COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

RONALD R. TOLBERT, JR. 

v. Record No. 1233-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

ELECTROLUX CORPORATION OCTOBER 10, 1995 

AND 

EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Ronald R. Tolbert, Jr., pro se, on briefs). 

 (Ramesh Murthy; Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, 

on brief), for appellees. 

 Ronald R. Tolbert, Jr. contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that he failed to prove 

that his allergic rhinitis and sinusitis were occupational 

diseases caused by his employment. Pursuant to Rule 5A:21(b), 

Electrolux Corporation ("employer") raises the additional 

question of whether the commission erred in finding that 

Tolbert's application was not barred by the applicable statute of 

limitations. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the 

parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 

5A:27. 

 I. Background 

 For ten years, Tolbert has worked as a molding machine 

operator in employer's manufacturing plant. In this job, he 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

operates a machine which produces vacuum cleaner parts. Tolbert 

testified that, in the fall of 1991, he began experiencing nasal 

stuffiness at work. He testified that his symptoms increased 

during the course of his work shift. Tolbert alleged that these 

problems were caused by his exposure to filtered air at work. He 

also testified that over a period of months his symptoms 

worsened, and he developed respiratory problems. He also began 

to experience dizziness, elevated blood pressure, and chest 

tightness. Tolbert, who is thirty-six years old, testified that 

he smoked a pack of cigarettes per day for eighteen to twenty 

years. Currently, he smokes a half a pack per day. 

 In March 1992, Tolbert sought medical treatment from Dr. 

Douglas Pote. Dr. Pote diagnosed hypertension, migraines, and 

dizziness. After Tolbert was given an MRI, Dr. Pote diagnosed 

sinusitis and dizziness. Dr. Pote prescribed a course of 

antibiotics and reported that Tolbert's sinuses had returned to 

normal on June 15, 1992. Dr. Pote's medical records do not 

indicate that Tolbert reported that his work environment was 

causing his symptoms; his records do not indicate any comment 

from Dr. Pote on causation. 

 On June 18, 1992, Tolbert sought medical treatment from Dr. 

Carol Dewey, a family practitioner. At that time, he complained 

of migraines, dizziness, increased heart rate, and chest pain; he 

also told Dr. Dewey that heat and smoke triggered respiratory 

problems. Tolbert also mentioned to Dr. Dewey that his symptoms 
 3 

increased when he was in his mother's house and in air 

conditioned stores. Dr. Dewey diagnosed sinusitis, allergic 

rhinitis, and vertigo. 

 Dr. Dewey referred Tolbert to Dr. R. Alan Davis, an ear, 

nose, and throat specialist. Dr. Davis performed an audiogram 

and an ENG, both of which were normal. Finding no abnormality in 

Tolbert's sinuses or eustachian tubes, Dr. Davis referred him 

back to Dr. Dewey and recommended that Tolbert undergo 

psychological therapy and allergy testing. Dr. Davis noted that 

Tolbert believed his allergy symptoms were related to exposure to 

air conditioning at work; Dr. Davis did not render an opinion on 

causation. 

 In the fall of 1992, Dr. W. Jan Kazmier performed allergy 

tests on Tolbert which revealed that he is allergic to mold 

spores. Dr. Kazmier informed Dr. Dewey that Tolbert believed 

dust exposure, leaf-raking, and hay aggravated his allergy 

symptoms. Dr. Kazmier diagnosed nonallergic rhinitis and 

recommended that Tolbert avoid irritants and stop smoking. Dr. 

Kazmier noted that air conditioning vents, smoke and perfumes can 

also increase nasal stuffiness and chest congestion. Dr. Kazmier 

did not render an opinion on causation. 

 Dr. Dewey informed Tolbert that it was highly likely that 

mold was a factor in causing his respiratory problems and that 

air conditioning vents are a perfect environment for mold. Dr. 

Dewey admitted she could not identify the specific mold which 
 4 

could have caused Tolbert's allergic reaction nor could she state 

where Tolbert was originally exposed to the molds which caused 

his allergy symptoms. Dr. Dewey acknowledged that Tolbert's 

symptoms occurred in employment and non-employment settings. She 

agreed that Tolbert's mold allergy could be triggered in any 

environment that has filtered air, such as shopping malls and 

office buildings, and she opined that Tolbert's work environment 

and exposure to air conditioning exacerbated his allergy symptoms 

and were precipitating factors in causing his respiratory 

problems. 

 Dr. Dewey also listed dust, pollen, grass, perfume, and 

animal dander as other potential causes of Tolbert's allergy 

symptoms. Although her report did not specifically address 

Tolbert's pets, Tolbert has five cats living on his home's 

enclosed porch and he has approximately forty to fifty tropical 

birds living in his home. In addressing causation, Mr. Dewey 

stated, "One can't cause allergic rhinitis, one can be allergic 

to an allergen." 

II. Occupational Disease

 The commission ruled that the evidence did not prove that 

Tolbert had an occupational disease as defined by Code 

§ 65.2-400. In so ruling, the commission found that the evidence 

established that Tolbert's allergic reaction could be triggered 

by exposures independent of his workplace. This finding is 

supported by credible evidence consisting of Tolbert's testimony 
 5 

and the medical records. Because the issue whether a disease is 

an occupational disease is a medical issue to be decided by the 

commission upon credible evidence, we affirm that decision. See

Ross Labs v. Barbour, 13 Va. App. 373, 377, 412 S.E.2d 205, 208 

(1991); Knott v. Blue Bell, Inc., 7 Va. App. 335, 338, 373 S.E.2d 

481, 483 (1988). 

 III. Ordinary Disease of Life Analysis 

 For an ordinary disease of life to be treated as an 

occupational disease, Tolbert was required to establish by clear 

and convincing evidence, to a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty, that the disease arose out of and in the course of the 

employment, that it did not result from causes outside the 

employment, that it is characteristic of the employment, and that 

it was caused by conditions peculiar to the employment. Code 

§ 65.2-401; Greif Companies v. Sipe, 16 Va. App. 709, 714, 434 

S.E.2d 314, 317-18 (1993). 

 In denying compensation to Tolbert, the commission found as 

follows: 

 The evidence here establishes that 

exposure to air conditioning systems at the 

work place caused [Tolbert's] allergic 

rhinitis to become symptomatic beginning 

approximately in the Fall of 1991. However, 

the evidence also shows that [Tolbert] had 

substantial exposure to causes of that 

condition injury [sic] outside the work 

place, in shopping malls and neighbors' 

homes, and even in the home of his mother. 

It appears that the aggregate exposures 

caused his symptomatic allergic rhinitis and 

sinusitis to develop, possibly including the 

exposure to filtered and conditioned air at 

work. However, it is equally likely that the 
 6 

nonwork exposures initially triggered his 

allergic reaction, and the work exposure only 

further aggravated the resulting condition. 

At most, [Tolbert's] evidence shows only that 

the work exposures contributed with the 

nonwork exposures to produce the injury, but 

the evidence does not establish that the 

primary exposure is at work or that his 

condition did not result from causes 

independent of the employment. Rather the 

evidence shows substantial exposure to 

potential causes of the condition outside the 

workplace, which would preclude a finding of 

a compensable occupational disease. 

 Tolbert's testimony and the medical evidence amply support 

the commission's decision. The evidence established that 

Tolbert's allergy symptoms were triggered in non-employment and 

employment settings. Dr. Dewey did not opine that the air 

conditioning system or mold in Tolbert's workplace caused his 

allergic rhinitis. Rather, she stated that Tolbert's workplace 

exacerbated his symptoms. Because Tolbert failed to prove by 

clear and convincing evidence, to a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty, that the origin of his allergic rhinitis and sinusitis 

could be traced to his employment as the proximate cause, 

aggravation of these conditions was not compensable as an 

occupational disease. See Ashland Oil Co. v. Bean, 225 Va. 1, 

300 S.E.2d 739 (1983). 

 For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Because our ruling on the causation issue disposes of this 

appeal, we will not address the statute of limitations issue 

raised by employer. 

 Affirmed.