ADJ10894605 · October 14, 2021

The WCJ and Board found the applicant met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, relying on the persuasive medical opinion of Dr. Hirsch over Dr. Sachs, and unrebutted evidence of exposure to pulmonary irritants at work contributing to death from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

From the decision · page 5Defendant's contention in the petition for reconsideration is that the applicant did not meet her burden and prove that her husband death was related to his employment at Clorox. Defendant also contends that the reporting of Dr. Sachs is more accurate than that of Dr. Hirsch. The court found the applicant met her burden and that the reporting of Dr. Hirsch was far more persuasive on injury AOE/COE than the reporting of Dr. Sachs. The doctors must look at the record as a whole; the court does not believe Dr. Sachs did. As indicated in the opinion on decision, one of the issues the court wanted the doctors to address base on its prior orders for developing the record was, was the applicant's death related to his exposure to the chemicals at Clorox. Did it cause, contribute to, or hasten the applicant's demise in any way. Dr. Sachs made a finding that the applicant's death was not caused by his employment.

Applicant's unrebutted testimony and widow's trial testimony about exposure to numerous pulmonary irritant chemicals at work over 37 years.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported finding of industrial causation of death as it showed exposure to harmful chemicals contributing to death.

From the decision · page 6The court found the applicant met her burden by a preponderance of the evidence under Labor Code § 3202.5. The court evaluated the evidence and weighed the evidence and gave it is due consideration. The over whelming evidence showed that the applicant's unrebutted testimony showed exposure to numerous chemicals and the reporting of Dr. Hirsh was far more persuasive than Dr. Sachs and more convincing and showed a greater probability for the truth. The applicant produced prima facie evidence the applicant's death arose out of and occurred during the course of his 37-year employment at Clorox as a maintenance man.

Dr. Hirsch's medical opinion based on MSDS sheets and application of reasonable medical probability standard.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Found most persuasive and relied upon by WCJ and Board to establish causal connection between employment and death.

From the decision · page 2As the WCJ explained in both the Opinion on Decision and the Joint Report, he found the considered opinion of Dr. Hirsch to be most persuasive. Dr. Hirsch relied on the material data safety sheets, provided by defendant, to conclude that applicant's industrial exposure to chemicals known to be pulmonary hazards contributed to his industrial injury and death. Dr. Hirsch's opinion was based upon application of the correct legal standard of reasonable medical probability.

Found that applicant's industrial exposure to chemicals known to be pulmonary hazards contributed to and accelerated his death from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Relied upon by WCJ and Board as most persuasive medical evidence based on material safety data sheets and correct legal standard of reasonable medical probability.

From the decision · page 2As the WCJ explained in both the Opinion on Decision and the Joint Report, he found the considered opinion of Dr. Hirsch to be most persuasive. Dr. Hirsch relied on the material data safety sheets, provided by defendant, to conclude that applicant's industrial exposure to chemicals known to be pulmonary hazards contributed to his industrial injury and death. Dr. Hirsch's opinion was based upon application of the correct legal standard of reasonable medical probability.

Found insufficient evidence of industrial exposure due to lack of quantifiable exposure amount and did not address whether death was accelerated or contributed to by employment exposure.

Rejected by WCJ and Board for failing to consider the record as a whole and not addressing aggravation or acceleration of death.

From the decision · page 5Defendant's contention in the petition for reconsideration is that the applicant did not meet her burden and prove that her husband death was related to his employment at Clorox. Defendant also contends that the reporting of Dr. Sachs is more accurate than that of Dr. Hirsch. The court found the applicant met her burden and that the reporting of Dr. Hirsch was far more persuasive on injury AOE/COE than the reporting of Dr. Sachs. The doctors must look at the record as a whole; the court does not believe Dr. Sachs did. As indicated in the opinion on decision, one of the issues the court wanted the doctors to address base on its prior orders for developing the record was, was the applicant's death related to his exposure to the chemicals at Clorox. Did it cause, contribute to, or hasten the applicant's demise in any way. Dr. Sachs made a finding that the applicant's death was not caused by his employment.

Labor Code §3202.5

Preponderance of the evidence standard under Labor Code §3202.5 for proving industrial causation of death.

Applied by WCJ and Board to find applicant met burden of proof for industrial causation of death.

From the decision · page 6The court found the applicant met her burden by a preponderance of the evidence under Labor Code § 3202.5. The court evaluated the evidence and weighed the evidence and gave it is due consideration. The over whelming evidence showed that the applicant's unrebutted testimony showed exposure to numerous chemicals and the reporting of Dr. Hirsh was far more persuasive than Dr. Sachs and more convincing and showed a greater probability for the truth. The applicant produced prima facie evidence the applicant's death arose out of and occurred during the course of his 37-year employment at Clorox as a maintenance man.

Applicant's and widow's testimony about exposure to multiple chemicals including asbestos, supported by MSDS sheets produced by defendant and unrebutted by defense.

From the decision · page 5He never addressed whether or not the applicant's death from IPF was accelerated by, contributed to, or hastened by his exposure to chemicals at work. He also opined that since the exposure cannot be quantified it could not be a factor. The applicant's testimony through deposition and the widow's testimony at trial speak of some of the things the applicant was exposed to. Per the deposition, it was more than just chlorine as claimed by the defendant in the petition for reconsideration. He also mentioned asbestos.