March 12, 2008 – Judge Paul E. Pfeifer, Ohio Supreme Court Justice, this week commented in an article that provided some insight into an asbestos disability compensation case that was resolved on October 23, 2007.

Judge Pfeifer commented on a worker’s compensation case that focuses on Ferall L. Limle, who had been a DuPont employee for almost 27 years before leaving the company in 1992 to work for the Zane Trace school district.

Limle was diagnosed with asbestosis, pneumoconiosis, and pleural disease in 2001. Asbestosis is a chronic lung disease that is characterized by lung scarring and symptoms such as painful and difficult breathing. As the name of this debilitating disease suggests the only cause of asbestosis is exposure to asbestos.

Limle had been exposed to asbestos during the years of his employment with DuPont. Following the diagnosis, Limle filed a workers’ compensation claim for the asbestos-related conditions. Three years later he filed for permanent total disability compensation.

This second claim was considered by the Industrial Commission of Ohio. Among the evidence discussed were reports from Dr. Michael L. Corriveau, who estimated that Limle was 75% work-impaired as a result of the asbestos-related conditions, and further stated that Limle was not capable of physical work-related activity.

Limle was granted permanent total disability compensation based on this and other medical reports. The Commission’s findings included that Limle was medically incapable of permanent employment, and further that his retirement from DuPont was not a voluntary “abandonment of employment.”

However, Limle’s former employer, DuPont, disagreed, and filed a complaint with the court of appeals, alleging that the commission’s decision constituted an abuse of discretion. The court of appeals is the next step in the process of deciding a workers’ compensation claim.

The DuPont complaint was not upheld, and the court of appeals agreed that the commission’s findings were based on solid evidence from Limle’s doctors.

Finally, the case came before the Ohio Supreme Court. Judge Pfeifer notes two important points here. First was DuPont’s claim that other non-related medical conditions suffered by Limle were included in the medical assessment, and contributed to an incorrect medical evaluation. That, says Judge Pfeifer, was simply “not true.”

DuPont also claimed that Limle should not be compensated because he had retired from DuPont before becoming disabled, he should be ineligible for total permanent disability. Judge Pfeifer, however, notes that Limle did not leave the labor market entirely, so the claim cannot be negated on that basis.
In addition, says Judge Pfeifer, the Supreme Court considered a previous legal decision made in 1995, in which the court upheld a similar case in which claimants had suffered long-latency diseases that did not manifest until after retirement.

This, says Judge Pfeifer, illustrates another reason why DuPont’s argument was wrong. Long-latency occupational diseases can manifest decades after exposure, and in the intervening years the affected person may be completely unaware of the exposure and the resulting health risks.

After consideration of these facts, the court voted by a seven-to-zero margin that Ferral L. Limle’s retirement from DuPont did not affect his eligibility for the claim for permanent total disability.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 26th, 2008 at 4:49 pm and is filed under Asbestos Litigation, Asbestosis, Ohio. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.