- Mesothelioma
- Exposure (asbestos)
The employer appealed an ARO decision which confirmed initial entitlement for the worker's claimed malignant peritoneal mesothelioma, epithelioid type. The worker was a caretaker at an educational institution responsible for basic cleaning and housekeeping tasks.
The Panel allowed the employer's appeal.The Panel found the presumption of work-relatedness found in the WSIA and Policy 16-02-12, entitled "Mesothelioma of the Pleura and Peritoneum", did not apply in the worker's case. The worker was not employed in mining, milling, manufacturing, assembling, construction, repair, alteration, maintenance or demolition process involving the generation of airborne asbestos fibres. The worker was not an asbestos worker. She did not have physical access to areas such as shafts and mechanical rooms where a higher risk of encountering asbestos-related materials existed.In addition, the development of the worker's claimed malignant peritoneal mesothelioma, epithelioid type, within 12 years of the commencement of her caretaking duties with the employer in 2005, did not fit within the applicable latency period for this particular condition, which has a minimum 20-year latency period. The Panel also noted that many cases of peritoneal mesothelioma, especially in women, have an idiopathic (unknown) etiology. It could not be established on a balance of probabilities that she experienced any significant, routine or specific exposure to asbestos during her employment with the employer.