Document 8VqgJ5xdbkvN1nLVm02xyLqpe

i IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF Claimant REDACTED 864 Washington St. ~ Cleveland, Ohio 44115 , Employer Sherwin-Williams Company Sprayon Products Inc. 864 Washington Street Bedford, Ohio 44146 in s u r an c e OCT 2 7 1977 T. NL Number STATEMENT OF FACTS Date of O.D: February 1, 1974 Nature of O.D: "Alledgpd Eyes, Nose and Head" Claim Disallowed For: "Irritative Conjunctivitis and Rhinitis" PREVIOUS COMPENSATION AND MEDICAL - None QUESTION: CLAIMANT'S APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION, FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 1976 ISSUE: Should the claim be allowed? PRIOR ORDERS: On November 3, 1975, the Deputy Administrator disallowed irri tative conjunctivitis and rhinitis as an occupational disease. On September 16, 1976, the Cleveland Regional Board of Review found the claimant's Notice of Appeal, gave it jurisdiction and affirmed the finding of November 3, 1975. 1-12 was filed timely by claimant on September 27, 1976. CLAIMANT'S EVIDENCE Claimant's OD-4 alleges that claimant worked with a cleaning solvent for 2 years and was also exposed to chemicals from paint and solvents being mixed in her work area resulting in sinus. EMPLOYER'S EVIDENCE On October 8, 1975, Employer's Workmen's Compensation Administrator, Carl Scruggs, states that claimant symptomatology had no relationship to her employment. MEDICAL EVIDENCE Cn April 6, 1974, Dr. Irving I. Cramer states he first treated claimant on April 2, 1974, that he diagnosed irritative conjunctivitis and rhinitis which he felt was due to exposure to chemicals. On September 23, 1975, Dr. Gilbert Erlechman stated he saw no disabling condition of ear, nose, throat or respiratory system. He saw no relationship between reported symptoms and employment & felt that claimant had a nervous condition. SUMMARY Claimant worked for the instant employer about two years and claims that exposure of chemicals and solvents at work caused sinus. There is conflicting medical proof of same in filed. Please note also that the Notice of Appeal filed by claimant from the Deputy Administrator's Find ings used the name of the parent corporation as the employer and not the subsidiary and the employer contended that this was jurisdictionally defective. The. Regional Beard of Review properly ruled otherwise. The true issue on this appeal is whether claimant's irritative rhinitis and oonjunctivis is related to employment. Respectfully submitted. HGS:dll Herbert G. Stem Attomey-at-Law N40612