RICHARD IHLENFELD, Applicant

JOURNAL SENTINEL INC, Employer

JOURNAL SENTINEL INC, Insurer

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Worker's Compensation Division of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and order in that decision as its own.

The findings and order of the administrative law judge are affirmed.

Dated and mailed December 9, 2002
ilhenfe . wsd : 101 : 9  ND § 5.32

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner

The applicant was born in 1948. He claims disability from a lung condition, pulmonary vasculitis with pulmonary hemorrhage. The dispute in this case, simply put, is whether the applicant's work exposure to chemicals in the employer's pressroom caused his condition.

In support of his assertion that his condition was caused by work, the applicant submits a practitioner's report on form WKC-16B signed by Arthur C. Chrisostomo, M.D.   Dr. Chrisostomo opined that the applicant's employment caused his condition both by aggravating, accelerating, and precipitating beyond normal progression a pre-existing degenerative condition, and by an appreciable period of workplace exposure that was at least a material contributory causative factor in the onset or progression of the condition.

However, the medical notes attached to Dr. Chrisostomo's practitioner's report contain little if any description of the applicant's workplace exposure to chemicals or other substances, let alone any explanation of how the exposure could cause pulmonary vasculitis. Nor do the notes at exhibits D and E provide much support. While exhibit E contains notes dated September 9, 1999, from Kenneth Urlakis, M.D., and David Sickel, M.D., which describe the onset of symptoms at work, neither doctor states how, or if, work exposure caused the symptoms.

The applicant does, of course, provide the report of Donald P. Schlueter, M.D., who did a record review for the employer's insurer. Exhibit B. Dr. Schlueter did not actually offer an opinion on causation. However, his report is significant for three statements:

• "There were 37 material safety data sheets for products that Mr. Ihlenfeld may have had exposure to as a pressman. Eight of these products contain chemicals that exposure to vapor concentrations in excess of the OSHA exposure limits (TWS) may cause respiratory system irritation. These chemicals are primarily aliphatic hydrocarbons and solvents. None of these chemicals have been implicated as a cause of the pulmonary hemorrhage syndrome." Exhibit B, page 5.
• "It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that Mr. Ihlenfeld should not return to any work environment where there is a potential for exposure to inhaled chemical irritants." Exhibit B, page 7.
• "It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that Mr. Ihlenfeld is totally and permanently disabled from his position as pressman." Exhibit B, page 7.

The employer, meanwhile, submits the report of Stuart Levy, M.D., dated April 17. 2002. His apparent diagnosis is paucimmune pulmonary capillaritis, which he felt was unrelated to the applicant's work. He specifically said that none of the chemicals which the applicant would have been exposed to at work would have caused the condition. He did, however, opine that the applicant should not return to work because the effect of one or more of the chemicals at work could conceivably cause an adverse reaction. He also advised the applicant to avoid irritant dust, fumes and smoke. Exhibit 2, report of Levy, pages 6 and 7.

The applicant contends that this case is governed by the Wagner-Butler doctrine (1),  and cites two prior commission decisions, Michael J. Verba v. Miniature Precision Components, WC Claim No. 1996056345 (LIRC, August 31, 1998) and Monna Sue N. Parker v. Lincoln Lutheran Racine, WC Claim Nos. 1996064027, 1998013720 (LIRC, March 5, 1999).

In both Parker and Verba, however, the commission first considered whether work exposure to chemicals was actually causally related to the claimed disability; in other words, whether the exposure caused the permanent sensitization. In Parker, the employer conceded a pulmonary injury, and in Verba, the IME acknowledged that workplace exposure to isocyanates permanently sensitized the worker. In this case, however, the ALJ declined to find a causal connection between the applicant's work exposure and his disability or "sensitization."

The commission agrees with the ALJ in this regard. Again, Dr. Chrisostomo's notes do not explain how or why he believes the workplace exposure to chemicals caused the applicant to be permanently disabled. Indeed, his notes neither mention sensitization nor describe the applicant's workplace exposure. In contrast, both Dr. Schlueter and Levy, while acknowledging that the applicant should not be exposed to certain chemicals or irritants, considered the chemicals to which the applicant was exposed at work and either opined expressly (Levy) or suggested inferentially (Schlueter) that the exposure did not cause the applicant's respiratory problems. On this record, the commission cannot find a that the applicant has shown an injury arising out of his employment with the employer.

cc: 
Attorney Paul M. Erspamer
Attorney Kurt Anderson

[ Search Decisions ] - [ WC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]

(1)( Back ) See: Wagner v. Industrial Commission, 273 Wis. 2d 553 (1956); Butler v. ILHR Department, 57 Wis. 2d 190, 195-197 (1973); and Neal & Danas, Worker's Compensation Handbook § 5.32 (4th ed. 1997).

uploaded 2002/12/23