Fwd: [CS-eXchange] Commission rejects chemical sensitivity claim

[Guest guest]

notice the claim of MCS! when will people realize that insisting it be called

MCS will red flag this and Daubert will kill it

Friday, April 9, 2010

Commission rejects chemical sensitivity claim

The Comission affirms a denial of a chemical sensitivity claim, afteraffirming a

permanent total award last year with similar allegations.

Claimant became short of breath, dizzy, and nauseous after working inher

employer’s greenhouses, and states spraying plants periodicallyover 2 ½ years

caused multiple chemical sensitivity.. She stated sheeven had an " attack " during

an IME and couldn’t tolerate her ownexpert’s cologne.

Claimant treated for several years with Dr.Sultan for chemical sensitivity

since the 1998 exposure and uses a " detox " cocktail. Dr. Sultan advised her to

change jobs and work onlyin a " clean " environment. He did not testify in her

claim for permanentand total disability, and the employer objected to another

experttestifying about Dr. Sultan’s causation opinions. Claimant states sheis

a recluse and rid her home of chemical products and changed her dietdue to food

sensitivities. Dr. Feinberg, a pain management expertretained by her attorney,

concluded that claimant was unemployable.

TheCommission affirmed a denial of the claim. Claimant and her expert werenot

found to be credible. Claimant described inconsistent symptoms. Sheprovided no

medical support for her claims of fibromyalgia and latexallergy (including

multiple normal RAST tests). Claimant’s expert wasfound less qualified. He did

not fully consider her entire history thatincluded prior complaints of headache,

nausea and fatigue and asthmaDr. Belz, the employer’s expert, indicated that

the diagnosis ofchemical sensitivity is not generally recognized in the

medicalcommunity.

The case demonstrates the importance of an expert’squalifications relative to

other experts. No explanation is indicatedwhy Dr. Sultan, as a treating expert,

did not testify.

TheCommission affirmed a permanent and total disability award last year ina

similar chemical sensitivity case. Lewry v City of Kansas City,involved another

patient of Dr. Sultan who alleged symptoms arisingfrom exposure to pesticides

and unknown chemicals. In Lewry, claimantreported tremors and described

irregular use of protective gear. Theadministrative law judge in Lewry, by

contrast, criticized theemployer’s expert, Dr. Parmet, as less credible

because he had the " pre-conceived " notion that multiple chemical sensitivity did

not existas a " real " diagnosis.

　

www.labor.mo.gov/LIRC/Forms/WC_Decisions/WCDEC10/ManionC.pdf

www.labor.mo.gov/LIRC/Forms/WC_Decisions/WCDEC09/LewryB.pdf