Document KJDjkJxqM1zd6vVm4x5ee99Qr

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease Suit 21O0 Atrium t w o 221E. Fourth Street Post Office Box 023 - Cincinnati, Ohio 45201-0236 Telephone (313) 421*8777 Telecopier (313) 4210107 Arthur 1. vorys 1856-1933 Lowry R sater 1867-1935 Augustus T Seymour 1873-1926 Edward L. Pease 1373-1924 in Columbus S3 East Gay street Post office bo x : io o s Columbus, ohfo 43216-ioos Telephone (014) 464-6400 Telecopier (6i4i 464-63S0 Raplfax (614) 464-0453 Telex 241348 Cable VORY9ATER ' In Washington suite tin 1828 L Street, n w Washington, D, C. 20036-5104 Telephone (202) 822-8200 Telecopier (202) 835-0699 Telex 440693 in Cleveland 2100 Bast Ohio Building 1717 East Ninth street Cleveland,Ohio 44114-2803 Telephone 1216) 621-7091 Telecopier (21Q) 621-8306 August 27, 1986 Ur* Anthony J. Calangelo Sherwin-Williams Company 101 Prospect Avenue NW Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1075 REDACTED Re: Claimant: Claim No. 888596-22 Dear Tony: I assume you have reuoLveo the enclosed order uL the Dayton Regional Board which vacates the decision of the District Hearing Officer and allows the claim for chemical induced bronchial asthma and coronary insufficiency resultinq in aggravation of pre-existing angina. Needless to say, I believe that the decision is wrong and should be reversed. Specifically, as to the chemical induced bronchial asthma, I =*m euro that the Dayton Regional Board relied upon the report of Dr. Brooks. However, it is evident from Dr. Brooks* report that he does not causally link the development of bronchial asthma to the particular exposure of April 16, 1984. Therefore, I cannot conceive how this condition can be attributed to that exposure. In connection with the allowance of coronary insufficiency resulting in aggravation of pre-existing angina, I find no medical evidence in the file to support such a diagnosis. I believe that the Dayton Regional Board was trying to overcome the hurdle of angina pectoris being only a symptom of his underlying heart condition by labeling the condition veary generally as coronary insufficiency. All the medical practitioners who have rendered an opinion in this case have concluded that his coronary artery disease was not caused or aggravated by his employment. During our last conversation, you mentioned that you might be interested in settling this claim with the claimant's attorney after receipt of the decision of the Dayton Regional Board. However, we should appeal the decision of the Dayton Regional Board to the Industrial Commission because it is