Reading Room

A Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court has ordered that a personal computer system be furnished to a homebound former healthcare worker suffering from latex sensitivity. This ruling is consistent with a national trend by the courts toward recognizing the catastrophic impact of latex allergy on general life pursuits.

The statutory formula for compensability for occupational disease is similar to that for accidental injuries, that is, “compensation for personal injuries to or for death of such employee by any “compensable” occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment” Section 30. There appears to me to be three essential elements of Section 30. There must be an injury or death – due to a “compensable” occupational disease – which must arise out of and in the course of the employment. There is an exception for willful self-exposure but that exception has never been established, to my knowledge, so it is not that important.  The statutory formula for compensability for occupational disease is similar to that for accidental injuries: "compensation for personal injuries to or for the death of such employee by any “compensable” occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment” NJSA 34-15-30.

The rules governing when a claim must be filed as a result of occupational asbestos exposure have been changed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. A signed and sworn workers’ compensation claim petition, even though unsupported by medical diagnosis, is sufficient to impute discovery of the existence of a claim and toll the statute of limitations.

 Janeth McFarlane worked at the Baptist Hospital in Florida for approximately two years prior to November 1, 1996. She had used latex-powdered gloves. Her employer had ordered, but had not received, powder-less gloves. During her employment she did experience some respiratory difficulty but was unaware of the cause. On November 1, 1996, immediately after using latex powdered gloves, she went into respiratory failure. Her co-workers attempted to revive her but were unsuccessful. 

The Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has followed the theory adopted in most jurisdictions that each discrete reaction to latex products constitutes a separate injury.

 As the available workforce in the United States continues to decrease to historically low levels, disabled workers are being enticed to enter a trap which may lead them to jail. During the last quarter of 1999, the unemployment rate in the United States averaged 4.1%, creating a huge shortage of employable persons. 

In a landmark case, the Iowa Supreme Court decided that latex allergy/sensitivity claims are to be considered work-related accidents rather than occupational diseases and that sensitized workers are entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits including those for loss of functional ability. The Court's decision to pinpoint the reaction to a specific event rather than a long period of occupational exposure will make it easier, less complicated, and less costly for injured workers to claim benefits.  

Latex allergy sensitivity claims are becoming more common in workers’ compensation systems throughout the United States. 

 The battlefield for the assault on state workers’ compensation programs has shifted from the state capitals to the halls of Congress. Industry and their insurers are now shifting gears from an attempt at tinkering with individual systems to a more generalized approach, where assets and energies can be concentrated uniformly through Federal modification of globalized issues that will place into jeopardy the rights of workers and significantly hamper the efforts of their attorneys in seeking recovery under state workers’ compensation systems. 

The NJ Supreme Court confirmed that dependents have a separate claim and may file for benefits if the injured worker dies of a work-related disease.