CP# 96-6215 (1999). THALMA M. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, vs. NORTH PRINCETON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER, Respondent.

• Court: New Jersey

New Jersey Workers Compensation 1999. CP# 96-6215 (1999). THALMA M. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, vs. NORTH PRINCETON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER, Respondent CP# 96-6215 Williams v. North Princeton Development CenterState of New Jersey Department of Labor DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATIONCLAIM PETITION NO. C.P. 96-006215RESERVED DECISIONTHALMA M. WILLIAMS, Petitioner,vs.NORTH PRINCETON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER, Respondent.BEFORE: HONORABLE PAUL A. KAPALKO Chief Judge of CompensationAPPEARANCES: WYSOKER, GLASSNER, WEINGARTNER, GONZALEZ AND LOCKSPEISER, ESQS. Attorney for the PetitionerLEO R. ZAMPARELLI, ESQ. Attorney for the Respondent This is an action brought on behalf of Ms. Thalma M. Williams against the North Princeton Development Center (hereinafter referred to as the "State") for what is alleged to be a loss of pulmonary function arising out of her many years of service as an employee. In her pleadings it is alleged that this impairment arose out of an exposure "to pulmonary irritants" from 1959 when she began work as an institutional attendant in a cottage-like facility until her retirement in 1990. Trial commenced before me on May 19th, 1998 with the taking of the petitioner's testimony as well as the stipulation of certain facts. It was agreed that at all times relevant hereto petitioner was an employee of the respondent State. Her salary, at the time of retirement, gave rise to an allowable maximum rate of compensation of $350 per week and a minimum compensate rate of $99 for any permanent disability. It was further agreed that no temporary disability benefits were ever sought by the petitioner or paid for by the respondent. At the time of the commencement of the trial the only issue before this court was the nature and extent of permanent disability, if any, and whether same was caused by occupational exposure. However, as a result of petitioner's testimony, respondent's counsel caused to be filed a "Notice of Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-41 and N.J.S.A. 34:15-51" so as to dismiss petitioner's claim. This is a motion asserting that petitioner's claim is barred due to late filing. Counsel for the respondent agreed in a letter dated April 20th, 1999 that he was "withdrawing our Motion to Dismiss in the above-captioned matter pending the conclusion of all testimony." The court here views this as a deferral of a ruling on the motion rather than an absolute withdrawal of same. Nevertheless, this characterization is of no moment, as this court concludes in greater detail later in this opinion, the claim is not barred by the statutory two-year time limitation. Thereafter, following some delay in the presentation of her expert, petitioner produced as a witness on June 22nd, 1999 Dr. Malcolm Hermele and thereafter rested her case in chief. Respondent produced for examination on July 13th, 1999 its sole witness, Dr. Ronald L Warren. Subsequently the parties declined to produce further evidence or testimony and the proceedings were closed. Thus follows this decision. As was noted above, petitioner began her career with the State as an institutional attendant in 1959. She served in that capacity for nearly all of those years. Initially she worked in a cottage-like setting assisting elderly or infirm women, most wheelchair bound. Job duties included a combination of housekeeping and health aide duties. This would include not only keeping the environment clean but cleaning and bathing the clients as well. Some time in the 1980's petitioner was reassigned to a facility called the Allen Building where her clients were men. Duties at this facility were not substantially different. Some of the men were capable of certain work activities such as assistance with facility maintenance or serving in the institutional workshop. Others were infirm and required health aide assistance. Also, some of the men were "kind of bad" (T 5/19/98, page 12, line 11). They were kept in a secured area and petitioner would have to dispense medication and assist with cleaning and maintenance there as well. The remaining few years of her State career were spent as a "resident living specialist" in a group home for women. Petitioner was assigned to House 22, one of a number of homes referred to collectively as Driscoll. In this unit petitioner's primary duty was cleaning clothes and assisting the clients with daily activities such as dressing or moving about the facility. There was much less responsibility to clean and maintain the structure. Petitioner went on to retire in 1990 after 31 years of service. The retirement was not medical related. She is now 71 years old and suffers from a number of medical problems including bad knees, arthritis, hypertension and morbid obesity. She is 4' 11" tall and weighs 186 pounds. Ms. Williams provides little in the way of detail as to what pulmonary irritants she was exposed to during her tenure with the State. She devotes a material portion of her testimony to describing the various ailments her clients suffered from. She explained that " 1/4 I'm the type of person I catch everything 1/4" implying that this exposure may have been a contributing factor to her alleged pulmonary condition. However there is no medical or factual evidence which would tie in as a causative factor any disease communicated from client to petitioner. Additionally, petitioner recounts her regular exposure to soap powder, more particularly described as a whitish detergent delivered in a brown paper bag used to clean the laundry. She also refers to an unnamed liquid used to wash the walls and floors. She observed, in general, that these materials had a strong odor and when inhaled would cause her to sneeze. She noted that there was smoking permitted at the institution for many of her years with the State. However petitioner stated that smoking was confined to certain areas and she would avoid them. She acknowledged that she was a light smoker but only for a very brief period of time. She also described exposure to dust, disinfectants and bleach. Petitioner goes on to testify that she was essentially symptom free, as far as pulmonary problems are concerned, until some time in the late 80's. She indicates that she was hospitalized for a period at the Hamilton Hospital with pneumonia in either 1988 or 1989. At or around that time she was transferred by her attending physician to a Dr. Jaffe whom continues to serve as petitioner's physician. It should be noted that Dr. Jaffe serves as petitioner's family physician and assumedly does not see her for breathing problems alone. She recounts that Dr. Jaffe diagnosed her as suffering from bronchial asthma. She describes difficulty in sleeping and dyspnea upon exertion. She noted that when she is in close proximity to certain substances she gets "choked up" and has to sit down to catch her breath (T 5/19/98, page 31, lines 3-25). At some point in time the breathing became sufficiently problematic that Dr. Jaffe prescribed inhalers which gave some relief. However, petitioner discontinued usage at what she believed to be the doctor's direction because, as she understood his instruction, they could become addictive. She testified that subsequent to the discontinuation of the inhaler she did "pretty good." In fact, she acknowledges that her breathing has improved somewhat from what it was during her employment. However, petitioner asserts that some breathing problems continue through the present, primarily dyspnea, periodic wheezing and tiredness, which curtails her ability to clean, walk or...