CompFox AI Summary
This case involves an applicant claiming workers' compensation for sarcoidosis allegedly caused by occupational exposure to dry fire extinguisher chemicals. The administrative law judge initially found no industrial causation, favoring the defendant's medical examiner over the applicant's. On reconsideration, the Appeals Board affirmed this decision, finding the applicant failed to prove it was reasonably probable his condition arose from employment due to a lack of early irritative symptoms and the presence of prior skin lesions. The dissenting commissioner argued that the applicant's credible testimony and the applicant's QME's report sufficiently established industrial causation, as sarcoidosis can have an insidious onset.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case involves an applicant claiming workers' compensation for sarcoidosis allegedly caused by occupational exposure to dry fire extinguisher chemicals. The administrative law judge initially found no industrial causation, favoring the defendant's medical examiner over the applicant's. On reconsideration, the Appeals Board affirmed this decision, finding the applicant failed to prove it was reasonably probable his condition arose from employment due to a lack of early irritative symptoms and the presence of prior skin lesions. The dissenting commissioner argued that the applicant's credible testimony and the applicant's QME's report sufficiently established industrial causation, as sarcoidosis can have an insidious onset.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.