You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Sickness >> Occupational Injury Benefit 

Occupational Injury Benefit Case 2

Question At Issue:

Whether the appellant suffered a prescribed disease within the meaning of the Occupational Injuries Benefit legislation.

Background:

The appellant worked for a health care company for almost 13 years, until she was diagnosed with asthma in 1998. Following that diagnosis, she was on sick leave until 2003 when she resigned her position with the company. Her claim to Occupational Injuries Benefit was rejected on grounds that she did not suffer from a prescribed disease within the meaning of the governing legislation.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant was accompanied by her husband. The Appeals Officer outlined the question at issue and advised the appellant as to the evidence she had before her.

The appellant outlined the background to her illness. She reported that she had worked in a room where penicillin powder was bottled. The process involved scooping penicillin powder from a drum into a bottling machine. The bottles were then packed into boxes but the contents of reject bottles were emptied back into a drum. She said that the process of emptying the bottles released a lot of powder into the atmosphere. She reported that her skin became very dry and that she experienced breathing difficulties. She reported a particular incident where she had to scoop up spilt powder with her hands in order to dispose of it. She reported experiencing breathing difficulties shortly after this incident. She said that the problem became worse over time and that she was often absent from work in the following years. Her family doctor diagnosed bronchitis and prescribed steroids for short periods. She said that when the condition improved, following treatment, she used to return to work. She contended, however, that her condition always deteriorated on resumption of work. Her asthma was diagnosed in 1998 by a consultant in respiratory medicine and a copy of his report had been submitted in advance of the oral hearing. The appellant reported that she had taken a civil action against her employer and that it had been settled out of court.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer concluded that the appellant’s illness did not fall within the list of prescribed diseases, given that exposure to penicillin is not prescribed in relation to occupational asthma. She considered also whether the appellant’s asthma might be deemed to have resulted from an accident at work but was satisfied that the sequence of events outlined by the appellant did not support such a conclusion. She considered that this was an instance of a disease which, though clearly attributable to employment, is not a prescribed disease covered by the legislation. In the circumstances, she concluded that the appeal could not succeed.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document