Document oeGe72qe1E84vnz0zd87mQd53

Apr! 7-tO, 7000 February 12, 1980 Legal Section Industrial Commission of Ohio 246 N. High St. Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attn: Diane Larson O.D. 13332-22 Margaret S. Milton Inland Division General Hotors 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 nade to the Inland Division of General Motors, located on West Third St., In Dayton. The objective or 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 1dentlfied during the evaluation dates". Tha Industrial Commission of Ohio Division of Safsty and Hygiarw 240 N. High St Columbus, Ohio 43215 Jamss A. Rttodss. GovsmorWiliam W. Johnston. Induttrisl Comnftaion Chairmao Raymond A. Connor.ViesChairman LaonardT. Lancjatsr, Mambar PhllpA.Wortunan,SafityandHygianaSupartntaodani Bob MaaUrtf Sup*rtrrtnd*n< Liwranca J. WhaWo, Congrna Managar r O.D. 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-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 th.-y actively pursue a program to prevent and control derma titis In this work are-, via worker education, protective equipment, barrier creams and a lfberal 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". nnnn n 11JJ I I Ji_____: * I O.D. 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. Respectfully Louis Gefgely r Manager Industrial Hygiene Department LG/ng Acetaldehyde Acetic acid Acetic anhydride Acetooe Acrolein Acrylamide Acrylonitrile .VOid alcohol AOyi chloride Aflyi glycidyl ether Ammonia n-Amyl acetate rrc-Amyl acetate Antimony Arsenic and compounds Barium and compounds Benzene Benzoyl peroxide Benzyl chloride Beryllium and beryllium compound* Boron oxide Boron triftuoride Bromine - x-Butyl acetate *rr-Butyl acetate a-Butyl alcohol MC-Butyl alcohol ten-Butyl alcohol a-Bulylamine a-Butyl glycidyl ether Calcium artenate Calcium oxide Carbary I Carbon disulftde Carbon tetrachloride Chlorinated diphenyl oxide Chlorine Chlorine irifluoridc ChfnroacctakJehyde alpha -Chioroacetoplicnonc Chlorobenzene o-Chlorobetizylidene malononitrile Chlorobromomeihane Chlorodiphcnyl, 42% chlorine Chlorodiphcnyl. 54% chlorine Chloroform Chlornpicnn Chloroprcne Chromic acid and chromate* Chromium, voluble chromic and chromou* salts Coal tar pilch volatiles Copper dusts and mists Crag herbicide Cresol. all isomers Crotonaidehyde Cumene 52 Tabfa 4-D. Prfaaary Chemical Irrit Cyanides (xlkali) Cyclohexane Cydohexand Cyclohexanone Cyclohexene DDT Diacetone alcohol Dibutyl phosphate o-Dichiorobenzcne p-Dichlorobcnzeoe 1.1-Dichloro-1-nitroetbane Diethylatnioe Diethyiaminoethanol Diglycidyl ether Diisobutyl ketone Dimethybmine Dimethyh'ormar Je 1.1-DimetbyibydraziM Dimethyl wtfate Diosane Epichlorhydrin Epoxy retins Ethanolamine 2-Elhoxyethanol 2-thoxyethyl acetate Ethyl acetate Ethyl acrylate Ethylamine Ethyl amyl ketone Ethylbenzene Ethyl bromide Ethyl butyl ketone Ethylenediamine Ethylene dibromide Ethylene dichloride Elhyleneimine Ethylene oxide Ethyl ether Ethyl formate Ethylidene chloride Ethyl silicate Fluoride Fluorine Formaldehyde Formic acid Furfural Glycidol /i-Heptune Hexachloronaphthalenc n-Hexanc Hydrazine Hydrogen bromide Hydrogen chloride Hydrogen fluoride Hydrogen peroxide. 90% Iodine Isoamyl acetate --' i I TtWSUa Isobutyl alcohol Isophoroue Isopropylamine Isopropyl ether Isopropyl glycidyt ether Kctcne Lead arsenate Lithium hydride Maleic anhydride Mercury Mercury, alky] compounds Mesityl oxide Methyl acetate Methyl acrylate MethybJ Methyl alcohol Methytemine Methyl bromide Methyl butyl ketone Methyl chloride Methylcyciohexane MethylcycJohexanol o-Methyicyclohexanooe Methylene bisphenyi isocyanate Methylene chloride Methyl ethyl ketone Methyl iodide Methyl isobutyl ketone Methyl isocyanate Methyl methacrylate Methyl propyl ketone alpha -Methyl styrene Monomcthylhydrazine Morpholine Nalcd Naphtha, coat Ur Naphtha, petroleum distillates Nickel, metal Nitric acid Nitrobenzene Nitroethane Nilromcihane Octachloronuphthalene Octane Osmium tetroxide Oxalic acid Pemaboranc Pentachloronaphthalene Pentachlorophenol Pentane Perchloromethyl mercaptan Phenol P'Phenylenediamine Phenyl ether Phenyl etber*biphcnyl mixture Phenyl (iycxlyl ether Phenythydrazine Phosgene Phosphoric add Phosphorus (yellow) Phosphorus pentacbloride Phosphorus penttsutfide Phosphorus trichloride Phthalic anhydride Picric add Platinum, soluble salts Portland cement Propyl acetate n-Propyl alcohol Propylene dichloride Propylene imtne Propylene oxide Pyrethrum Pyridine Quinooe Rotenone Selenium compounds Silver, metal and soluble compounds Sodium hydroxide Stoddard solvent Styrene Sulfur dioxide Sulfur monochloride Sulfuric acid Tellurium Terphcnyls Tetrachloroethone Tetrachlorocthylene Tetrachloronaphthalene Tctranilromethane Tetryl Thiram Tin, organic and inorganic compounds - Toluene Toluene 2.4-diisocyanale o-Toluidine Toxopltcne Tributyl phosphate " I. I, I -Trichlorocl hane TrichU>focthylene Trichloronaphthalene 2.4.5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 1,2.3-Trichloropropane 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-triAuorocthanc Triethylamine ' 2.4.6-Trinitrotoluene Turpentine Uranium (natural), soluble and insoluble compounds Vanadium pentoxide Vinyltoiucne *' Xylene urrnu un un un pr u^ DD. I ( i- t* ,1 ii i 4 ^--'50th &/QP /./,* April 7-10, 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". Tha Industrial Commission of Ohio Division of Safety and Hygiena 246 N. High St Columbus. Ohio 43215 Jems* A. Rhodes, Go*arnor*WIsm W. Johnston, Industrial Comrrtseion Chairman* Raymond A. Conner.Vice Chakman*leonafdT.L*nc*eer.Maitof Phllp A. Workman, Safety and Hypiens Supsrintsndsnt Bob Rilsy, Assistant Superintendent Lawrence J. Whalen, Congrsss Managar 0.0. 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-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 Dorland'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". ).D. 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 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 Manager Industrial Hygiene Department LG/ng * 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 evauatlon, extensive environmental monitoring was conducteddurlng 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 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 dates7- 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 - tr1chioroethane 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 NI9SH 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 Draft Copy 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 wnich 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 "compotent medical authority". 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 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 OAl LON OAV.O M DCU'iCH JACK CCffVAT AATWICK w. AUCN OAVIO A. tAHIAC oaat r wtNsrici.o joic^h m. cscMocii JAMCI O MICC Jl'Mtr V NACKUV JAMES It. MlCACV E. S. Gallon & Associates ATTOWMCV9 At LAW MIAMI VAUC1' TOW C It AO W rOUWTM *T. Dayton. Ohio 40403 TdC^HONC ftO/46lOt4 January 14, 1980 JACK GALLON CTOWCOO) or couMtci. 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 GALLON OAVIO M OIUTfCM JACK CCAVAV PATRICK W. ALLCN OAVIO A. SAAHIHC C*Av T MlNftrtCLO JOicrn m cmcuQc* JAMES O A 1CC jcrrACT v nacklcy JAMCS A RICACV E. S. Gallon 8c Associates ATTONNCTS At l AW MIAMI VAIWCY tOWCA ao w roustn T Dayton. Ohio &*oa JACK GALLON fTOtCOOl 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. V7e hope this information is of help to you. Very truly yours, JJ-t-STn GALLON & ASSOCIATES /Is Enel (c) Patricia Fields' Legal Assistant (f January 14, 19 '`0 Ohio Department of Safety 3nd hygiene P.O. Iox 16512 Columbus, Ohio 43216 ATTN: Loui3 Cergeley RF.: Margaret Milton I.C. Claim Mo. OP-13332-22 Pear Mr. Cerneley: Pursuant to your telephone? conversation with ?Ir. Kbenner on January H, 19^9, vo contacted the claimant who advises that she worked t;ith weather striprine, although sbo van'not certain th.at this vns the n.-x'.'- oc the -^partner.t, and she also worked in inspection. She indicated that the entire time she vorkee! at Inland, she worked wit1, weather stripping materials. Once your reoort is complete, wo would anpi*eciatc a copy being sent to our o5fi.ee. Vi:vy trulv yours, E.. f. 0/.T.h0\; MT.r.ciATlIS PF /r.k . (c) P/7RICIA YIThTX Lc.gal Assistant } \ w ' * ' ` * if ; ^ <? if&6kb u M: i' * M t 1/ \v;t' 5r^'V- V Vi y *-v>,. ,. <! 4 ,r, V,,;', t'1 * X ' :v;. 'A.';: ';^. '7`; ''1 /'-. ` /'; S teW-i.' ''[ "" ' '"'>;.':'.,'v,'" 7'j1'1 7-' . ^.vr-'A^A'''"' ''v V:7 /''V-A'A''7";/'-A'. ,y,-, `>Y77 *'? 'i y:''.' /_ * 11 --- '* -''' '>-' "-'f~ ' ' ' -v - * ` (... ; - ** -- -- 1........ * t- <j- :; >' ' i ,'*' * * ,,r" ,, 1 v > 'is> / !*;,f t *, t , '. * * ,. ` <^ './:-7,7il /- 'A, V;V.v ^ 1 < . t ' ' / '.' :itfIfr .:-.V. .:.:,:;': . , V* /* '-\L`f *f,\ a11- TV''^ ' - v''-^ &' " c "''A'- < V; ^ r-*-'