(ea
4
f
doctor in charge of this program estimated that the decedent’s cumulative
_ .fadiation exposure in uranium mines was about 2,840 working level months.
,
He further estimated deceased's exposure while in the employ of Union
f ee Carbide Corp. as 85.2 WLM. Because ofthisrelatively tight exposure compared
."" " with the total exposure, the principal issue was whether or not the decedent's
... {$hort employment with the respondent constituted injurious exposure within
the meaning of the Colorado Occupational Disease Act.!
i
‘Medical Evidence: All of the medical specialists agreed that the immediate
cause of death was from bronchial pneumonia due to the oat cell carcinoma of
iy
of the tung: (1) carcinoma mature epidermoid, left upper lobe, and (2)
“ie the right upper lobe.
of th . The autopsy report revealed that the claimant had two separate carcinomas
/ . carcinoma, oat cell, right upper lobe with metastasis mediastinal, ribs, and
*}yertebral column andliver.
'
The results of the radiochemical analysis on specimens of the deceased’s
i. body revealed that the concentration oflead-210 in his bone was 6,500 pCi/kg.
‘s. A medical specialist in internal medicine testified concerning the last days
of deceased's life and the findings after death and hesaid:
'
-
‘
Now as to thesituation as it exists. We have an individual who had
two tumors, either one of which could have caused his death. The oat
cell tumor is the more malignant and devastating of the two. According
odds are very high that his occupational exposure caused at least one of the
carcinomas”.
At the hearing the Public Health Service physician testified for the decedent
that considering the fact that the deceased had oat cell carcinoma in the upper
right lobe, which was metastasized throughout his body at the time of death,
the high lead-210 readings, the length ofhis illness, also even considering the
possibility of heredity in cancer, he still was of the opinion that the deceased's
lung cancer was most probably caused by his occupational exposure to
radiation in uranium mines. However, he further testified that although
decedent's preceding employment probably caused the onset of the oat cell
carcinoma and that the decedent might have died in any event without any
intervening cause, he could not say that the decedent's exposure to radiation
with the defendent employer did not hasten his death.
Respondents’ medical expert testified that the decedent had too little
exposure too late while working for Union Carbide Corporation to hold this
employer liable and he did not think the exposure hastened the disease or
hastened his death.
Colorado Findings: An award was entered compensating the claim. The
Referee found that the decedent’s death occurred from an occupational disease
arising out of and in the course of his employment in uranium mining; that the
malignancy which caused his death was caused by harmful exposure to
tadioactive materials, and that the last employer in whose employ he suffered
to the pathology report the metastases that were seen were attributed to
the oat cell tumor. We have learned to associate the oat cell type tumor
to this man’s radiation exposure. In reviewing his mining exposure, the
injurious exposure was the Union Carbide Corporation.
excessive.
the Colorado Court used as ‘a yardstick” in construing the Colorado Act the
length of the time he mined, the working level month factor, we find is
I believe that we have to conclude that this patient did suffer from
exposure to radioactive material and that he did die from-an oat cell
tumor of the lung. We do not have the amountofradioactive substances
recovered from his tissues to support the above comments.
While it is true that he had a rather heavy smoking history and that
he had a tumor which would be commensurate with tobacco inhalation,
the patient could not have been treated for this tumor as he was already
dying of an oat cell tumor accordingto the pathologist. Therefore, even
The award was reviewed and confirmed by the Director of the Colorado
Division of Labor. In confirming the award the Director referred to the
Referee’s review of two Colorado Supreme Court cases in which he noted that
following language from anotherjurisdiction:
The Workmen’s Occupational Disease Act is a practical statute,
having for its purpose the accomplishmentof a definite humane purpose.
It should be mantled in the spirit of the objective, not shrouded in a
haze of over-technical interpretations.
though he had two types of tumor, it would appear from the pathologic
report that the prime tumor was due to radiation. As you know, at the
present time there is no treatment for oat cell carcinoma from whatever
cause.
The Director of the Public Health Service program for uranium miners
.
®
.,
:
estimated the odds that deceased's epidermoid cell type carcinoma was the
result of his occupational exposure at “about 2 to 1”. A similar estimate for
- the oatcell carcinoma wasplaced at about 100 to | and hesaid, “certainly, the
"For a discussion of the problem of last injurious exposure see Vol. V, Studier in
. erkmen's Compensation and Radiation Injury, AEC 1969, Case No. 64, Rice v. Denver
Golden Corp., pp. 142-143; ibid Case No. 72, Dwyer v. Climax Uranium Co., pp. 159-160.
164
165