NY Makeup Artist Fails to Establish Bartonella bacteria Claim From Her Exposure to Rats
A New York appellate court affirmed a finding that claimant, a makeup artist, had failed to establish her claim related to an airborne illness (Bartonella bacteria) that she claimed she contracted from exposure to dead rodents in her workplace [Matter of Petesic v Fox 5 N.Y., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5719 (3rd Dept. July 18, 2019)]. The appellate court acknowledged that the record contained medical testimony that could support a finding that claimant’s contraction of Bartonella was causally related to her employment, but stressed that it was within the Board’s province to assess the credibility of the witnesses, as well as the medical evidence presented, and come to the conclusion that her condition’s origin was unrelated to her work.
Background
Claimant testified that she observed one live mouse or rat at her place of employment in November 2014 (3 months prior to the filing of the claim), and that she had touched what she believed to be mouse droppings in previous years. Claimant also testified that there was an odor of dead animals at her workplace that was contained to a stockroom to which only she had access. Claimant, however, acknowledged that she did not make any written complaint to her employer’s human resources department regarding rodents or their droppings, and the employer’s human resources director likewise confirmed that no complaints of that nature had been received. Claimant’s supervisor, who had held that position for over 11 years at the time of the hearing, also testified that she had never observed rodents or their droppings in or around claimant’s work space and that she was unaware of any reports of rodents from other employees on claimant’s floor.
Uncommon Infection
The physician who examined claimant at the end of December 2014 and treated her for Bartonella explained that Bartonella is an uncommon infection spread by the feces and urine of mice and rats, as well as farm animals. The physician testified that claimant described her exposure to rat and mouse droppings at work and that claimant denied having any rodents in her home. The physician also testified that he asked claimant about her travel history, and claimant did not report any travel to third-world countries or farm areas. Based on the information provided by claimant, the physician opined that there was a “distinct possibility” that claimant contracted Bartonella at work.
What About Croatia?
When informed that claimant had spent three weeks in Croatia during August 2013, the physician testified that he would consider parts of Croatia to be the developing world and, in his opinion, if claimant had been through the countryside in Croatia, it would be possible that she contracted Bartonella there. Further, the physician stated that, assuming that claimant had travelled to Croatia, he could not determine whether claimant contracted the disease at work.
Conflicting Medical Evidence, Lack of Candor about Travel
The appellate court noted that there was medical testimony that could support a finding that claimant’s contraction of Bartonella was causally related to her employment. Nevertheless, it was within the Board’s province to assess the credibility of the witnesses as well as the medical evidence presented. The court added that the conflicting findings and equivocal narratives stem, at least in part, from claimant’s failure to be entirely forthcoming with the physician about her travel history. In light of claimant’s failure to disclose this relevant information, the Board found that the physician’s opinion as to causation was not reliable. The Board also found that claimant’s exposure to rodents and their droppings at work was insignificant and, therefore, determined that claimant failed to establish her Bartonella claim. Because the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court would not disturb it.