Canadian Safety Reporter

6 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 CSR | December 2015 | News Smoke but no fire for tobacco worker's respiratory problems BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ONTARIO WORKER'S re- spiratory symptoms were not related to her job grinding to- bacco but more likely stemmed from a pre-existing condition, the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribu- nal has ruled. e 60-year-old worker was born in Poland and immi- grated to Canada in 1990. She worked in a hotel and a fac- tory before being hired by the employer, a cigarette manufac- turer, in February 2001. Some reports indicated she smoked up to 20 cigarettes a day for 11 years before coming to work for the employer, quitting in 1997. However, the worker claimed she was only a social smoker and only smoked once per month as a teenager. e worker's duties involved recording physical measure- ments of cigarettes and other tobacco products before they were tested. She also prepared tobacco samples before test- ing, which included pulling cigarettes from their packages and marking them, sometimes blocking the fi lters with tape, and laying them in a condition- ing tray. Sometimes she had to roll tobacco into cigarettes and grind tobacco leaves and other forms of tobacco. Grind- ing tobacco involved cutting cigarettes, placing them in a grinder and placing the tobac- co into a Ziploc bag. She wore a disposable respirator/mask over her mouth and nose when performing these duties. In 2005, the worker be- gan experiencing respiratory symptoms such as choking and coughing. She underwent a chest x-ray, which came up negative, and was examined by an allergy specialist. e spe- cialist couldn't identify an al- lergic cause for the symptoms, though it was noted she was on allergen immunotherapy 13 years earlier for an allergy to dust and smoke. On May 8, 2006, the worker completed a work refusal form, saying she started "coughing and sweating and I could not breathe properly and also my face turned red" while mark- ing and blocking cigarettes. Twelve days later, she stopped working due to respiratory symptoms. e employer tem- porarily assigned her to other duties such as shredding pa- per, sorting documents, and cleaning glassware in a storage room. However, she contin- ued to experience the symp- toms and went off work. e employer also purchased cus- tomized respirators for its em- ployees and the worker wore it while grinding tobacco. On May 23, the employer hired a consultant to assess the air quality and surface con- tamination of the work envi- ronment. e consultant con- cluded that all contaminants and particulates in the work- er's area fell within acceptable limits under Ontario Ministry of Labour standards. In August, the worker un- derwent a pulmonary function test, which produced inconsis- tent results. A physician found "no obvious airfl ow obstruc- tion" and a medical report in- dicated the worker's symptoms were not related to her work- place as a cause. In February 2007, the work- er underwent a CT scan of her sinuses, which were ruled "essentially unremarkable" and led to a conclusion that her symptoms did not have an occupational component. e next month, the worker returned to work and was as- signed duties in a diff erent area that didn't involve grind- ing tobacco. She measured and taped cigarettes on plates and didn't experience symptoms while performing these duties. e worker gradually re- sumed her regular duties that included grinding tobacco, by October 2008 in a diff erent building. However, her symp- toms of coughing and sweating returned. On Oct. 10, 2008, she stopped working and indicated she suff ered from respiratory problems related to grinding tobacco that had begun in May 2006. e worker submitted a functional abilities form from her doctor saying she should avoid grinding tobacco due to "reactive airways" when exposed to toboacco dust. In January 2009, the employer informed the worker it was unable to provide an environ- ment free of tobacco dust. It terminated her employment in the spring of 2009. e worker applied for workers' compensation bene- fi ts for "a cough and an onset of a general unwell feeling" stem- ming from her work grinding tobacco. She was unable to re- turn to any type of work since October 2008 due to anxiety and distress over her work situation, as well as "asthma exacerbation and bronchitis" in February 2011. e tribunal found that the evidence didn't support the conclusion that the worker's job signifi cantly contributed to her respiratory symptoms. Under the province's work- ers' compensation legislation and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board operational policy manual, an injury had to be caused by a workplace acci- dent in the course of employ- ment. e tribunal found medical reports indicated the worker had pre-existing and non- occupational allergy prob- lems dating back to before she worked for the employer. Reports also found no link be- tween her job and the symp- toms, and an assessment found the work environment to be safe. In addition, there were pe- riods of time when the worker ground tobacco and didn't suf- fer from the symptoms, with no change in her exposure levels. As a result, the worker's symptoms could not be caus- ally linked to her employment, nor could any psychotraumatic condition related to the symp- toms or her inability to work. See Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tri- bunal Decision No. 1495/14, 2015 CarswellOnt 13683 (Ont. W.S.I.A.T.). Credit: Shutterstock

• Cover