Cole Truck Parts v. Robert Leeber, II

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 27, 2016
Docket15-0781
StatusPublished

This text of Cole Truck Parts v. Robert Leeber, II (Cole Truck Parts v. Robert Leeber, II) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cole Truck Parts v. Robert Leeber, II, (W. Va. 2016).

Opinion

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED September 27, 2016 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK COLE TRUCK PARTS, INC., SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Employer Below, Petitioner OF WEST VIRGINIA

vs.) No. 15-0781 (BOR Appeal No. 2050299) (Claim No. 2013017544)

ROBERT LEEBER II, Claimant Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Cole Truck Parts, Inc., by Lisa Warner Hunter, its attorney, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Robert Leeber II, by Reginald D. Henry and Rodney A. Skeens, his attorneys, filed a timely response.

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated July 24, 2015, in which the Board affirmed a March 4, 2015, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s November 29, 2012, decision rejecting the claim and instead held the claim compensable for bladder cancer. The Court has carefully reviewed the records, written arguments, and appendices contained in the briefs, and the case is mature for consideration.

This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Mr. Leeber, an automotive painter, developed bladder cancer in the course of and resulting from his employment with Cole Truck Parts, Inc. Treatment notes from Greenbrier Valley Medical Center dated April 22, 2011, indicate Mr. Leeber was seen for blood and clots in his urine. A CT scan showed a bladder mass or hematoma to the left. He underwent surgery on April 23, 2011, and the surgical pathology report showed a urothelial, papillary, noninfiltrative carcinoma of high grade malignancy. Mr. Leeber was treated by Thomas Kowalkowski, M.D., with chemotherapy from May of 2011 through January of 2014. Mr. Leeber completed an 1 application for benefits on June 9, 2011, in which he alleged that his bladder cancer was the result of occupational paint and chemical exposure.

Christopher Martin, M.D., performed a record review on November 14, 2012, in which he noted that no detailed exposure history was available and there were no material safety data sheets in the record. Dr. Martin stated that bladder cancer is recognized to be an occupational cancer in some cases. Recognized occupational exposures include aromatic amines, arsenic, halogenated hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and ionizing radiation. Dr. Martin opined that based on the very limited information available, Mr. Leeber did not have any unusual exposure to any of those agents sufficient to cause bladder cancer. Dr. Martin noted that the International Agency for Research on Cancer estimates that working as a painter increases the risk of bladder cancer by about 25%. However, he also noted that Mr. Leeber only painted cars and that painters from the study were from very diverse settings. He further stated that bladder cancer from exposure to chemicals usually takes ten to thirty years to develop. Mr. Leeber’s occurred too soon to be occupationally related. Finally, Dr. Martin stated that the most well recognized external cause of bladder cancer is cigarette smoking which accounts for 50% of new cases and increases the risk by 300%. Mr. Leeber admitted to being a cigarette smoker. Dr. Martin ultimately concluded that there was not enough exposure information in the record to conclude that the bladder cancer was occupationally related. The claims administrator rejected the claim on November 29, 2012.

In an affidavit, Mr. Leeber stated that his earliest exposure to auto paint fumes was from 1992 to 2002 when he worked for Charlie Earhart Dodge. He stated that he used a respirator when he painted but did not have a paint suit. He stated that he worked for Grime Fighters for two years where he was exposed to paint and fumes. He worked for Cole Truck Parks, Inc., for three years priming and painting cars. He stated that he was exposed to paint and fumes every day. He asserted that he worked in a paint booth that did not seal correctly and therefore filled with fumes. Mr. Leeber stated that the fresh air system was broken in the shop as well and the ventilation system was inadequate.

Dr. Kowalkowski stated in a January 30, 2014, letter that Mr. Leeber reported a long history of occupational exposure to paints used in the repair of automobile work. Due to the long history and reports of increased bladder cancer associated with exposure to those chemicals, Dr. Kowalkowski felt that Mr. Leeber’s bladder cancer was very likely related to his occupational exposure. Mr. Leeber was much younger than the average age for the condition. On May 23, 2013, Dr. Kowalkowski reiterated that Mr. Leeber’s work exposure significantly contributed to the causation of his bladder cancer.

On June 16, 2014, Mr. Leeber testified in a deposition that he had no bladder issues prior to his bladder cancer. He stated that following his cancer and treatment, he has been on medication to manage his pain. He admitted to being a pack a day smoker from the time he was sixteen until he was diagnosed with bladder cancer. He stated that when he worked for Charlie Earhart Dodge, he used a respirator but no other protective equipment. The paint booth in that garage was inadequate. Mr. Leeber owned his own business for approximately two and a half years and painted two to three cars in that time period. He next worked for Grime Fighters for 2 approximately three years. He painted six to eight hours a week while there. He asserted that the paint box at Grime Fighters was not up to standards. Mr. Leeber testified that when he worked for Cole Truck Parts, Inc., he was exposed to cleaners, paints, primers, and sealers. He stated that Cole Truck Parts, Inc., had an actual paint booth, respirators, and paint suits; however, the fresh air systems were broken for some time and did not work properly even after they were repaired. He stated that when he worked for Cole Truck Parts, Inc., he always had paint on his skin when he got home and it was in a much larger amount than when he worked for other employers. Mr. Leeber stated that he was granted social security disability, and his doctors have recommended that he not return to the automotive repair field. Mr. Leeber described episodes while he worked at Cole Truck Parts, Inc., where he would come home and feel shaky, nauseous, and dizzy. He stated that he experienced the episodes approximately twice a week. He did not experience them before working at Cole Truck Parts, Inc., and they ceased after he stopped working there.

On November 4, 2014, Dr. Martin performed a second medical review in which he noted that Mr. Leeber was young, thirty-eight, when he was diagnosed with bladder cancer, which points to an occupational cause. He found that Mr. Leeber reported a high level of exposure while working for Cole Truck Parts, Inc. He also had a history suggestive of symptoms of acute over exposure during his employment there. However, Dr. Martin noted that Mr. Leeber is a smoker, which increases his chance of bladder cancer by 300%. Dr. Martin found a host of carcinogens that he was exposed to, but none of them were implicated as causing bladder cancer. Finally, Dr. Martin found that the very short time between when Mr. Leeber began working for Cole Truck Parts, Inc., and when he developed cancer, two and a half years later, calls in to question whether the cancer was occupationally related. Dr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cole Truck Parts v. Robert Leeber, II, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-truck-parts-v-robert-leeber-ii-wva-2016.