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


Menu:
  •                                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-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 0313072

Filed Date: 1/15/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021