Re: Workers Comp Dosimetry Case

[Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 16:51 1996-07-01 -0500, you wrote:
>This was related by the RSO [now retired] of Stanford University to
>the No. Calif. Chapter HPS ten or more years ago.  They had just won
>a case after about 5 years.  The claimant was an X-ray Tech who claimed
>that her thyroid [I think] cancer was the result of occupational exposure.
>All of her exposure was not at Stanford, there were one or two other hosp-
>itals.  Her total lifetime exposure was less than one years occupation
>allowance [5 rem].  Her case had two points, as I recall;  1]  Radiation
>is really much worse than "they" tell us.  [You can imagine the details
>and the probable proponants] & 2] Her exposure was really much higher
>than recorded because she wore her badge inside of lead aprons instead of
>outside as Stanford Universtiy Hospital proceedures directed.
> 
>>Maybe there's someone out there from Stanford that can supply details.
>Without them it would be hard to say, as I am tempted to, that Stanford
>might have won because she violated their procedures.  Anyway she 
>challenged the dosimetry records and failed in her case.
> 
>I'm not sure if Workers Comp cases work like tort cases in establishing a
>president.  But since, workers comp laws are state statutes, a ruling in
>California would probably have no status here in Colorado or anywhere 
>else in this country except California.
> 
>Hopefully just information, but any opinions are mine alone.
> 
>Peter G. Vernig, VA Medical Center, Denver, vernig.peter@forum.va.gov
>
>==========================================================================

Radsafers,

Please keep in mind that cases like this are really not restricted to the
field of radiation. You can find them anywhere. I was involved in a case,
where a technician claimed, that she had been poisoned during her many years
of work in a hydrology laboratory by the solvents of liquid scintillation
cocktails and she referred all her "illnesses" to be caused by her
"exposure". I showed that she had been exposed to solvent concentrations
several orders of magnitude lower than the TLV - but not for 40 hours a
week, only for a few minutes per week! She didnīt claim her harm was caused
by tritium, which she actually had worked with. You would not believe all
the expertises of medical doctors - they even named long term exposure to
solvents as the cause of her illness, which she never had worked with. The
case is going on since several years and I expect it to continue for several
more years. The facts are scientifically clear, but they are not at all
"clear" to the court and her lawyer. 

I would not pay too much attention to cases like this, they occur in all
fields, where advocates and judges are involved. Has anybody ever
experienced a divorce? If yes, you know what I mean!!!!

Franz Schoenhofer
Federal Institute for Food Control and Research
Kinderspitalg. 15
A-1095 Vienna, AUSTRIA
Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 Wien
Tel./Fax:	+43-1-4955308
Tel.:		+43-664-3380333
e-mail:		schoenho@via.at