Arbitrator finds no accident or causal connection in exposure claim

In Vincent Glaviano vs. Dulin Metals Company, 97 WC 60265, the petitioner alleged that he was exposed to metals and chemical solvents during his work as a plant manager.  He testified that this exposure caused fatigue, numbness in his upper arms, face and legs, memory loss, inability to focus and loss of fine motor skills.  The petitioner was plant manager for the respondent from February of 1996 through July 17, 1997.  The respondent is a broker, trader and dealer of industrial scrap metal.  The petitioner claimed he was entitled to $246,000 in TTD benefits and maximum wage differential benefits with a present cash value of $275,000. 

Arbitrator Cronin did not find the petitioner to be credible.  A representative of the insured testified that the petitioner spent little time touching metals or solvents and that the metals and solvents he did touch were not dangerous.  This contradicted the testimony of the petitioner.  There were many inconsistencies in the medical treatment records regarding complaints of his condition, including some complaints that were anatomically impossible.  The petitioner was not believable when discussing his search for employment and his inability to perform tasks.  As such, Arbitrator Cronin did not find that petitioner sustained any accident that arose out of and in the course of the petitioner's employment. 

The Arbitrator also found that the petitioner's condition was not causally connected to his employment.  The petitioner's treating physician testified that the petitioner was suffering from multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).  This assertion was refuted by the respondent's examining physician.  Arbitrator Cronin was also made aware of the 2005 case of Bernardoni vs. Industrial Commission, 362 Ill.App.3rd 582, 840 N.E. 2nd 300 (Ill.App.3 Dist. 2005), in which the 3rd District Appellate Court 22874.28 stated that MCS was not sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the medical community.  It was argued to Arbitrator Cronin that the petitioner provided no evidence that since the Bernardoni decision that this diagnosis had gained general acceptance in the medical community. 

This case was tried by Andrew Makauskas of Brady, Connolly and Masuda, P.C.  Should you have any questions regarding this decision or any other matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Makauskas.