.
AUTHORITY:
Policy No: 11-01-01: Adjudicative Process
Policy No: 15-02-01: Definition of an Accident
ANALYSIS
The employer representative argued through a submission accompanying the original objection form that there is no objective medical proof that the worker has allergies to cooking smells or smoke; furthermore, that if entitlement is confirmed that the employer is entitled to 100% SIEF cost relief on the basis that the worker’s reaction was due to a pre-existing “food sensitivities”.
Based on my review of the medical information and circumstances of this case I find there is no entitlement for inhalation exposure.
- Allowance of inhalation exposure:
Policy 11-01-01, adjudicative process, stipulates that an allowable claim must have proof of accident, and compatibility of diagnosis to the accident or disablement history.
Policy 15-02-02, definition of an accident, stipulates that an accident includes a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause.
According to the worker she experienced symptoms of red and swollen eyes, fluid in the nose, and a lump in her throat after being exposed to the Barbeque smells that other employees were cooking outside of the store on the night of May 24, 2013.
She left work and went to a local emergency department where she was treated with oxygen and Benadryl.
In reviewing the medical reports on file it is noted that the worker first sought treatment at a local emergency department on the night of May 24, 2013. According to the Emergency Report she was diagnosed with inhalation exposure after inhaling propane fumes.
However, the worker reported to the employer and Case Manager that she reacted to the cooking and food fumes.
In the Nursing Record completed on May 24, 2013 it indicates that the worker was awake/alert/oriented, her circulation was normal, there was no respiratory distress, and her airway was unobstructed.
According to the family physician’s report of February 3, 2015 the only sensitivity ever noted in the worker was a localized reaction to an Adacel immunization.
According to the worker she has a long history of allergic reactions and sensitivity to strong smelling foods but that this seems only to occur at night. When this does occur it causes her to suffer migraines.
According to the worker she underwent pin prick testing for allergies which came back negative.
There is no objective medical evidence that the worker has any form of allergies.
According to the information on file the employees have had barbeques in the past and the worker has had no similar reactions.
As she had previously complained of sensitivity to the cooking smells she was offered a respiratory mask to wear to prevent any discomfort. She refused to wear this mask as it would make her feel centered out.
It is questionable that the worker has any form of allergic reaction to cooking smells as this apparently only occurs at night. If she did have a true allergy to smells it would occur whenever she was exposed.
The alleged reaction on May 24, 2013 was uncharacteristic to any prior reactions in that it supposedly caused respiratory distress and not a migraine. However the nursing notes found no objective evidence of respiratory distress.
The worker was situated in the center of the store and the barbeque was located outside of the store on the lumber pad. Even if the central door was left open during the entire cooking process the worker would not have had any direct exposure to the propane fumes or the actual smoke from the cooking.
In reviewing the file for SIEF purposes there was no objective medical evidence found to support the existence of a pre-existing disability or a pre-existing condition.
On the basis of this evidence I find there is no objective proof that the worker has any allergies or sensitivities to any form of fume or cooking exposure. As a result entitlement for inhalation exposure is denied.
- Entitlement to SIEF cost relief:
As entitlement for inhalation exposure has been revoked there is no issue pertaining to cost relief.
CONCLUSION:
I conclude that there is no objective proof that the worker has any allergies or sensitivities to any form of fume or cooking exposure. As a result entitlement for inhalation exposure is denied.
The employer’s objection is, therefore, allowed.
Dated : August 27, 2015
R. Sheridan
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division