Document 5LqkJxGGn8626je9p3gaBzZGV

FILE NAME: Contract Unit Workers Comp Claims (WCC) DATE: 1962 DOC#: WCC031 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Workers Comp File - Kendrick, Lloyd E Contains all documents found in the Claimant's file, with one blank page between each separate document BEFORE THE BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE APPEALS - STATS OF WASHINGTON In re XJU0XD S. KENDRICK ) ) Claim Do. C-680913 ) ________________________) DOCKET DO. 17,566 DECISION AND ORDHt APPEARANCES: Claimant, Lloyd S. Kendrick, by Fredrickson, Maxey and Bell, per Leo H. Fredrickson Employer, Armstrong Contractor and Supply Co., Hone Department of Labor and Industries, by The Attorney General, per Marcus M. Kelly, Assistant Appeal filed by the claimant, Lloyd 3. Kendrick, on April 4, 1962 from an order of the supervisor of industrial insurance dated March 30, 1962, adhering to a prior order dated November 17 , I960, which rejected the claimant's claim for an occupational disease on the ground that the claimant's condition was not an occupational disease as contemplated by section 51.03. 140 R.C.T. 6- 7- 51. DECISION The issues presented by this appeal are (l) Whether the claimant developed an occupational disease as a result of his .employment by Armstrong Contractors and Supply Corporation} and (2) whether the claim for occupational disease was filed within the one year period of limitation prescribed by R.C.77. 51 28. 055 By stipulation of the parties, this appeal was submitted to the board for its determination based upon the information contained in the departmental claim file and a written medical report submitted by Dr. S. Thatcher Hubbard, the claimant'a attending physician. 11/26/62 After a careful review of the record, we are persuaded that the claimant did develop pulmonary emphysema and pulmonary fibrosis as a result of inhaling particles of asbestos or fibreglass during the course of his employment as an insulation mechanic by Armstrong and ih9 other employers named in the department file* W are further per suaded that by November, 1954 the condition had become disabling and required medical treatment and that the exposure occurring during the course of the claimant's employment by Armstrong was one of the prox imate causes of. the development of this condition* ihe record also reveals that the claimant was first advised that his lung condition was related to his occupational exposure on or about November 4, 1959 which date is within one of the date on which he filed his claim for compensation with the department of labor and industries. FUfflUIGS In view of the foregoing and after a complete review of the record, the board finds as follows: I 1. On March 23, i960 the claimant filed a "report of accident" with the department of labor and industries alleging that he had developed an occupational disease during the course of his employment as an insulation mechanic by Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation. On November 17,1960, the suppiyiaor of industrial insurance issued an order rejecting the claim for the reason that the claiaian's condition was not an occupational disease a3 contemplated ' by section 51- 03* 140, R.C.lf. On December 6, 1060, the claimant appealed to this board, but on December 23, I960 , the supervisor entered a further order holding the order of Doverneor 17, 190, in abeyance, ponding further in vestigation, and consequently, on December 29, I960, this beard issued an order denying the claimant's appeal. On March 30 1962, the supervisor issued an order adhering to the prior order of November If, I56O. On -April 4, 1962, the claimant appealed to this board, and on Aprii 26, 1962, his appeal was granted. - 2- 2 . The claimant wa3 employed as an insulation mechanic from 1928 until 1930 from 1941 to November 1954, in thi3 3cate and al30 in Alaska. His employment required the handling of asbesto3 and fibregla33 in3tulation material and exposed the claimant's lung3 to the inha lation of fine particles of asbestos and fibre- glass From 1941 to November 1954, the claimant was employed as an insulation mechanic by ap proximately six different employers. The claim ant worked for Armstrong Contracting and supply Corporation at various intervals during this period, totalling approximately four years, and for Asbestos Supply Company of Spokane, the predecessor of Armstrong, for a further period of time. The claimant left insulation work in November, 1954, at which time he was in the employment of Armstrong Contracting^and Supply ' Corporation 3 . The claimant contracted pneumonia in 1954 and was disabled for approximately three months. In 1946 or 1947, the claimant was poisoned by carbon monoxide. Sometime thereafter, hut before May, 1954, the claimant experienced lung difficulty in Alaska, consisting of tightness of chest and coughing and wheezing upon exposure to cold air. In February of 1954, while in A-laska, the claimant experienced a severe attack of bronchitis. In May, 1954, the claimant began to experience further chest difficulties and sought medical treatment therefor. Thereafter, the claimant was treated by various doctors, and was hospitalized on three occasions durirgL954. However, he was not advised by a physician that there was a causal relationship between his lung difficulty and his occupation until November, 1959* InNovember, 1959, the claimant was advised by Nr. 3. Thatcher Hubbard that he should file a claim for an occupational disease, 4. As a result of the claimant's exposure to asbestos and fibreglass particles, during the course of iiis employment by various employers, the claimant developed pulmonary emphysema and pulmonary fibrosi3. By May, 1954, this con dition had become disabling and medical treatment therefor was necessary. The claimant'3 exposure occurring during his employment by Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation was one of the proximate causes of tne development of his lung condition. - 3- CONCLUSIONS Saaed on the foregoing findings of faot, the board concludes aa followss 1. This board has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this appeal. 2. The claim of Lloyd E. Kendrick for an oc cupational disease was made within the one year period of limitation prescribed by R.C.W. 51. 28. 655. 3. The order of the supervisor of industrial insurance dated May 30, 1962, should be reversed, and this claim remanded to the department of labor and industries with direction to allow the claim as an occu pational disease. ORDEEt Now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the order of the supervisor of industrial insurance issued herein on March 30, 1962, be and the same is hereby, reversed and this claim is hereby remanded to the department of labor and industries with direction to allow the claim and to take such other and further action as may be authorized or required by law. Dated this 26th day of November, 1962. BOARD OP INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE APPEALS R. H. POWELL HAROLD J. PETRIE Member Member BEFORE THE BOARD OP INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE APPEALS STATS OF WASHINGTON In re 110YD 3. KENDRICK ) ) Claim No. C-680913 ) ________________________) DOCKET NO. 17,566 DECISION AND ORDSrt APPEARANCES : Claimant, Lloyd B. Kendrick, by Fredrickson, Maxey and Bell, per Leo fl. Fredrickson Employer, Armstrong Contractor and Supply Co., Bone Department of Labor and Industries, by The Attorney General, per Marcus M. Kelly, Assistant Appeal filed by the claimant, Lloyd S* Kendrick, on April 4, 1962, from an order of the supervisor of industrial insurance dated March 30 1962, adhering to a prior order dated November 17 I960, which rejected the claimant ' 3 claim for an occupational disease on the ground that the claimant's condition was not an occupational disease as contemplated by section 51*0S. 140 R.C.T. 6-7-51. DECISION The issues presented by this appeal axe (1) Whether the claimant developed an occupational disease as a result of his .employment by Armstrong Contractors and Supply Corporation; and (2) whether the claim for occupational disease was filed within the one year period of limitation prescribed by R.C.'iT. 51 28. 055 By stipulation of the parties, this appeal was submitted to the board for its determination based upon the information contained in the departmental claim file and a written medical report submitted by Dr. S. Thatcher Hubbard, the claimant's attending physician. - 1- 11/ 26/62 After a careful review of the record, we are persuaded that the claimant did develop pulmonary emphysema and pulmonary fibrosis aa a result of ir.hal.ing particles of asbestos or fibreglass during the course of his employment as an insulation mechanic by Armstrong and the other employers named in the department file. Wo are further per suaded that by November, 1934, the condition had become disabling and required medical treatment amul that the exposure occurring during the course of the claimant's employment by Armstrong was one of the prox imate causes of. the development of this condition. She record also reveals that the claimant was first advised that * his lung condition was related to his occupational exposure on or about November 4, 1939, which date is within one of the date on which he filed his claim for compensation with the department of labor and industries. FINDINGS In view of the foregoing and after a complete review of the record, the board finds as follows: l 1. On March 2j5, I960 the claimant filed a "report of aocideut" with the department of labor and industries alleging that he had developed an occupational disease during the course of his employment as an insulation mechanic by Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation. On November 17,1960, the suppiyisor of industrial insurance issued an order rejecting the claim for the reason that the claiman's condition was not an occupational disease as contemplated ' by section 51- 00- 140, R.C.W. On December 6, i960, the claimant appealed to this board, but on December 23, i960 , the supervisor entered a further order holding the order of November 17 , I960, in abeyance, pending further in vestigation, and consequently, on December 29, I960, this beard issued an order denying the claimant's appeal. On March 30, 1962, the supervisor issued an order adhering to the prior order o 2 November 17, 1J60 0 April 4, 1962, the claimant appealed to this beard, and on April 26, 1962, his appeal was granted. - 2- 2. The claimant wa3 employed a3 an insulation mechanic from 1928 until 1930, and from 1941 to November 1954 in this 3bate and al30 in Alaska. His employment required the handling of asbestos and fibreglass instulation material and exposed the claimant's lungs to the inha lation of fine particles of asbestos and fibreglass. From 1941 to November 1954, the claimant was employed as an. insulation mechanic by ap proximately six different employers. The claim ant worked for Armstrong Contracting and supply Corporation at various intervals during this period, totalling approximately four years, and for Asbestos Supply Company of Spokane, the predecessor of Armstrong, for a further period of time. The claimant left insulation work in November, 1954, at which time he was in the employment of Armstrong Contracting^and Supply Corporation. 3* The claimant contracted pneumonia in 1954 and was disabled for appreximately three months. In 1946 or 1947, the claimant was poisoned by carbon monoxide. Sometime thereafter, but before May, 1954, the claimant experienced lung difficulty in Alaska, consisting of tightness of chest and coughing and wheezing upon exposure to cold air. In February of 1954, while in A-laska, the claimant experienced a severe attack of bronchitis. In May, 1954, the claimant began to experience further chest difficulties and sought medical treatment therefor. Thereafter, the claimant was treated by various doctors, and was hospitalized on three occasions duringll954. However, he was not advised by a physician that there was a causal relationship between his lung difficulty and his occupation until November, 1959. In November, 1959, the claimant was advised by Dr. 5. Thatcher Hubbard that he should file a claim for an occupational disease. 4. As a result of the claimant' 3 exposure to asbestos and fibreglass particles, during the course of iiis employment by various employers, the claimant developed pulmonary emphysema and pulmonary fibrosi3. 3y May, 1954, this con dition had become disabling and medical treatment therefor was necessary. The claimant' 3 exposure occurring during his employment by Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation was one of the proximate causes of tb.9 development of his lung condition. - 3- CONCLUSIONS Naaed on the foregoing findings of faot, the board concludes as follows: 1. This board has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this appeal. 2. The claim of Lloyd E. Xendrick for an oc cupational disease was made within the one year period of limitation prescribed by R.C.W. 51. 28. 655. 3 The order of the supervisor of industrial insurance dated May 30, 1962, should be reversed, and this claim remanded to the department of labor and industries with direotion to allow the claim as an occu pational disease. ORDE Now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the order of the supervisor of industrial insurance issued herein on March 30 1962, be and the same is hereby, reversed and this claim is hereby remanded to the department of labor and industries with direction to allow the claim and to take such other and further action as may he authorized or required hy law. Dated this 26th day of November, 1962. BOARD OP INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE APPEALS R. H. POWELL HAROLD J. PETRIE Member Member 4-