Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrom多种化学敏感性综合征.pptVIP

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity(Legal implications) Me Judith Cohen May 12, 2011 MCS and Labor Relations Moreau et Commission scolaire de Val-d’Or c. Commission des lésions professionnelles (2002) Claim Appeal to CLP of decision of the CSST which confirmed the decision that the appellant did not suffer from professional injury and therefore has no right to compensation. Recognition Initial diagnosis indicated dry rhinitis and dry irritative laryngitis. Complementary report indicated mucus hypersensitivity. Both were attributed to MCS. Contradictory reports linked his symptoms to allergies or more likely to a depressive mental state – the fact that the symptoms did not improve after employee stopped working suggest an unlikely relation between the two. Continued… Moreau et Commission scolaire de Val-d’Or c. Commission des lésions professionnelles (2002) Decision Confirmed presence of occupational disease. Motives: preponderant medical and factual proof, his prolonged exposure to chemicals (only at the work place), the absence of previous personal or psychological illnesses, and the flaring up of MCS symptoms when exposed to similar chemicals. NB Judgement which officially recognized MCS as a compensable disease. Lemoy et Litho Associates Ltée c. Commission des lésions professionnelles (2003) Claim Demanded compensation for occupational disease due to exposure to toluene in print shop. Recognition MCS and rhinitis caused by chemical sensitivity were the accepted diagnosis, even though the chemical substance did not exceed the regulatory exposure limits – made clear that workers exposure to low level of toluene triggered her disease. Continued… Lemoy et Litho Associates Ltée c. Commission des lésions professionnelles (2003) Decision Confirmation by 6 doctors leads to acceptance of claim. NB CLP begins to acknowledge that a medical controversy regarding the diagnosis of MCSS can no longer justify refusal of a claim, as was the previous practice (see Rolko: