Did ‘Repugnant’ Smells of Acetone, Alloys Show Claimant’s Job Damaged her Lungs?

What Do You Think?

A claimant doesn’t have to provide expert medical testimony to show that her work caused her injury if it’s obvious that it did under the circumstances. But is it enough that it’s obvious to the claimant? 

In a recent Pennsylvania case, a claimant worked for a metals fabricator. She had been smoking cigarettes for more than 30 years. But she said that she had never suffered any pulmonary issues such as asthma or shortness of breath. 

As part of her job, she worked with harsh substances, such as acetone and a nickel alloy, used to treat metal. Those substances had a "repugnant" odor that one could smell immediately upon walking into the factory, she asserted.

When she began experiencing breathing problems, she thought it was obvious that her job was the cause. Her doctors, however, never reached that conclusion. An independent medical examiner pointed out that her smoking obviously played a role.

To obtain workers’ compensation benefits, a claimant must establish that her injury was sustained in the course of employment. If the causal relationship between the work and injury is not obvious, then that relationship must be established with unequivocal medical testimony. 

Did the claimant establish a compensable injury?

A. No. She didn’t prosent medical testimony to connect her work activities to her shortness of breath.

B. Yes. Given the acetone and metals she was exposed to at work, it was obvious that the work injured her lungs.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Nagi v. Medplast Engineered Products, Inc., No. 391 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Commw Ct. 07/10/25), which held that the claimant’s failure to provide medical evidence doomed her claim.

The court rejected the claimant’s assertion that the connection between her work and her lung problems were obvious. An injury is obviously work-related if it immediately manifests itself while the claimant is in the act of performing work that can cause the injury, the court said. An example is a laborer who grabs his back in pain after lifting his shovel full of wet concrete.

Need to know more about "in the course of" in your state? Head to Simply Research

The link between the job and injury was not obvious in this case. The claimant’s own doctors failed to definitely conclude that her job caused her shortness of breath. 

“To the contrary, [the independent medical examiner] explained credibly that, to the extent Claimant suffers any breathing difficulties at all, they were obviously caused by her smoking-related emphysema rather than any work duties,” the court said.

Since it was not obvious that her shortness of breath was caused by her job, she had to provide expert medical testimony to establish causation. Since she failed to do that, the court dismissed the case.

Share This Article: