Shirley L. Burns v. W. Va. Dept. of Education and The Arts

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 7, 2017
Docket17-0370
StatusPublished

This text of Shirley L. Burns v. W. Va. Dept. of Education and The Arts (Shirley L. Burns v. W. Va. Dept. of Education and The Arts) 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
Shirley L. Burns v. W. Va. Dept. of Education and The Arts, (W. Va. 2017).

Opinion

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED SHIRLEY L. BURNS, December 7, 2017 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK Claimant Below, Petitioner SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

vs.) No. 17-0370 (BOR Appeal No. 2051530) (Claim No. 2015002117)

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE ARTS, Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION Mrs. Burns, through counsel, Patrick K. Maroney, argues that her exposure to methlyocyclohexyl methanol, commonly known as MCHM , exacerbated her lung conditions. The West Virginia Department of Education and the Arts, through counsel, Lisa Warner Hunter, argues that exposure to MCHM could not be traced to her work and even if it was it did not cause any change in her lung function. Our holding in Syllabus Point 3 of Gill v. City of Charleston, 783 S.E.2d 857 (2016), states that to the extent that an aggravation of a non­ compensable pre-existing injury results in a discreet new injury, that new injury may be found compensable. Because Ms. Burns failed to show that her exposure to MCHM caused a discrete new injury, it was proper for her claim to be denied.

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.

Mrs. Burns has a significant history of problems with her lungs dating back as early as 2010. In 2010, Mrs. Burns reported to Ashish Sheth, M.D., with West Virginia Primary Care for a checkup. She was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis, black lung, hypertension, asthma, emphysema, heart disease, and gout. Mrs. Burns was also seen by Rachel Campbell, FNP, at West Virginia Primary Care for problems breathing. It was noted that she was on nighttime oxygen. Her breath sounds were described as poor with few bibasilar rhonchi. Dr. Sheth assessed respiratory failure, bronchial asthma, restrictive lung disease, depression, and anxiety.

1 A year prior to the alleged injury, Mrs. Burns’s condition worsened and she was admitted to the hospital with abnormal heart rhythms and trouble breathing. Mrs. Burns was diagnosed with restrictive lung disease, obstructive sleep apnea, acute respiratory distress, and bronchial asthma. The following day, Mrs. Burns underwent a pulmonary function test. Her FEV1 was one liter which was 23% of predicted and her post-bronchodilator was 67% of predicted. She was diagnosed with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease based upon the test. She was seen five more times in the spring of 2013 with shortness of breath and underwent pulmonary therapy.

In the summer of 2013, Mrs. Burns underwent a pulmonary function test at Pulmonary Associates of Charleston, which revealed severe obstruction, moderate restriction, and a decreased DLCO. A high resolution CT scan revealed ground glass opacities in both lungs which could have been caused by a variety of inflammatory or infectious causes. William Wade, M.D., evaluated Mrs. Burns and opined that her condition was likely more than mere asthma as the symptoms and findings were out of proportion with asthma. He believed she might have bronchiolitis obliterans, which is a rare disease of the lungs that is irreversible and deadly. He suggested that she seek treatment at the Cleveland Clinic. Testing revealed abnormal levels of Alpha-1 antitrypsin, a protein normally found in the lungs and bloodstream. The protein helps protect the lungs from damage caused by inflammation. Mrs. Burns was advised to tell her family so that they could be tested, as it is genetic. Dr. Sheth saw Mrs. Burns for extreme fatigue and shortness of breath two more times over the summer and was diagnosed with respiratory failure, bronchial asthma, and restrictive lung disease.

On January 9, 2014, a 40,000 gallon holding tank containing MCHM ruptured, leaking its contents into the Elk River, which supplies Kanawha County’s water supply. The MCHM was distributed across Kanawha County and citizens were advised to not use the water for any purpose. On January 14, 2014, Mrs. Burns reported to work as normal. She reported that the smell of the MCHM caused her to feel ill, and she was rushed to the emergency room at her doctor’s recommendation. Her coworkers testified that she was short of breath, shaky, had a cough, and appeared sick. She also reported to them that she had a scratchy throat, itchy eyes, and dizziness. She was taken to Thomas Memorial Hospital and diagnosed with an asthma exacerbation caused by chemical exposure. An x-ray did not reveal an acute cardiopulmonary process. After treatment, Mrs. Burns was discharged and advised to return to work. After the injury, Mrs. Burns returned for treatment several times. She was diagnosed with restrictive lung disease and respiratory failure as well as many other issues. Mrs. Burns underwent another pulmonary function test which revealed severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In February of 2014, Mrs. Burns was admitted to the hospital with shortness of breath. She felt that her exacerbation may have been related to the odor from the water. Sometime in March of 2014, Mrs. Burns moved to Morgantown, West Virginia. She continued to see physicians for lung issues up to July of 2014. She stated that her symptoms improved somewhat since moving. On July 2, 2014, Mrs. Burns filled out a report of injury stating that her exposure to MCHM exacerbated her asthma. On July 25, 2014, the claims administrator denied her claim.

George Zaldivar, M.D., performed a record review. He stated that Dr. Wade’s suspicion of bronchiolitis obliterans was reasonable, but as his note reflects, there was no assurance that 2 this was the diagnosis because a mosaic pattern in the CT scan is present in many diseases, whether due to vascular disease in the lungs or to airway disease. Dr. Zaldivar opined that the only way that a smell could cause an exacerbation of asthma is by being very noticeable in the environment, and to his knowledge, the water problem in Charleston had not been associated at all with the presence or exacerbation of asthma. The compound MCHM has not been blamed for any new development of asthma in the population. Dr. Zaldivar stated that whether Mrs. Burns’s true diagnosis was asthma or some as of yet undiagnosed pulmonary problem, the exposure to the contaminated water could not have resulted in any permanent damage that would have worsened her respiratory condition.

Mrs. Burns underwent a lung CT scan. The impression was mild peripheral air trapping. There was no evidence of generalized interstitial disease and no evidence of emphysema. There was moderately severe bronchiectasis bilaterally. As part of the litigation, Mrs. Burns was deposed. She stated she arrived at work feeling fine. Once she was in the building she smelled a very strong smell. Within about forty-five minutes she started getting dizzy, her eyes started to itch, and her throat itched. Her chest began to compress and she had an asthma exacerbation. She tried to continue to work but she could not work after about forty-five minutes because her symptoms worsened. Her coworker heard her gasping and went to get the supervisor and another coworker called her husband. They got a wheelchair and pushed her to an elevator and down to the car because she did not have the strength to walk. She was taken by her husband to Thomas Memorial Hospital. She denied that she had ever been diagnosed with respiratory failure.

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

Related

William L. Gill v. City of Charleston
783 S.E.2d 857 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shirley L. Burns v. W. Va. Dept. of Education and The Arts, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shirley-l-burns-v-w-va-dept-of-education-and-the-arts-wva-2017.