This message is displayed because client-side scripting is turned off or not supported in the browser you are currently using.
Please turn on client-side scripting or install a browser that supports client-side scripting.

Ontario Government | Ministry of Labour | Site Map | Accessibility | text resize: A A A

Home | About Us | OWT Library | Forms | Practice Directions | Decision Search | Contact Us | Fran├žais

Established in 1985, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) is the final level of appeal to which workers and employers may bring disputes concerning workplace safety and insurance matters in Ontario. WSIAT has always been separate from and independent of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

Questions?

Decisions

Appeal Process

For Representatives

Finding a Representative

Documents & Publications

Legal/Medical Resources

Popular Topics

Links to Other Agencies

Highlights of Noteworthy Decisions

  Decision 403 12
10/25/2013
M. Crystal - E. Tracey - D. Broadbent

  • Cancer (multiple myeloma)
  • Exposure (benzene)
  • Construction (roofer)

The worker was a roofer from 1965 to 2005. He had a high or moderate to high level of exposure to fumes and dust from coal tar pitch and asphalt, which include benzene solubles. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying entitlement for multiple myeloma. Multiple myeloma is a hematopoietic disorder. Much literature addresses issues relating to other hematopoietic disorders, such as acute myelogenous leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. However, multiple myeloma is a unique disease which differentiates itself from other hematopoietic disorders. Accordingly, the Panel gave weight to the literature as it applied to multiple myeloma specifically and gave appropriate weight to literature relating generally to hematopoietic disorders. There is an ongoing debate over the issue of whether exposure to benzene can be related to multiple myeloma. A Tribunal medical assessor referred to eight abstracts of journal articles, only three of which were supportive of a relationship. The assessor himself expressed a strong view that a relationship between multiple myeloma and benzene exposure is not probable. The Panel reviewed the evidence extensively and concluded that the worker did not have entitlement for multiple myeloma. The appeal was dismissed.