Medical Conditions: Chemical Exposures: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

MSGIA v. Robert Ellington [8/9/00] 2000 MTWCC 47 Testimony by two doctors – one a specialist in occupational disease, but not board certified and without a residency in that speciality, and the other a neurologist – that OD claimant's alleged fatigue, headaches, memory loss, confusion, dizziness, depression and other symptoms resulted from workplace exposure to chemicals not found persuasive by WCC where (1) both doctors believed claimant was exposed to trimellitic anhydride and toluene di-isocyanate, but evidence did not show those chemicals were present in cleaning supplies used by claimant; (2) one doctor's credibility was undermined by his lack of candor; (3) and third medical witness, who was board certified specialist in allergy, immunology, and internal medicine, a medical school professor with numerous relevant publications, and a recognized expert in immunology concerning multiple chemical sensitivity, testified more credibly that multiple chemical sensitivity as a diagnoses was discredited and that claimant's symptoms were explicable in terms of his other medical conditions, which included hypo-gonadism, hypothyroid, sleep apnea, preexisting depression, and rhinitis.
Hall v. State Compensation Insurance Fund [1/13/99] 1999 MTWCC 3 Where insurer accepted OD claim on diagnosis of multiple chemical sensitivity, Court would not enter into debate about whether the diagnosis was correct, even though evidence from more credible physician was critical of the diagnosis. Compensability does not turn on the validity of the diagnosis. It requires only that the claimant suffer an injury of some sort and, for purposes of compensation benefits, be disabled as a result of the injury. Persuasive medical testimony indicated claimant did suffer physical effects from workplace exposure, had reached MMI on those effects, but still need treatment on somatoform disorder arising out of physical condition.