Document pO6vO2Kx9neR1KdDJzKV17oD

V J , g\ THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ^"Division of Safety and Hygiene B230 Montgomery Road. Suite 107 Cincinnati, Ohio 45236 January 13. 1989 Govmnor Ms. Judy Spencer Legal Department Industrial Commission of Ohio 246 North High Street Columbus, Ohio -43215 Employer: .. E. Kramig Co. Cincinnati, OH Claimant: Dear Ms. Spencer: is a 57 year-old man who worked as an insulator for approximately 35 years. During that time, he worked out of an insulators union local. Most of his working life, about 30 y-iars, was for one employer, R.E. Kramig Co. His last employer vaj A. & S. Insulation, which he left in 1987 on a work-related disability. That disability is not related to the present claim. Tha nature of ^mBHBM^rork was such that he would verylikely have been exposed to fairly high dust levels on a frequent basis. The removal of old, and the application of new insulation, whether in new or existing structures and equipment, generated airborne dust from the insulating materials. The materials used varied in composition considerably, depending nn the type and place of application. Most insulation used until the mid-to-late 70's, contained asbestos. In the early years, when little was known of the potential hazards of breathing asbestos, and other dusts, little or no control measures were taken. With the enactment of safety and health legislation in 1970, efforts to reduce exposures to hazardous agents began. Unfortunately, for many workers like Mr. Vossler, these efforts came too late. They had already received what could prove to be factors in the occupational disease process in the future. For others, even exposures did not, and may not cause health complications. To predict who will and who will not develop disease, is nearly impossible. There are many variable'. Personal lifestyle habits, such as smoking, can predispose one to a variety of respiratory diseases, with, or without, occupational MIMOwiIMflmH, exposures. When the two are combined, especially in the case of smoking and asbestos exposures, the likelihood of respiratory disease development increases significantly. The medical reports, contained in this claim, appear to leave little doubt of a connection between occupational exposures and disease development. The main question seems to be the degree of disability. has had several pulmonary function tests over the last several years. Considering his age, those results are very nearly normal The test results from Jewish Hospital indicated that. There is also a three inch difference In height recorded on the PFT between Dr. Kelley's report and that from Jewish Hospital. That addition would make the PFT results appear lower. X-ray results are not conclusive in diagnosing asbestos-related disease. There are a number of non-occupational diseases which share similar signs and symptoms. Finally, there is the smoking factor. Without it, there is a high likelihood that may not be incapacitated as much, or at all. In summary, it is not unlikely that MWMr received significant exposure to asbestos-containing materials in the early years of his worklife. Whether it was sufficient to cause disease, and disability, or not, is impossible to determine precisely. If I may be of further assistance in this claim, please let me know. Sincerely, CIH Industrial Hygienist Literature sources used in this include: f.1 . Occupational Lung Diseases. Weill Wanck, Marcel Dekker, Inc., N. Y., 193: 2. Pulmonary Function Tests m Clinical and Occupational Luno Disease. Miller, Grune 6 Stratton, Inc., N. Y. 1986 3. Asbestos Related Disease: Difficulties in Diagnosing Occupationally Related Illness. Raymond Murphy, M.D., Frontiers m Medicine, Feb. 10, 1981 4. Federal Register, Vol 57, No. 119, June 20, 1986 JF: rf 3