- Cancer (multiple myeloma)
- Consequences of injury (iatrogenic illness) (treatment)
- Exposure (benzene)
- Consequences of injury (secondary condition)
The worker began work with the employer in a nickel-smelting operation in 1956 and worked in various roles until 1972. The issues in this appeal brought by the worker's estate were as follows: a) whether the worker had initial entitlement for multiple myeloma claimed to be related to past workplace exposures under Claim A; and, b) whether the worker had entitlement for multiple myeloma claimed as a secondary condition associated with radiation treatment under Claim B.
The Vice-Chair denied the appeal.While the worker had various workplace exposures, including to benzene, these exposures did not make a significant contribution to the development of his claimed condition under Claim A. The evidence suggested the possibility of a relationship, at most, but this did not meet the requisite standard for entitlement to be granted. The worker underwent successful radiation treatment in January/February 2000 for his compensable laryngeal cancer condition under Claim B. The worker was diagnosed with multiple myeloma over ten years later in November of 2010. The evidence did not support any identifiable relationship between the worker's radiation treatment in 2000 and his subsequent development of multiple myeloma in 2010. Dr. Spilchuk explained that IARC only identified "limited evidence" about radiation being related to the development of multiple myeloma. From an anatomic perspective, Dr. Spilchuk then explained that "given that MM arises from the bone marrow it is unlikely that the MM arose from within or near the radiotherapy field" in the worker's case. The worker also had non-occupational baseline risk factors for the development of multiple myeloma.