STEPHEN J ODELL, Applicant

ARIES INDUSTRIES INC, Employer

EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY CO, 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 August 7, 2003
odellst . wsd : 175 : 9     ND  § 3.42

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James T. Flynn, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

The applicant asserts in his petition for commission review the administrative law judge erred in determining the applicant's hepatitis was not contracted as an occupational disease causing injury arising out of and performing services growing out of and incidental to his employment with the employer. The applicant contends the administrative law judge should have credited the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Trotman, who opined the applicant's chemical exposure with the employer involved elevated liver function tests, dermatitis and polyneuropathy. Specifically, the applicant contended that exposure to Acrylamide was the cause of his hepatitis. The applicant contends the administrative law judge erred in relying upon the report of Dr. Martin, who was appointed by the department to conduct a tiebreaker medical examination. The applicant points to the fact that Dr. Martin could not come up with a definitive cause for his hepatitis and contends that his exposure to work-related Acrylamide was the only reasonable cause for his condition.

However, the evidence indicates the applicant was referred to several specialists, none of whom attributed the applicant's work exposure to Acrylamide as the cause of his hepatitis. Dr. Varma saw the applicant on referral and indicated in a letter dated August 13, 1996, that the applicant's liver biopsy showed signs of cirrhosis and active hepatitis and it does not appear to be caused by exposure to job-related chemicals. The applicant also sought a second opinion from Dr. Dindzans who did not opine the applicant's hepatitis was caused by his work exposure with the employer.

Dr. Dodson reviewed the applicant's medical records and also testified at one of the four hearings in this matter, and opined that with reasonable medical certainty he did not believe the applicant's hepatitis was initiated or aggravated by his work exposure to Acrylamide while working with the employer. Dr. Dodson noted in a letter dated October 24, 1996, that from the record sent to him the only documented work environmental toxicant was a very small amount of Acrylamide. Dr. Dodson concluded the applicant has chronic cirrhotic hepatitis unrelated to his work exposure with the employer, and the skin contact may have contributed to his dermatitis. Dr. Dodson noted that no measurable amount of Acrylamide was found in the liver biopsy material.

Dr. Hegmann, who also examined the applicant, stated in a letter dated January 20, 1998, the applicant's presentation was not at all classic of Acrylamide exposure. Dr. Hegmann pointed out the applicant's presentation differed from a typical presentation. Dr. Hegmann stated in a letter on May 15, 1996, that the applicant's symptoms were consistent with Acrylamide toxicity, however, these symptoms are non-specific, and other expected findings are absent. Dr. Hegmann stated usually a patient develops dermatitis first and the applicant initially developed parasthesias and there were other findings suggestive of a diagnosis other than Acrylamide toxicity, including a negative Romberg, deep tendon reflexes and the normal electrodiagnostic study. Dr. Hegmann indicated in his WC-16-B dated March 31, 2000, the applicant's medical conditions were not in any way work related.

Dr. Martin indicated in his independent report dated September 12, 2001, the applicant's clinical course has been one of persistent liver function test elevations indicating ongoing liver damage in the absence of ongoing work exposures. Dr. Martin noted the chronic nature of the condition is further supported by two liver biopsies done 11 months apart showing no significant improvement in his liver disease although Acrylamide has a well-documented biphasic elimination pattern from the body with half lives of five hours and six to eight days. Dr. Martin stated ongoing damage is not expected in the absence of persistent exposure, and in addition the pattern of inflammation in the applicant's liver was atypical of that seen in lower dose chemical toxicity, and the applicant's liver biopsy results did not describe this pattern of damage. Dr. Martin stated the applicant has not manifested the more typical and well-described neurotoxicity for which Acrylamide is so well known and his nerve conduction studies have failed to demonstrate a peripheral neuropathy. Dr. Martin concluded the applicant's liver condition is unrelated to Acrylamide exposure in the work place.

The administrative law judge credited Dr. Martin's assessment. Based upon an independent review of the evidence in the record the commission has found nothing to warrant overturning the administrative law judge's credibility determination. Based on Dr. Martin's report which is corroborated by Dr. Dodson's findings and Dr. Hegmann's final assessment, and given the applicant's presentation as well as the objective tests, the commission agrees with the administrative law judge that the applicant's hepatitis was not contracted as an occupational disease causing injury arising out of and performing services growing out of and incidental to his employment with the employer.

The evidence also did not establish the applicant suffered any permanent disability as a result of his contact dermatitis. Dr. Trotman released the applicant to return to work without restrictions in February 1997 and did not opine the applicant suffered any permanent disability as a result of his dermatitis. Dr. Dodson opined that any Acrylamide-induced dermatitis would resolve within three to four months of exposure without any reoccurrence or permanent disability in the absence of any subsequent exposure to the substance. The commission finds the applicant did not suffer any permanent disability as a result of any contact dermatitis he contracted as a result of his exposure to Acrylamide while working for the employer.

cc: 
Attorney Catherine M. Doyle
Attorney James P. Reardon

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

uploaded 2003/08/12