Document 0qgxDX2X9RoXYJY1wqE7g7JNx

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease Suite 2100 Atrium Two 221 E. Fourth Street Poat office Box0236 Cincinnati,Ohio 45201-0236 Telephone (313) 4,21-8777 Telecopier (313) 421-0107 Arthur t,vorys l8S6-(933 Lowry P. sater J8e>-193S Augustus x Seymour ' 18?3-t92<9 Edward U Pease 1873*1924 in CoJumbus 52 East Gay street Post Office BOX 1008 Columbus,Ohio 43210-1008 Telephone <ei4) 464-6400 Telecopier (0141 464*6350 Rapjfax <614> 484-0453 Telex24l348 Cable v o k y s at er in Washington suite m i 1828 u Street; NW Washington n,c 20038*5104 Telephone 1202) ft22-8200 Telecopier (202) 835 0696 Telex 440603 in Cleveland 2100 One Cleveland center 1375 East Ninth Street Cleveland,Ohio 44H4-1724 Telephone 1210) 021-7001 Telecoplor (2161 621-8300 August 7, 1986 Mr. Anthony J. Colangelo Workers* Compensation Claims Examiner The Sherwin-Williams Company 101 Prospect Avenue, N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1075 REDACTED Re s Claimant Claim 190. 888596--22 Dear Tony* I wish to confirm my attendance at the Workers * Compensation hearing held in Hamilton, Ohio on July 1, 1986. The claimant was present with his attorney/ Dennis Miller. All three members of the Dayton Regional Board were in attendance* As you know, the issue at this hearing was the claimant's appeal from the disallowance of the claim by the District Hearing Officer. Rather than subm.it an extensive report on this lengthy hearing, I would like to direct you to. our letter written on March 13, 1986 to Hearing Officer Fatora which summarizes the arguments X advanced at this hearing. Mr* Miller presented essentially the same arguments he had advanced in his letter to Mr. Fatora dated March 24, 1986. It may be of interest to you that.the claimant changed his testimony at this hearing. For example, he testified thni ho did not have chest pains until after his chemical exposures in 1983 and 1984* I was able to rebut the claimant's testimony by way of Dr. Ford's records which indicate that the claimant has had angina which needed treatment as early as 1976. Mr. Miller's main focus at this hearing was Dr. Fowler's report which he vigorously argued in support of the allowance of the angina "condition". In response, I stated that there was absolutely no evidence that the "symptom" of chest pain was in any way substantially aggravated by the chemical exposure in 1984. I also pointed out to the Regional Board members that the angina 0007-SWP-00584502