This content was originally published in January 2000. For the latest in HR management, visit our archives or try our online compliance portal, HR.BLR.com.
While Melinda Stark was assembling auto parts at King Auto Plant, she noticed a strong smell of pine-scented cleaning fluid coming from the break room.
“What are they doing—cleaning in there?” she commented to her co-worker.
“Yeah, it’s about time. That room is filthy,” replied the colleague.
“Well, I’m allergic to pine and I had asthma as a kid. I hope I don’t have a reaction,” Stark said worriedly.
Unfortunately, Stark’s fears were justified. The next day, her face was very swollen, and her voice was hoarse. She saw a physician, who gave her a steroid medication.
Melinda Stark recovered and was feeling fine when a second cleaning fluid incident occurred. This time she had a more severe reaction, including an asthma attack. She asked her supervisor to please let her know when janitors would be cleaning with the same fluid again.
A third incident caused Stark to miss so much work that she was fired from her job. She then applied for workers’ compensation, claiming that she was permanently disabled as a result of her exposure to the chemicals. Her employer contested the claim.
At the hearing, Melinda Stark said:
- Because of my workplace exposure to cleaning fluid, I have a chronic cough and an increased sensitivity to odors and chemicals.
- My physician says that my airways have become permanently sensitized to chemicals and other stimuli.
- As a result, I cannot leave the house because any exposure to chemicals could trigger an asthma attack.
King Auto’s attorney responded:
- The cleaning-fluid exposures were only temporary.
- There was no evidence to show that Stark’s asthma remained worse after these incidents.
- She certainly does not need to remain housebound—we have proof of that.
King Auto then proceeded to show the hearing officer videotapes of Stark that were taken secretly by a private investigator it had hired. The tapes clearly showed Stark engaging in normal activities in public, including going to the post office and eating lunch in a restaurant.
DECISION: Melinda Stark is not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits because she is not disabled, ruled the hearing officer. The videotapes proved that Stark was not housebound because of her asthma.
The hearing officer also found the testimony of the treating physician to be questionable. Stark lived in a rented room in his house, and she and his wife were good friends.
COMMENT: Videotapes can be quite helpful in proving that a workplace injury is exaggerated. Let your employees know up front that any fake injury will be examined closely, and that any false claims will be prosecuted fully.