Commission Adopts Resolution Regarding Evidence for Asbestos-Related Condition
The Industrial Commission adopted Resolution R03-1-02 which modifies R96-1-01, by a 2-1 vote.
This resolution deals with evidence an injured worker needs to submit on asbestosis, silicosis, coal miners pneumonoconiosis and respiratory disease resulting from exposure to dust. R.C. §4123.68 requires a BWC exam in these type of cases.
The Resolution requires the following evidence:
- Written interpretation of x-rays by Certified “B” Reader;
- Pulmonary function studies and interpretation;
- Causal relationship opinion.
In compliance with State, ex rel. Hubbard v. Indus. Comm. (2002), 96 Ohio St.3d 336, the Resolution specifically excludes mesothelioma claims from the requirement.
Editor’s Comment: R.C. §4123.68(Y) provides for the BWC to obtain an examination in certain occupational disease cases. The BWC doesn’t always get the examination in such cases. Resolution R03-1-02 tells hearing officers when they may send such claims back to the BWC for examination.
Has the BWC waived the examination by not choosing to have one initially?
Can the Commission create evidentiary hurdles through a Resolution?
Another problem caused by the Resolution: Suppose there is evidence better than a “B” Reader x-ray report? (Such as a biopsy report.) Where there is a biopsy report, the response from the BWC or Commission has been that a “B” Reader report must be submitted. What sense does that make?