Infineon Technologies North America Company and v. Dana H. Chase ( 2008 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES
NORTH AMERICA COMPANY AND
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY
OF AMERICA
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0313-07-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
JANUARY 15, 2008
DANA H. CHASE
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Anne C. Byrne (Warren H. Britt; Warren H. Britt, P.C., on brief), for
appellants.
No brief or argument for appellee.
Infineon Technologies North America Company and its insurer appeal an award of
benefits to Dana H. Chase. Finding the evidence supports the commission’s decision that the
claimant had a compensable occupational disease, we affirm.
The claimant began working for the employer in February 2003. On March 3, 2003, she
was exposed to chemicals at work and developed allergy symptoms, including burning eyes and
headaches. She received treatment at the hospital in April 2003 and twice in May 2003.
Initially, her symptoms improved when she was not in the workplace, but increased upon her
return to work. The claimant stopped working for the employer in May 2003. The parties
stipulated that the claimant suffered from an occupational disease caused by chemical exposure
in May 2003 while working for the employer.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
The employer contends that it is no longer obligated to pay compensation benefits
because “once an employee is no longer working in the injurious exposure environment and has
completely recovered from a disabling condition due to exposure to that environment, . . . the
employer no longer has any obligation to pay compensation benefits.” Snellings v.
Commonwealth of Virginia, V.W.C. File No. 138-66-86 (December 21, 1989). The employer
argues the medical records and the claimant’s own testimony establish that her symptoms resolve
when she is not exposed to the chemicals in her workplace.
The commission did not make the factual findings upon which the employer’s argument
rests: “We do not believe that the claimant’s condition was resolved . . . .” It found that the
claimant presently required periodic treatment for her condition and that she suffered from daily
symptoms for which she used an inhaler. The commission noted that she was unable to return to
her pre-injury work as well as to other work environments because of her condition and because
of multiple chemical sensitivities following workplace exposure. 1
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party
below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990).
Factual findings made by the commission will be upheld on appeal if supported by credible
evidence. See James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488
1
The commission concluded as follows:
[T]his evidence showed that the claimant continued to suffer from
disabling symptoms from her occupational asthma, requiring
medical treatment, and was not able to return to her pre-injury
work, as well as to other offending work environments. We do not
believe that the claimant’s condition was resolved, and that she
simply should avoid the employer’s workplace, but that the
evidence showed that the claimant had developed a peculiar
sensitivity to a particular type of working environment as a result
of the workplace exposure, and thus that her ability to return to
unrestricted, pre-injury work was diminished thereby.
-2-
(1989). Credible evidence supports the commission’s finding that the claimant was partially
disabled as a result of her exposure to chemicals in her pre-injury work.
The claimant stated she had not returned to the emergency room, but she never stated she
did not require further medical treatment. She admitted that she could work, but she could only
do so “in an environment that [she is] not going to be subjected to heavy fumes and . . .
chemicals.”
Dr. Sarah Shahab examined the claimant on June 30, 2003 and diagnosed her as suffering
from “[r]eactive airway disease secondary to probable occupational exposure.” Dr. Shahab
opined that given the claimant’s history, she should be permitted to change her work location,
but that she could continue to work in the same industry as long as good ventilation is provided
and the exposure is not present.
Dr. Kevin Cooper, a pulmonologist, performed an independent medical examination on
August 20, 2004. Dr. Cooper noted that since leaving the employer, the claimant is “more
sensitive to all types of airborne odors and irritants and has had to limit her travel away from
home to places where the air quality is likely to be good.” He noted that the claimant suffers
from a “daily cough, and wheezes several times a week,” and that she successfully treats these
symptoms with an albuterol inhaler. Dr. Cooper also noted that the claimant suffers from chest
tightness and shortness of breath, along with the wheezing, which is usually provoked by some
exposure to an airborne irritant.
Dr. Cooper opined with reasonable medical probability that the claimant had “developed
occupational asthma as a result of the chemical exposures at Infineon Technologies between
February and May 2003.” He indicated that “[o]ccupational asthma is known to occur in
workers exposed to the microchip manufacturing environment.” He reported that the claimant
“also has multiple chemical sensitivities following this exposure.” He opined, “She is not able to
-3-
work in an environment which would expose her to chemical odors, or other odors that are
intolerable.” He recommended “regular treatment with an inhaled steroid” and for the claimant
to avoid workplaces with air irritants. He concluded:
Although removal from the exposure to causative chemicals is
necessary, it may not be sufficient to resolve the asthma. In other
words, exposure to chemical irritants will make her worse, but
avoidance of exposure may still leave her with asthma symptoms
and the need for long term or lifelong medication. Long term
medical care provided by a physician experienced in treating
asthma will most likely be needed.
The commission found the evidence showed the claimant had not obtained her pre-injury
status. The claimant had not recovered from her disabling condition caused by exposure; she
was not cured. She did not come within the factual predicate of the commission’s holding in
Snellings. The evidence supported a finding that the claimant was currently partially disabled in
that she continued to suffer from symptoms related to the allergic chemical reaction and was
unable to perform her pre-injury work. Accordingly, we affirm the commission’s decision.
Affirmed.
-4-