- Cancer (prostate)
- Exposure (cadmium)
- Exposure (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)
The worker was employed with a tire manufacture and as a millwright for a car frame assembly company. The issue to be determined in this appeal was whether the worker had initial entitlement for prostate cancer as an occupational disease arising out employment exposures.
The Panel denied the appeal.Prostate cancer is not a condition that is listed in the relevant Schedules. The worker's claim for entitlement for prostate cancer was therefore considered as an injury occurring by way of disablement over time pursuant to sections 13 and 15 of the WSIA. The medical evidence did not support a finding that any of the worker's occupational exposures, individually or in combination, were a significant contributing factor in the development of his prostate cancer. Dr. Welk reviewed each of the worker's potential exposures in turn: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); rubber/tire industry emissions; silica; cadmium; metalworking fluids, degreasers, and lubricants. Dr. Somerville and Dr. Welk concluded that the literature does not currently support the claimed associations.For PAHs, Dr. Welk noted that, in addition to a lack of evidence in the literature of statistically significant evidence of causal association between PAHs and prostate cancer, "PAHs are found in cigarette smoke, and therefore any attribution of the risk of prostate cancer from occupational exposure to PAHs is likely offset by the worker's PAH exposure from his 30 pack-year history of smoking." The submissions of the worker's representative included disagreement with the Panel's exposure findings in the interim decision. The exposure findings in the interim decision were final findings of fact on those issues. The Panel noted that such finality is necessary to ensure that the Tribunal Medical Assessor is able to provide an opinion based on established facts. If such a process was not followed, the time and expense of obtaining the Assessor's opinion would be undermined, and there would be the added potential for an endless cycle of further exposure arguments followed by potential additional or revised opinions from the Assessor. Such a back-and-forth process is contrary to the principles of efficiency and finality in decision-making. To challenge the Panel's exposure findings set out in the interim decision, the worker must engage in the Tribunal's reconsideration process. No such reconsideration request has been submitted.