The employer disputed the claim and paid no benefits. A witness testified to exposure to diesel fumes in the living areas of the fire station. Exposures including car and dumpster fires.
The treating oncologist was unable to relate claimant's medical condition to his employment. The employee relied upon the opinion of Dr. Koprivica, who has a specialty in emergency medicine. The employer relied upon the opinion of Dr. Shaw, a triple certified expert, who found no relationship between claimant's type of medical condition and exposure as a firefighter, and noted the type of lymphoma was not a respiratory or cardiac condition. He stated that obesity was a contributing factor but there was no known cause of the medical condition.
The ALJ found the condition did not fall within the easier burden of proof for firefighters because the condition was not a delineated condition under 287.067.6 because it was a lympathic condition. The ALJ found that claimant's expert relied upon statistical correlation did not meet the burden of proof to show causation, that me relied upon out-dated meta-analysis, and that Dr. Koprivica was not a credible or persuasive witness in this case, and the defense experts were more qualified.
The Commission reversed.
It found Dr. Lockey's opinion persuasive that claimant's work as a firefighter had an elevated risk for for his NHL, due to exposure to cardinogenic substances. The court noted Dr. Shaw did not review
Dr. Lockey's journal article.
The Commission found a recognized increased risk as compared to the general public between the disease and some distinctive feature of employment and found the additional risks doe snot negative the impact of increased risk factor.
The Commission declined to apply the firefighter presumption, but noted legislative intent was unclear on the scope of the provision. Cheney v City of Gladstone, 2018 MO WCLR LEXIS (June 15, 2018) 2-0 Vote
