You are here: Home >> Case Studies >>Sickness>> Occupational Injuries Benefit
Question At Issue:
Whether the appellant’s incapacity for work was caused by a prescribed disease developed due to the nature of his insurable employment.
Background:
The appellant was employed by a local authority for four years. He and two others were responsible for the maintenance of a number of graveyards, which involved grass cutting. In the first year, he used a hand scythe and had no problems. In the second year, he used a power strimmer which made dust of the grass and created a fog. He developed a respiratory illness, diagnosed as ‘Farmer’s Lung’, which he regards as being brought on by the nature of his insurable employment. He made a claim for Occupational Injuries benefit and his case was referred to the Chief Medical Adviser, who was of the opinion that the illness was not due to the nature of his insurable employment. On the basis of that advice, the Deciding Officer disallowed his claim.
Oral Hearing:
The appellant attended
accompanied by his Solicitor. He stated that he
had contracted ‘Farmer’s Lung’ during his
employment with a local authority. He
recounted that during two rainy summers when
the grass was wet, there was a constant damp
spray hitting him in the face. He was later
informed that there were fungi in the lower part
of the wet grass and that he had inhaled the
particles as they were disturbed and made
airborne by the action of the strimmer.
The appellant had worked on family farm since
he was 16 years old. The Appeals Officer asked him why he believed that he had
developed the illness from his work for the local
authority, rather than from the farm work. The
appellant explained that it was not until he
started using the power strimmer in his
insurable employment that he developed
respiratory problems. He advised that he was
supplied with a protective mask in 2003 and that
no new symptoms developed. He reported that
he had attended a consultant respiratory
physician who was of the opinion that he was
suffering from a rare type of ‘Farmer’s Lung’
disease which was due to hypersensitivity to
fungi, where symptoms develop after working
with damp silage or hay.
Consideration of the Appeals Officer:
The
Appeals Officer had no doubt that appellant had
contracted ‘Farmers Lung’. The question to be
determined was whether –
a) it was as a result of his occupation, and
b) his occupation could be regarded as a
prescribed occupation as laid down in the
legislation.
The Appeals Officer noted that the opinion from
the Chief Medical Adviser was in respect of
cutting fresh growing grass rather than mouldy
rotting material. The consultant physician had
confirmed that the condition would not be
caused by the inhalation of fresh grass, but by
the inhalation of any decomposing matter such
as disturbed soil or fungi. The evidence
available indicated that the graveyards were not
cut on a regular basis; therefore, the grass
being cut was often more akin to hay which
could be mouldy at the base. The Appeals
Officer considered it probable that the actions of
the strimmer would have disturbed this mould
and caused it to be airborne. As the evidence
indicated that the appellant did not have a mask,
he would undoubtedly have inhaled the airborne
particles.
With regard to the first question, the Appeals
Officer considered that while it is possible that
the appellant may have contracted the condition
from farming, the evidence as to the timeframe
of onset and development of the disease meant
it could equally have arisen from his work in the
graveyard. On the second question, the Appeals
Officer considered that the appellant’s
employment could come under the broad
heading of agriculture or horticultural work.
Outcome:
Appeal allowed.
End of Document
