× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Other benefit issues  →  Thread

IIDB Appeal - Occupational Asthma/list of respiratory sensitizers

AW71
forum member

Slater & Gordon

Send message

Total Posts: 12

Joined: 3 August 2015

Good afternoon,

I’ve been asked to represent a client in relation to an IIDB appeal hearing. She has developed occupational asthma, we have extensive documentation to prove it’s occupational asthma but the DWP have turned down the application on the grounds that they substance she has been using is not on their list of respiratory sensitizers and have claimed it to be an irritant instead.

Having represented at many appeals for PIP/DLA and ESA claims I have never represented at an IIDB hearing. I would have thought that if this substance isn’t on their list of sensitizers we would then find it difficult to argue any differently.

Has anyone ever had any similar experiences? If so, can you offer some advice?

Many thanks,

AngelaW

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

AW71 - 07 December 2016 01:54 PM

Good afternoon,

I’ve been asked to represent a client in relation to an IIDB appeal hearing. She has developed occupational asthma, we have extensive documentation to prove it’s occupational asthma but the DWP have turned down the application on the grounds that they substance she has been using is not on their list of respiratory sensitizers and have claimed it to be an irritant instead.

Having represented at many appeals for PIP/DLA and ESA claims I have never represented at an IIDB hearing. I would have thought that if this substance isn’t on their list of sensitizers we would then find it difficult to argue any differently.

Has anyone ever had any similar experiences? If so, can you offer some advice?

Many thanks,

AngelaW

I’ve done the odd IIDB hearing back in the day….

Az you know IIDB will only be paid if the person’s occupation and substance exposed to is specified in the list.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-injuries-disablement-benefits-technical-guidance/industrial-injuries-disablement-benefits-technical-guidance#appendix-1-list-of-diseases-covered-by-industrial-injuries-disablement-benefit

Occupational Asthma is PD D7 (there is no other reference to asthma at all)

the relevant sensitisers are

(a) isocyanates
(b) platinum salts
(c) fumes or dusts arising from the manufacture, transport or use of hardening agents (including epoxy resin curing agents) based on phthalic anhydride, tetrachlorophthalic anhydride, trimellitic anhydride or triethylenetetramine
(d) fumes arising from the use of rosin as a soldering flux
(e) proteolytic enzymes
(f) animals including insects and other arthropods used for the purposes of research or education or in laboratories
(g) dusts arising from the sowing, cultivation, harvesting, drying, handling, milling, transport or storage of barley, oats, rye, wheat or maize, or the handling, milling, transport or storage of meal or flour made therefrom
(h) antibiotics
(i) cimetidine
(j) wood dust
(k) ispaghula
(l) castor bean dust
(m) ipecacuanha
(n) azodicarbonamide
(o) animals including insects and other arthropods or their larval forms, used for the purposes of pest control or fruit cultivation, or the larval forms of animals used for the purposes of research, education or in laboratories
(p) glutaraldehyde
(q) persulphate salts or henna
(r) crustaceans or fish or products arising from these in the food processing industry
(s) reactive dyes
(t) soya bean
(u) tea dust
(v) green coffee bean dust
(w) fumes from stainless steel welding
(wa) products made with natural rubber latex
(x) any other sensitising agent. (Occupational asthma)

and of course, the operative one in your case, if it isn’t otherwise listed, is (x) - any other sensitising agent

therefore, if you have relevant evidence that the agent in question is a sensitising agent for the purposes of occupational asthma, then that is what you should address in your submissions and with evidence.

If they have any other list not set out, then they need to present their evidence to that effect.

I don’t know that anything more is required, given you have supportive medical evidence and “any other sensitising agent” has to be more than all the other items listed…

Ruth_T
forum member

Volunteer adviser - Corby Borough Welfare Rights & CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 313

Joined: 21 June 2010

“I don’t know that anything more is required” - well actually there is.  Payment of IIDB will only be made if assessed disability is at least 14%.  That’s a pretty high hurdle for a person affected by asthma.

If you are really interested there’s lots more about occupational asthma, including claim statistics at
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/asthma/asthma.pdf?pdf=asthma

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

Ruth_T - 07 December 2016 08:00 PM

“I don’t know that anything more is required” - well actually there is.  Payment of IIDB will only be made if assessed disability is at least 14%.  That’s a pretty high hurdle for a person affected by asthma.

If you are really interested there’s lots more about occupational asthma, including claim statistics at
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/asthma/asthma.pdf?pdf=asthma

i was, i think, assuming she knew that, as the question was about the diagnosis criteria….... :-)

AW71
forum member

Slater & Gordon

Send message

Total Posts: 12

Joined: 3 August 2015

Many thanks for both your replies - yes I am aware of the percentage of disablement required but thanks for your input anyway.

We do have a letter where the consultant has suggested that the substance used should come under X - other, we’re trying to obtain further clarification from the consultant as to why she has said this.

In the decision maker’s submission they have also stated that the claimant did not work in a prescribed occupation despite her being employed within an NHS Trust dealing with chemicals for over 16 years - they have said that it is down to the claimant to prove that she did so (I don’t have the paperwork in front of me as write this so not entirely sure of the wording they’ve used - sorry).

thanks again for your input - it’s confirmed that I’m moving in the right direction with it.

KR,
A Wright

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

CI/565/2005 may be worth a look as it relates to the approach to take if trying to establish something not on the list is a sensitising agent.

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

without reading that case, i should have thought finding the manufacturer’s product data sheet for the substance in question would be of great assistance

and the list of occupations is a non exclusive list = it says examples, not that it’s definitive.  compare and contrast with the list of occupations for other diseases, some of which are a definitive list.