MA court overturns nurse’s chemical sensitivity claim
November 1, 2000 2 minutes read
MA court overturns nurse’s chemical sensitivity claim
Plaintiffs must meet higher standard of proof
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned the award of workers’ compensation disability insurance to a Brigham and Women’s Hospital nurse who asserted that she developed multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) from working in the operating room.
While the case has no direct bearing on courts in other states, it represents a setback for employees who say they have been disabled by that condition. In Massachusetts, it also raises the standard for what will be accepted as valid scientific testimony. The court directed state judges to serve a "gatekeeping function" as they "assess the credibility" of expert testimony.
MCS has been described as a severe allergy to even low levels of chemicals, dyes, and perfumes. In the Brigham and Women’s case, the nurse said after exposure to chemicals such as ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, and diesel fuel in the operating room, she suffered severe headaches, nasal congestion, and dizziness, and later a fever and swelling of her nose and right cheek.
However, MCS remains controversial, as some physicians consider it to be a psychosomatic condition. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected the expert testimony of the physician who treated the nurse for MCS, saying he "did not identify any specific studies that show the existence of MCS based on specific symptoms and did not identify tests that can be performed to prove that a patient suffers from MCS." The treating physician, a board-certified pediatrician, had certification in environmental medicine, which the court noted is "a field not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties."
"When you’re representing the plaintiff in these cases, it’s always an uphill fight," says Boston attorney Peter Brady. But he noted that his client won a disability hearing on MCS and continues to receive workers’ compensation for other ailments. And while the court questioned the validity of the expert physician’s opinions, "Massachusetts did not reject the diagnosis or condition or the disability related to it," says Brady. "They left the door open to it."
(A copy of the full decision is posted at www.socialaw.com/sjcslip/8226.html.)
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content