- June 9, 2021
- Miscellaneous
The issue in this WCAT worker appeal from British Columbia is whether the worker is entitled to WCAT compensation for his diagnosed systemic scleroderma on the basis that it was an occupational disease arising from his employment. The worker was employed as a set builder (mostly as a carpenter) in the film and television industry for 20 years. Over a period of 5 years, the worker developed respiratory symptoms and was eventually diagnosed with scleroderma.
In the course of his set building, the worker was exposed to a number of airborne pollutants including crystalline silica dust. The Tribunal found that the worker was exposed to airborne silica dust in varying amounts when working as a set carpenter.
The first issue was whether exposure to silica dust can cause scleroderma. Based upon the testimony of five doctors, the Tribunal held that there is a connection between exposure to the dust and scleroderma.
The second issue was whether there was a threshold exposure for demonstrating that scleroderma was caused by exposure to silica dust. The Tribunal held that to date, the medical and scientific field has not established a definitive exposure level necessary to establish a definitive causal link to the development of scleroderma. However, the Tribunal did find that exposure to amounts of silica dust that would otherwise be insignificant may be causatively significant if they occurred regularly over an extended period of time.
The third issue was whether the worker had been exposed to enough silica dust to demonstrate a causal relationship between the exposure and the workers’ development of scleroderma. The Tribunal found that the worker had been exposed to “a significant amount of silica dust on a near daily basis for a period of 15 or more years”.
Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal concluded that the worker’s exposure to silica dust was of “causative significance to the development of his scleroderma.” Further the Tribunal concluded that “the worker’s scleroderma was an occupational disease due to the nature of his employment.” Therefore, the Tribunal found that the worker was entitled to WCAT compensation.