Court Opinion

ID: 9550001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:27:27.328709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:08.952762
License: Public Domain

Springer, J.,
with whom Rose, J., agrees,
dissenting:
When reviewing administrative decisions, a district court must “review evidence presented to the agency in order to determine whether the agency’s decision was arbitrary or capricious and thus an abuse of the agency’s discretion.” Installation & Dismantle v. SIIS, 110 Nev. 930, 932, 879 P.2d 58, 59 (1994). A district court shall set aside an agency’s decision in whole or in part if it is “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.” NRS 233B.135(3)(e). The SIIS decision is certainly not “clearly erroneous.” Dubray began to suffer Parkinsonian symptoms while on the job, and SIIS properly concluded that the cause of Dubray’s disease was on-the-job exposure to manganese. There is no reason to question the SIIS allowance of benefits to Dubray.
Dubray was frequently exposed to manganese fumes while he was working. We know that Dubray was required, as part of his job, to cut into epoxy resin material and manganese hardened steel, to weld mangjet rods,1 and to work downwind of those *338working with manganese hardened steel, epoxy resin and mang-jet. Dubray was repeatedly exposed to manganese in the form of welding rods, which he and his co-workers used daily throughout his forty-one, twelve-hour workdays with Coeur Rochester. Also, in addition to manganese exposure from welding rods, Dubray was exposed to manganese in the cone crusher mantles that he was required to cut through as part of his welding duties.2 The appeals officer concluded that Dubray was not exposed to epoxy-type fumes, but this is clearly not the case.
The evidence weighing in favor of granting this man his workman’s benefits is close to being overwhelming. Dr. Selina Bendix, an occupational environmental toxicologist, testified that a single exposure to the neurotoxins present in epoxy resin and black smoke produced during the liner cutting procedure would “affect the production and fate of thyroid hormone.” This led Dr. Bendix to the conclusion that the exposure to epoxy resin and black smoke on the job caused Dubray’s hypothryroidism and triggered the Parkinson syndrome.3
Denial of Dubray’s benefits appears to be based on the assumption of the appeals officer that “a minimum of 500 hours of exposure to manganese fumes would be necessary to contract Parkinson’s disease.” In contradiction, Dr. Gregory Smith testified that only 200 hours’ exposure to manganese over six weeks would be sufficient to trigger Parkinsonian symptoms; and both Dr. Smith and Dr. Bendix testified that publications of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare say that forty-nine days of exposure to manganese can cause this kind of symptomology.
Virtually everything that I read in this record indicates that Dubray’s illnesses were caused by repeated exposure to toxic substances while he was on the job. He had not been exposed to manganese and epoxy toxins under any other circumstances other than employment, and he presented disease symptoms during his employment and after his exposure to the toxic materials. There is every indication of work-connected causation here, and I have a very difficult time understanding the decision of either the appeals officer or the district court to deny benefits.
It looks to me as if the hearings officer was groping for some reason or excuse for denying benefits to a man who was clearly entitled to them. I am seeing more and more of these kinds of *339denials coming from appeals officers’ decisions. This case presents an extraordinarily exaggerated case of the unjust treatment of a worker’s claim for compensation for work-connected disease. I dissent from the opinion of this court which permits this kind of thing to happen.

Mangjet rods contain twenty-percent manganese.

Crusher liners are manganese steel mantles backed by Nordbach epoxy resin. As a welder, Dubray was responsible for cutting the manganese-epoxy liners.

I would note further that Dubray’s exposure to toxic fumes was especially harmful because Coeur Rochester did not provide air pack respirators for its workers until after Dubray’s injuries occurred.