Court Opinion

ID: 9755187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:29:15.563173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:20.994969
License: Public Domain

VANMETER, Judge,
Dissenting:
I Respectfully Dissent. The substantive issues on appeal turn on whether the ALJ erred by finding Pollitt eligible for medical benefits based on his calcified pleural plaque condition. Although a compelling argument exists that Pollitt should be eligible to receive medical benefits for the monitoring of such a condition, on the ground that the condition is causally related to his occupational exposure to asbestos while employed by AK Steel, I believe the ALJ erred by reaching such a conclusion.
KRS 342.0011(2) defines an occupational disease as “a disease arising out of and in the course of the employment.” Such a disease
shall be deemed to arise out of the employment if there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease, and which can be seen to have followed as a natural incident to the work as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment and which can be fairly traced to the employment as the proximate cause.
KRS 342.0011(3). Further, an occupational disease falls generally within the KRS *510342.0011(1) definition of an injury, which includes
any work-related traumatic event or series of traumatic events, including cumulative trauma, arising out of and in the course of employment which is the proximate cause producing a harmful change in the human organism evidenced by objective medical findings.
Here, the ALJ stated that “[a]n occupational disease means a condition arising out of or in the course of employment.” (Emphasis added.) Finding that the calcified pleural plaque condition met this definition of an occupational disease, the ALJ awarded Pollitt medical benefits for the costs of monitoring and treating the condition. KRS 342.020(1).
However, the medical evidence indicates that a calcified pleural plaque condition is neither a disease nor an indicator that asbestosis will develop in the future. Instead, a pleural plaque calcification is simply a benign marker of prior exposure to asbestos. See, e.g., Solberg v. Tice Elec., 212 Or.App. 430, 157 P.3d 1277 (2007) (benign, asymptomatic pleural plaques do not constitute an occupational disease); Volterano v. Workmen’s Comp.App. Bd., 536 Pa. 335, 639 A.2d 453, 457 (1994) (“pleural thickening is not an occupational disease” or a physical injury). Moreover, nothing in either the statutes or the case law supports the ALJ’s statement that the definition of an occupational disease includes not only a disease, but also a condition “arising out of and in the course of employment.” KRS 342.0011(2). Although an employer may be directed to provide compensation “as may be required for the cure and treatment of an [employee’s] occupational disease!,]” KRS 342.020(1), similar provisions do not exist in regard to the medical monitoring of a non-disease condition such as an asymptomatic calcified pleural plaque condition, even if caused by occupational exposure to asbestos. In the absence of legislation directing employers to pay such costs, I would conclude that the ALJ erred by finding AK Steel hable for providing such medical benefits.
In addition, any argument that Pollitt should be awarded medical benefits relating to a work-related injury should fail since Pollitt’s claim was not filed within two years of his last AK Steel exposure to asbestos, KRS 342.185(1), and the expanded limitations period applicable to asbestos-related diseases does not apply to work-related injuries. KRS 342.316(4)(a).
I would vacate the Board’s order and remand for entry of a new order reversing and remanding this matter to the ALJ for the dismissal of Pollitt’s claim.