NY Court Affirms Award for Flight Attendant’s Allergy to Uniforms
Illustrating that it is for the New York Workers’ Compensation Board to weigh the evidence, even when that evidence has been presented to a law judge hearing the case, a New York appellate court affirmed a decision of the state’s Board that awarded workers’ compensation benefits to a flight attendant who contended she developed a respiratory condition due to an allergic reaction to her employer-provided uniform [Matter of Molina v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 237 (Jan. 13, 2022)]. Contrary to the holding of the law judge, the Board had credited medical evidence offered by the flight attendant over that offered by her employer. The simple rule in New York and many other states: when the hearing officer and the Board or Commission see things differently, the Board’s “vision” controls.
Background
Claimant, a flight attendant for an airline, began to experience respiratory problems, including coughs and shortness of breath, shortly after she began wearing the employer-provided uniform for work in July 2018. Her symptoms progressively worsened over the next year, during which she consulted numerous medical providers who made various diagnoses and ordered treatments and tests, none of which cured her symptoms or supplied an answer as to the cause of her ongoing respiratory symptoms.
In June 2019, an occupational medicine specialist with public health and toxicology training reviewed her medical history and ruled out the prior diagnoses as the cause of her ongoing symptoms. Based in part upon his involvement with other patients who experienced similar respiratory problems with new flight attendant uniforms and claimant’s symptomology history, the specialist determined that Claimant’s symptoms were consistent with and caused by an allergic response to her work uniform, and assisted her in obtaining an exemption from wearing that uniform. Claimant discontinued wearing her uniform and reported a significant improvement in her symptoms. She filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits for cough, dyspnea, and respiratory abnormalities, supported by the specialist’s medical opinion that her uniform was the cause of her ongoing respiratory symptoms.
Following a request from the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier, Claimant was further examined by an allergist, who concluded that her exposure to the uniform was not the cause of her respiratory symptoms. The carrier also produced a toxicologist who tested the fabric used in the uniforms and did not find chemicals at a level that would cause adverse health effects in sensitive persons.
WCLJ Says Yes; Board Says No to Claim
After considering the medical testimony and reports, a WCLJ disallowed the claim, crediting the medical opinions of the allergist and the carrier’s toxicologist. On administrative review, Board reversed and established the claim for occupational disease to include cough, dyspnea and respiratory abnormalities, crediting the medical opinion of Claimant’s occupational medicine specialist. The employer and carrier appealed.
Appellate Court Affirms Board
The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision. Reviewing the record, the court noted that Claimant testified that she had no prior allergies and had never smoked, that her severe, persistent cough and respiratory symptoms began shortly after she began wearing the work uniform and grew progressively worse over time, subsiding only when she was away from work for periods of time, and that her symptoms returned in “full force” when she resumed working. After she discontinued wearing the uniform, the symptoms abated. In support of its finding of an occupational disease, the Board expressly credited the detailed medical opinion and testimony of Claimant’s expert that there was a causal relationship, over the contrary conclusions of the other physicians.
In particular, the court observed that Claimant’s uniform was never tested. The Board, therefore, rationally rejected the toxicologist’s testimony regarding testing on bulk fabric samples; upon cross-examination, he conceded that the uniforms undergo the addition of chemicals during the finishing process. In as much as Claimant’s expert established a recognizable link between claimant’s symptoms and her work uniform that was rationally supported, and signified a probability as to the requisite causal connection, the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and would not be disturbed.