LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
A Louisiana appellate court affirmed a ruling by a workers’ compensation judge that the claimant, an office worker, had not suffered an occupational disease within the meaning of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act related to her alleged exposure to mold in the office. Citing prior authority, the court indicated that mold exposure in the workplace generally falls outside the compensation scheme based upon the meaning of occupational disease within the statutes. In relevant part, La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1031.1(B) defines an occupational disease as a disease or illness which is due to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to the particular trade, occupation, process, or employmentin which the employee is exposed to such disease [emphasis added]. Citing other decisions, the court also acknowledged that while there was no requirement in the statute that the nature of the disease or injury be uniqueto the particular trade or industry, the claimant was required to establish a causal link between the employee's illness and work-related duties. Claimant had failed to establish that her sarcoidosis did not arise from causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to her employment as a clerical worker.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law(LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Lyle v. Brock Servs., LLC, 18-50 (La.App. 5 Cir. 07/31/18), 2018 La. App. LEXIS 1477 (July 31, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 52.03.
Source:Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law