Document 6bpQgZKppOvrNMapka9vv6Mm6

INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE REPRESENTATIVES DEER PARK MANUFACTURING COMPLEX P. J. SNYDER MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX M. FOX, JR. G. A. HERMENS NORCO MANUFACTURING COMPLEX G. N. MATTHEWS A. K. MENARD WILMINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPLEX L. S. COTTON WOOD RIVER MANUFACTURING COMPLEX W. M. CUNNINGHAM DENVER CHEMICAL PLANT A. C. DREIER GEISMAR CHEMICAL PLANT M. T. BARCLAY MARIETTA CHEMICAL PLANT M. B. KOVACEVICH MOBILE CHEMICAL PLANT D. E. EITEL WOODBURY CHEMICAL PLANT F. GORSKI EASTERN REGION INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE OFFICE A. F. SCHMIT WESTERN REGION INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE OFFICE R. K. JONES S) 7J //s& r PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT SH-1235 LAM 001184 DPMC-16883 ~nr r ! M I h1 f '( ! !! I RUB HMM HEALTH & SAFETY OPERATIONS KCC !^f: - o wfy 1PJW I I fiiJl "Tlc Ab Ot*S 1/ tf/ / A^-d<*.s7~b, /. --j t *-t / / X-H 4-^-7 f 6 J () *. f fa J /***.* tZr a *. 7_ A^. C / 7' /? e* * *}&. / / ~7o 4 O-f/jLbf P/L-b ih* j- ^1/ /U 0-y\ f * fVr $ / / C /i * At* M. i-- I D ilA----------T Court rejects asbestosis claim A medical examination revealed that Shemanski had contracted asbestosis, a lung disease caused by excessive inhalation of asbestos dust particles. Shemanski's job re quired cutting ceiling panels with a circular saw, which raised a great deal of dust, including asbestos particles. Shemanski filed for occupational disease benefits, claiming that his lung disease resulted from his workplace exposure to the asbestos dust. His employer contested the claim. ( The case was heard before the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Bureau. At the hearing, Shemanski's em ployer presented records of the asbestos levels at Sheman ski's plant. This evidence showed that the asbestos levels were far below the ceiling limits ofOSHA and the Pennsyl vania Department of Environmental Resources. The rec ords proved that Shemanski had not been exposed to a hazardous quantity of asbestos dust at work, the employer contended. Therefore, there was no causal link between Shemanski's disease and his working environment. The Bureau agreed. In its ruling, the Bureau cited a State statute which provides: "A claimant must prove an exposure to an occupational disease in the course of his employment." Finding that Shemanski had failed to do so, the Bureau rejected his claim for compensation benefits. On appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (Henry Shemanski y. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Workmens Compensation Appeal Board et al.), She manski was again the loser. Upholding the Bureau's ver dict, the court concluded that "the denial of benefits was justified on the grounds that the claimant had failed to establish a compensable exposure to an occupational haz ard." Benefits denied. : LAM 001185 DPMC-16884