Document ZoZEJ0E7MMn8Vd11RJp27qEV

:*V"' PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT BRK-254 Ih MuMoi CofflmMon OtOhio OMdon 0 Safety ft Hygfen*. 244 H High St, Cot, a 4S21S ` Y. . Legal Section Industrial Commission of 246 North High Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attn: Judy Spencer Dear Ms Spencer: X--: ^ ^Violet Lamb ... - FisherBody, GMC . Columbus, Ohio 1* * On September 24, 1981,.,a.visit/was/made-by Robert-Crackel to Fisher Body-GMC, 200 GeorgeSville Road, Columbus,' Ohio 43228. The purpose was to collect industrial hygiene.data relative to the occupational disease claim of Violet Lamb, claim 741615-22. This plant manufactures hardware^for automobile bodies. The claimant works as a secretary for. the* head-of the chemical engine ering department within the administrative'section*;of the plant. r The claimant's respiratory.impairaent allegedly,resulted from inhaling fumes emanating from.another office.which was being re finished. According, to the company ^.Wonder Wood Satin Interior Varnish was being used torefinish>wood in that>.office (see attached Material Safety Data Sheet).VMs;Lamb's office'is enclosed and some distance away from the refinished*office, but all agreed that the varnish odor was perceptible.-^ . l Because the refinishing:,conditions could not.be replicated, no testing could be done.-/ However," some general observations can be made. None of the listed ingredients (mineral spirits, methyl iso i . amyl ketone and cyclohexanone) .is a pulmonary.sensitizer, i.e., none v. would cause an allergic asthmatic reaction as ,do small amounts of isocyanates in some individuals.^ Prolonged inhalation of the vapors, the effects of which would be additive,;might trigger acute respiratory irritation. However,it'is-unlikely"that the vapor concen trations from simple refinishing would surpass.the threshold limit values in Ms Lamb's working area. It should be noted that threshold limit values refer .tc airborne concentrations of substances, and respresent^,conditiohs.:. under which it is believed;;that-nearly all workers/may* be repeatedly exposed day after day without, adverse ..effect, ..Because'of/wide, variation in individual susceptibility,; howeveri/a^small percentage - of workers may experience/discomfort/from some, substances.-at or : a^ - belpw^tlm^reshold^imit^^^^g;;^^^^g|^Mfc^ ! n n >~i Tt JUUU f74161S-22 Violet Lamb Page 2 Other causes for the claimant's respiratory distress were ruled out. The company states that.it uses no isocyanate-based paints and only a small amount of epoxy paint. Ms Lamb would not normally come into contact with this paint, as her workplace is far removed from the painting area. The claimant's supervisor routinely goes' back and forth from the administrative offices to the laboratory. It is conceivable that,he could carry trace amounts of pulmonary sensitizers on his clothing. Inspection of the laboratory revealed this to be unlikely. . .> - . It is unknown whether the claimant has had a history of asthma or respiratory distress. If so, even slight exposure to these vapors might well have aggravated the pre-existing condition. In short, there seem to be three possible explanations for. the claimant's illness. First, the concentration of the vapors in question, which are known respiratory irritants, may have in fact exceeded the accepted safe limits and caused her reaction. This seems improbable due to her distance from the process and the lack of effect on workers closer to the vapors. Secondly, even a small amount of the vapors may have aggravated a pre-existing asthmatic condition. Thirdly, the claimant may well be one of the few individuals who suffer genuinely ill effects to these vapors below the accepted threshold limit values. RJC/gr Attachment ' Industrial Hygienist CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY I certify that the microphotographics on this toll of film or microfiche are true and accurate pro* ductions of records generated by or received by the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, an agency of the State of Ohio, as required by Ohio Revised Code Section 4123.52 and Section 9.01 which require optimum protection from hazards of accidental destruction of records. It is further certified that the photographic processes used for microfilming the above records were accomplished in a manner and on microfilm which meets the requirements of the National Bureau of Standards for permanent photographic copy. Date Filmed: 1- 3- iS ft ft n n ft n i n j u u u u u i ,u /