 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shockey v. Alloys3/17/2005
uator, Dr. Mallampalli determined that there was " o radiographic evidence of asbestos-related lung disease" and that the claimant's pulmonary impairment was probably due to cigarette smoking rather than his work environment. Dr. Mallampalli acknowledged that asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking were known to increase the risk of certain lung malignancies and also that a causal relationship between the claimant's asbestos exposure and the cancer found in his cervical lymph node could not be excluded entirely.
The claimant alleged an occupational lung disease. Asbestosis and lung cancer are different conditions. No physician testified to a diagnosis of lung cancer. Dr. Myers diagnosed asbestosis and questioned whether the lymphosarcoma found in the claimant's cervical lymph node might be due to his exposure to asbestos. Later in the report, he stated that an unspecified "disease or condition" was work-related. Although Dr. Mallampalli acknowledged that a causal relationship could not be excluded entirely, no physician testified that such a relationship was probable. Therefore, despite Dr. Myers' testimony that a combined exposure to asbestos and cigarette smoking was highly carcinogenic and despite Dr. Mallampalli's testimony that such a combined exposure was known to increase the risk of certain lung malignancies, the evidence would not have supported much less compelled a finding that the claimant had a lung malignancy, a finding that the cancer found in his lymph node resulted from such a malignancy, or a finding that the cancer found in his lymph node was caused by his work environment.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
All concur.
|