Document a4Bnp1Xkn3JKmzZmgvDmrEx8b

Apr* 7-UX, 1000 February 12, 1980 Legal Section Industrial Coomission of Ohio 246 N. High St. Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attn: Diane Larson 0.0. 13332-22 Margaret S. Milton Inland Division General Motors Dayton, Ohio Ms. Larson: On January 29, 1980, In an effort to gather data relative the occupational disease claim of Margaret S. Milton, 0.0. 13332-22, a visit was nade to the Inland Division of General Motors, located on West Third St., In Dayton. The objective of the visit was to obtain Information as regards what type occupational exposures the claimant may have encountered, and then attempt to determine what the potential may have been for those exposures to have Induced the claimant's condition. The individual contacted at the plant was Marvin Aukerman, Director of Safety, Inland Division of General Motors. Mr. Aukerman was most courteous and helpful and was of great assistance. The collection of environmental data in support of this claim was determined unnecessary. That decision Is based on the fact that a great deal of Information Is available detailing exposures In the claimant's work area which was collected and compiled by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in con junction with a health hazard evaluation of the wet rubber process at the Inland Division. In conjunction with that evaluation, extensive environmental monitoring was conducted during July and October 1977 and March 1978. The claimant's file Indicates the last work day was May 24, 1977. The process has not changed, which makes the NIOSH data indicative of conditions In the work place that the claimant would have encountered during her tenure at Inland. The data compiled by NIOSH and provided to Inland was summarized In the follow ing manner: "The environmental results Indicate that a hazard to the health of employees did not exist on the dates of the surveys based on the pres ent single exposure criteria for the airborne contaminants Identified. However, the additive and/or synergistic effects of the substances are not known- thus the complaints of the employees of symptoms of eye Irri tation, Infections, etc. could be due to a combination of substances If they elicit similar physiological responses or to an agent which was not dentlfied during the evaluation dates". 1- Ths Industrial Commission of Ohio Division of Safsty and Hygisno 246 N. High SL Columbus. Ohio 43213 Jamva A. RtwdM. Oovartxw* WittenW. Johnston. Industrie Commtoion Chairman* Raymond A.Connof.VtcaChainnon*LaonardT.laneaattr.Mom6ar PTWIp A. Wortiman, Satey and Hygiana Suparlntexte* Bot> R*oy. 3upartfrttndan< > Lawraooa J. Whatei, Coogm* Maoagar O.D. 13332-22 General Motors - 2- The following substances were Identified as being present In the work place by the NIOSH study. N-Butyl Acetate Isopropyl alcohol Propylene Glycol Xylene Cellosolve/2 ethoxyethanol Ethyl Benzene Toluene 1,1,1-trlchloroethane A number of the above substances are skin Irritants and are capable of Inducing skin Irritation and/or occupational contact dermatitis. Attached Is a listing of primary chemical Irritants of the skin as Indicated In Table 4-13, taken from the publication "Chemical Hazards of the Workplace" by Nick H. Proctor, Ph.D and James P. Hughes, M.D., Toxicologist and Medical Director of Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation. Five of the substances Identified by the NIOSH study appear on the list. That unto Itself does not establish the fact that the claimant's condition can be directly attributed to her workplace exposures. However, It does serve to establish the fact that the potential for occupational contact dermatitis cer tainly did exist. The fact that the potential did exist Is borne out by the fact that Inland Indicates they actively pursue a program to prevent and control derma titis In this work are** via worker education, protective equipment, barrier creams and a liberal transfer policy for Individuals experiencing skin difficulties in conjunction with this work area. It would appear the essential determination here Is whether or not the medical determination Is one of an occupational contact dermatitis, or pustular psoriasis. Generally speaking, the test of whether or not a dermatitis Is occupationally related Is whether or not the problem clears up when the Individual is away from the occupation. If the individual has exposures away from the workplace. It then becomes difficult to determine which exposure Involves the causative agent or aqents. and which is the contributing agent or agents. If the diagnosis of pustular psoriasis, defined by Borland's Medical Dictionary as a hereditary condition, is correct, thorough pre-employment disclosure and examin ation should have precluded the Individual from working in an area wherein skin con tact with known skin Irritants Is likely. That Is a personal Judgement and is not Intended to represent "compotent medical authority". I n n fi n n 0.0. 13332-22 General Motors -3- In summary, the final determination must be based on the nature and origin of the condition. If the determination Is occupational contact dermatitis, the nature of the occupation, coupled with the environmental data available, serve to provide a relatively sound cause and effect relationship. If the condition was caused away from the workplace, was there any relationship between the nonoccupatlonal and occupational exposures, and finally. If the call Is "pustular psoriasis" does the fact that by medical definition It Is hereditary preclude environmental factors from affecting Its occurance or Incidence. LG/ng Manager Industrial Hygiene Department Acetaldehyde Acetic add Acetic anhydride Acetone Acrolein Acrylamide Acrylonitrile AHyi alcohol Ally) chloride AQyi glyddyt ether Ammonia n-Amyt acetate sec-Amyl acetate Antimony Arsenic and compounds Barium and compounds Benzene Benzoyl peroxide Benzyl chloride Beryllium and beryllium compounds Boron oxide Boron uifluoride Bromine - n-Butyl acetate rec-Butyl acetate a-Butyl alcohol rec-Butyl alcohol trrt-Butyl alcohol e-Butylamine e-Buiyl giycidyi ether Cakium arsenate Calcium oxide Carbary! Carbon disulAdc Carbon tetrachloride Chlorinated diphenyl oxide Chlorine Chlorine Uifluoride Chloroacctaidch yde alpha -Chloroocetophenone Chlorobenzene o-Chlorobcnzylidcne maiononitriie Chlorobromomeihitfie Chlorodiphcnyl. 42% chlorine Cblorodiphcnyl. 54% chlorine Chloroform Chloropicnn Chloroprcne Chromic acid ami chromates Chromium, soluble chromic and chromous salts Coal Dr pitch volatiles Copper dusts and mists Crag herbicide Cresol. alt isomers Crotonaldehyde Cumene Table 4--13. fihaaij Chwnlrsl Irrit Cyanides (alkali) Cyclohexane Cydohexanol Cyclohexanone Cyclohexene DDT Diacetooe alcohol Dibutyl phosphate 0-Dichlorohenzene p-Dichlorobenzene 1 .l-Dichloro- l-rutroethane Diethylainine Dicthylaminoethano) Diglyddyt ether Diisobutyl ketooe Dtmethyiaminc Dimethyhormar ie 1, l-Dimemyihydrazine Dimethyl suifxu Dioxam Epichlorhydrin Epoxy resins Ethanoiamine 2-Ethoxycthano( 2-Ethoxyethyl acetate Ethyl acetate Ethyl acrylate Ethylamine Ethyl amyl ketone -Ethylbenzene Ethyl bromide Ethyl butyl ketone Elhytcnediamine Ethylene dibromide Ethylene dichloride Ethyleneimine Ethylene oxide Ethyl ether Ethyl formate Elhylkiene chloride Ethyl silicate Fluoride Fluorine Formaldehyde Formic acid Furfural Glycidol n-Heptane H e xochloronapht hale nc /t-Hcxanc Hydrazine Hydrogen bromide Hydrogen chloride Hydrogen fluonde Hydrogen peroxide. 90% Iodine Isoamyl acetate eftheSUa Isobutyl alcohol Isophoroue Isopropylaimne Isopropyl ether Isopropyl glyddyt ether Ketene Lead arsenate Lithium hydride Makk anhydride Mercury Mercury, alkyt compounds Mesityl oxide Methyl acetate Methyl acrylate Methytal Methyl alcohol Methyfaunine Methyl bromide Methyl butyl ketone Methyl chloride Methylcydohexane Methyicyclohexanol o-MethytcycIohexanooe Methylene bisphenyl isocyanate Methylene chloride Methyl ethyl ketone Methyl iodide Methyl isobutyl ketone Methyl isocyanate Methyl methacrylate Methyl propyl ketone a/pAa-Mcthyl styrene Monomethylhydrazine M>>rpboline NaJed Naphtha, coal Ur Naphtha, petroleum distillates Nickel, metal Nitric acid Nitrobenzene Nitrocthane Nitromcthane Octachloronuphthalene Octane Osmium tetroxide Oxalic acid Pentaborane Pentachloronaphthalene Pentachlorophenol Pentane Perchloromethyl mercaptan Phenol p-Phcnylenediamine Phenyl ether Phenyl ether-biphenyl mixture Phenyl glycidyl ether Phenythydrazine Phosgene Phosphoric add Phosphorus (yellow) Phosphorus pentachloride Phosphorus pentasulfide Phosphorus trichloride Phthaiic anhydride Picric add Platinum, soluble salu Portland cement Propyl acetate a-Propyl alcohol Propylene dichloride Propylene intine Propylene oxide Pyrethrum Pyridine Qutnooe Rotenone Selenium compounds Silver, metal and soluble compounds Sodium hydroxide Stoddard solvent Styrene Sulfur dioxide Sulfur monochloride Sulfuric acid Tellurium Terphcnyls Tctrachlorocthane Tetrachlorocthylene TetrachJoronaphthaJene Tetranitromethane Tetryl Thiram Tin. organic and inorganic compounds - Toluene Toluene 2.4-diisocyanate o-Toluidine Toxophcne Tributyl phosphate ' I. I, I -Trichlorocthane Trichloroethylene Trichloronapht halene 2.4.3- Trichlorophenoxyacclic acid 1.2.3- Trichloropropane 1. 1,2-Trichloro-1.2,2-iriiluoroethanc Triethylamine 2.4.6TrinitrotoJuene Turpentine Uranium (natural), soluble and insoluble compounds Vanadium pentoxide Vinyltoiuene -- Xylene nnnn nr u3 U >J U U - U J 4 J A ^ >50tk<&hni#e*sa*jf ?QP /./.* April 7-14, I960 February 12, 1980 Legal Section Industrial Commission of Ohio 246 N. High St. Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attn: Diane Larson 0.0. 13332-22 Margaret S. Milton Inland Division General Motors Dayton, Ohio Ms. Larson: On January 29, 1980, In an effort to gather data relative the occupational disease claim of Margaret S. Milton, O.D. 13332-22, a visit was made to the Inland Division of General Motors, located on West Third St., In Dayton. The objective of the visit was to obtain information as regards what type occupational exposures the claimant may have encountered, and then attempt to determine what the potential may have been for those exposures to have Induced the claimant's condition. The individual contacted at the plant was Marvin Aukerman, Director of Safety, Inland Division of General Motors. Mr. Aukerman was most courteous and helpful and was of great assistance. The collection of environmental data in support of this claim was determined unnecessary. That decision Is based on the fact that a great deal of information Is available detailing exposures In the claimant's work area which was collected and compiled by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in con junction with a health hazard evaluation of the wet rubber process at the Inland Division. In conjunction with that evaluation, extensive environmental monitoring was conducted during July and October 1977 and March 1978. The claimant's file Indicates the last work day was May 24, 1977. The process has not changed, which makes the NIOSH data Indicative of conditions in the work place that the claimant would have encountered during her tenure at Inland. The data compiled by NIOSH and provided to Inland was summarized In the follow ing manner: "The environmental results indicate that a hazard to the health of employees did not exist on the dates of the surveys based on the pres ent single exposure criteria for the airborne contaminants Identified. However, the additive and/or synergistic effects of the substances are not known- thus the complaints of the employees of symptoms of eye Irri tation, Infections, etc. could be due to a combination of substances if they elicit similar physiological responses or to an agent which was not 1dentified during the evaluation dates". The Industrial Commission of Ohio Division of Safety and Hygiene 246 N. High St Columbus. Ohio 43215 James A. Rhodes, Governor* WWism W. Johnston. Industrie! Commission Chairmen Raymond A. Conner.ViceChairman*LsonafdT.Lancastsr.Me(ntoer PhMp A. Woifcman, Safety and Hypisne Superintendent Bob Riley, Assistant Superintendent Lawrence J. Whaien, Congress Manager 4- 0.0. 13332-22 General Motors -2- The following substances were identified as being present in the workplace by the NIOSH study. N-Butyl Acetate Isopropyl alcohol Propylene Glycol Xylene Cellosolve/2 ethoxyethanol Ethyl Benzene Toluene 1,1,1-trichloroethane A number of the above substances are skin Irritants and are capable of inducing skin irritation and/or occupational contact dermatitis. Attached Is a listing of primary chemical Irritants of the skin as Indicated In Table 4-13, taken from the publication "Chemical Hazards of the Workplace" by Nick H. Proctor, Ph.O and James P. Hughes, M.D., Toxicologist and Medical Director of Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation. Five of the substances Identified by the NIOSH study appear on the list. That unto Itself does not establish the fact that the claimant's condition can be directly attributed to her workplace exposures. However, It does serve to establish the fact that the potential for occupational contact dermatitis cer tainly did exist. The fact that the potential did exist Is borne out by the fact that Inland Indicates they actively pursue a program to prevent and control derma titis In this work area via worker education, protective equipment, barrier creams and a liberal transfer policy for Individuals experiencing skin difficulties In conjunction with this work area. It would appear the essential determination here is whether or not the medical determination is one of an occupational contact dermatitis, or pustular psoriasis. Generally speaking, the test of whether or not a dermatitis Is occupationally related Is whether or not the problem clears up when the individual is away from the occupation. If the Individual has exposures away from the workplace, it then becomes difficult to determine which exposure Involves the causative agent or agents, and which is the contributing agent or agents. If the diagnosis of pustular psoriasis, defined by Borland's Medical Dictionary as a hereditary condition, is correct, thorough pre-employment disclosure and examin ation should have precluded the Individual from working in an area wherein skin con tact with known skin Irritants is likely. That is a personal judgement and is not Intended to represent "compotent medical authority". Un Un InI InI un O.D. 13332-22 General Motors -3In summary, the final determination must be based on the nature and origin of the condition. If the determination Is occupational contact dermatitis, the nature of the occupation, coupled with the environmental data available, serve to provide a relatively sound cause and effect relationship. If the condition was caused away from the workplace, was there any relationship between the nonoccupational and occupational exposures, and finally, if the call Is "pustular psoriasis" does the fact that by medical definition It is hereditary preclude environmental factors from affecting Its occurance or Incidence. Respectfully, Louis Gc Manager Industrial Hygiene Department LG/ng vman n c u i__ ' O.D. 13332-22 DRAFT COPY 1- On January 29, 1980, in an effort to gather data relative the occupational disease claim of Margaret S. Milton, O.D. 13332-22, a visit was made to the Inland Division of General Motors, located on West Third St. in Dayton. The objective of the visit was to obtain Information as regards what type occupational exposures the claimant may have encountered, and then attempt to determine what the potential may have been for those exposures to have induced the claimant's condition. The individual contacted at the plant was Marvin Aukerman, Director of Safety, Inland Division of General Motors. Mr. Aukerman was most courteous and helpful and was of great assistance. The collection of environmental data in support of this claim was determined unnecessary. That decision is based on the fact that a great deal of Information Is available detailing exposures In the claimant's work area which was collected and compiled by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health In conjunction with a health hazard evaluation of the wet rubber process at the Inland Division. In conjunction with that evauation, extensive environmental monitoring was conducted during July and October 1977 and March 1978. The claimant's file indicates the last work day was May 24, 1977. The process has not changed, which makes the NIOSH data Indicative of conditions in the work place that the claimant would have encountered during her tenure at Inland. The data compiled by NIOSH and provided to Inland was summarised In the following manner: " The environmental results Indicate that a hazard to the health of employees did not exist on the dates of the surveys based on the present single exposure criteria for the airborne contaminants Identified. However, the additive and/or synergistic effects of the substances are not known, thus the complaints of the employees of symptoms of eye Irritation, Infections, etc. could be due to a combination of substances If they elicit similar physiological responses or to an agent which was not Identified during the evaluation dates?. DRAFT COPY O.D. 13332-22 -2- The following substances were Identified as being present in the work place by the NIOSH study. N-Butyl Acetate Cellosolve/2 ethoyyethanol Isopropyl alcohol Ethyl Benzene Propylene Glycol Toluene Xylene 1,1,1 - trlchloroethane A number of the above substances are skin Irritants and are capable of Inducing skin Irritation and/or occupational contact dermatitis. Attached Is a listing of primary chemical Irritants of the skin as Indicated In Table 4-13, taken from the publication "Chemical Hazards of the Workplace" by Hick H. Proctor, Ph.D and James P. Hughes, M.D., Toxicologist and Medical Director of Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation. Five of the substances Identified by the HI8SH study appear on the list. That unto Itself does not establish the fact that the claimant's condition can be directly attributed to her workplace exposures. However, It does serve to establish the fact that the potential for occupational contact dermatitis certainly did exist. The fact that the potential did exist Is borne out by the fact that Inland Indicates they actively pursue a program to prevent and control dermatitis In this work area via worker education, protective equipment, barrier creams, and a liberal transfer policy for Individual experiencing skin difficulties In conjunction Oraft Copy > "J" It would appear the essential determination here is whether or not the medical determination is one of an occupational contact dermatitis, or pustular psoriasis. Generally speaking, the test of whether or not a dermatitis is occupationally related is whether or not the problem clears up when the individual is away from the occupation. If the individual has exposures away from the workplace, it then becomes difficult to determine which exposure involves the causative agent or agents, and wnlch is the contributing agent or agents. If the diagnosis of pustular psoriasis, defined by Dorlands Medical Dictionary as a hereditary condition. Is correct, thorough pre-employment disclosure and examin ation should have precluded the Individual from working In an area wherein skin con tact with known skin Irritants Is likely. That Is i personal judgement and Is not Intended to represent Mcompotent medical authority". In sumuary, the final determination must be based on the nature and origin of the condition. If the determination Is occupational contact dermatitis, the nature of the occupation, coupled with the environmental data available, serve to provide i relatively sound cause and effect relationship. If the condition was caused away from the workplace, was there any relationship between the non-occupatlona! and occupational exposures, and finally, If the call Is "pustular psoriasis" does the fact that by medical definition It Is hereditary preclude environmental factors from affecting its occurance or Incidence. Resp. LG/ng LG MGR I.H. C S OAUON OAV'O M OCVJ. ACM JACK CCWVAT AATWICK W, ALLCN DAVtO A. tAAHIAC GA*r T KlNfftCtO JOSCPM m. CtCNOCA jam c o nice v NACKLtT jamcs **, mcncv E. S. Gallon & Associates ATTOANCYS AT LAW MIAMI VALLEY TOW CM AO W FOUATM T. Dayton. Ohio 4540a TClCnMONI St)/46l-j04 January 14, 1980 jack OAUON CTOCCDO) or couNtct. Ohio Department of Safety and Hygiene P.0. Box 16512 Columbus, Ohio 43216 ATTN: Louis Gergeley RE: Margaret Milton I.C. Claim No. OD-13332-22 Dear Mr. Gergeley: Pursv-nt to your telephone conversation with Mr. Ebenger on January 8, 1980, we contacted the claimant who advises that she worked with weather stripping, although she was not certain that this was the name of the department, and she also worked in Inspection. She indicated that the entire time she worked at Inland, she worked with weather stripping materials, Once your report is complete, we would appreciate a copy being sent to our office. Very truly yours, PF/mk (c) PATRICIA FIELDS Legal Assistant C 5 OAILON DAVID M. DCUT9CH JACK CCKVAV katwick w allcn OAVIO A. &AAHIAC GAHV T BHINlf(ClO JOSEPH m CBCNOCH JAMES O NICE JCrrKCt V NACKIET JAMES * HBCY E. S. Gallon 8c Associates ATTORNEYS AT l AW MIAMI VAUCT lOWCH AO w rOUWTM *T Dayton, Ohio '4oa JACK GAUON rrotCOOl or COUNSEL January 23, 1980 Ohio Department of Safety and Hygiene P. 0. Box 16512 Columbus, Ohio 43216 Attention: Mr. Louis Gergeley Re: Margaret Milton I. C. Claim No. OD-13332-22 Dear Mr. Gergeley: Pursuant to our letter to you. dated January 14, 1980, copy of which is attached, Ms. Milton advises our office that the informa tion we gave you in that letter was not entirely accurate. She indicates to us that she also worked on dash pads for approximate ly three to four years. She said that her hands broke out while she was working with the pads, but not with infections like the condition caused by working with weather stripping. The depart ment where she worked with the weather stripping was Department 464, and she worked there for nine or ten years. Me hope this information is of help to you. Very truly yours, Srr^7\ GALLON & ASSOCIATES /Is Enel (c) Patricia Fields Legal Assistant / ( ( January 14, 19 ''0 r>hlo PeoartTnert of f.afcty and Hygiene r.O. Tox 16512 Col'.inbus, Ohio 43216 ATTH: Loui3 Gergeley RF.: Margaret 'Tilton I.C. Claim Ho. OD-13332-22 Tear Mr. Cereeley: Pursuant to your telephone conversation with Mr. Ebenger on January P., 19*9, ve contacted the claimant who advises that she worked. with vreathor striprinr-, although she van not certain that this vns the nrut'* oc the Topartmont, and r.he also worked in Inspection. She indicated that the entire tiv-.o. she worked at Inland., she worked crit-' weather stripping materials. Cnee your rcoort is complete, wo would appreciate a copy hein^. sent to our office. Vi:vy trulv yours, E.. f. n/.ujyj r. /tf;'X-CT.ATi;S PF/rtk . (c) P/TRICIA riPT.hh I.cp.al Assistant