In Panu v Trans World Airlines,( LIRC) (Oct. 16, 1997), a stewardess with multiple breathing and asthma problems was not allowed to recover an injury from second hand smoke of co-workers and passengers in a large enclosed space which had no windows and was, according to the findings, ventilated in a manner insufficient to clear the air which had a constant smoke haze. There was specific evidence that the work place contained visible constant second hand smoke and the air was not clear until the employer adopted a policy of non-smoking in the work place. Because the underlying condition was a bronchial asthmatic condition which was genetic in origin, the case was denied because asthma is an ordinary disease of life to which the general public may be exposed. It held that the claimant’s condition resulted from her particular susceptibility caused by her genetic predisposition to developing asthma.
In the earlier case of Johnson v Dierdorf & Hart’s Union Station,( LIRC) 1996, compensation was denied on the theory of second hand smoke inhaled by a waitress who had smoked for seventeen years, since age sixteen, one to two packs a day. She had pneumonia and recurring bouts of bronchitis and a long history of chronic sinus and nasal obstructive complaints, with several medications for her problems. She worked for four years, exposed to restaurant smoke, as well as her own, had respiratory failure at her home. Her doctor said that working in a smoke filled atmosphere contributed to her respiratory difficulties and disabilities and was totally disabled with the need for medication for life. Her exposure was a ‘promoting or triggering” effect on her health problems. Denial was based upon the ground that the actual triggering causes were not found to be “clearly job related.” Her long-standing prior bronchial problems and her failure to prove by clear and substantial evidence that her work condition caused it, caused the denial.