Minnesota has a long history of protecting workers. In fact, Minnesota and New York were the first states to adopt “occupational disease presumptions” into the law. Prior to the adoption of these presumptions of causation, an injured party had the burden of proving that the injury or disease arose out of the course and scope of his or her employment.

At first glance, it makes sense to require the injured party to “connect the dots” between the injury or condition and the activities he or she performed as a part of the job; however, as a practical matter, this requirement precluded injured workers from obtaining a remedy under the Workers’ Compensation Act. For example, if a worker contracted lung cancer from his contact with dangerous work-place fumes, proving that the fumes he was exposed to at work caused the cancer would be difficult, if not impossible. Causation is difficult in these cases because the cancer could have been caused by many different things, such as a genetic predisposition or exposure to cigarette smoke, and doctors are unable (or unwilling) to state to a reasonable degree of medical certainty what the “true” cause of the condition is.

That’s a tough question. While skin cancer, in some instances, could arguably be an occupational disease that was substantially caused by a workers’ sun exposure while on the job, the difficulty is in proving the medical causal relationship between the skin cancer and the work activities.

Sun cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States and sun exposure is, without question, a cause of skin cancer. But, whether that exposure is during work hours or outside of work hours would be hard to determine. Because it would be so difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of skin cancer in terms of which period of sun exposure actually caused the cancer to develop, workers who develop skin cancer are probably going to have a difficult time in establishing these occupational disease claims for purposes of Minnesota workers’ compensation coverage.

The house was built in 1912. It was a simple 2-story traditional style home painted white with black trim. The closets smell like plaster, the water tastes like lead, and there’s a space heater in the upstairs room. It’s just like the home my grandparents lived in. We’ve all seen this house, it’s the kind of older home with three-prong outlets, and no ground wire. So, it’s no surprise when it actually goes up in flames.
The smoke produced with a house fire is not like your ordinary bonfire smoke. There are numerous carcinogens in a house that when burned can cause extensive health issues to those who come in contact with the fire or inhale its smoke. Coming into contact with excessive natural wood smoke is bad enough, but when you add vinyl, sheetrock, linoleum, asbestos, and paint, to name a few, the dangers can be startling.

Minnesota has a long history of protecting workers. In fact, Minnesota and New York were the first states to adopt “occupational disease presumptions” into the law. Prior to the adoption of these presumptions of causation, an injured party had the burden of proving that the injury or disease arose out of the course and scope of his or her employment.

At first glance, it makes sense to require the injured party to “connect the dots” between the injury or condition and the activities he or she performed as a part of the job; however, as a practical matter, this requirement precluded injured workers from obtaining a remedy under the Workers’ Compensation Act. For example, if a worker contracted lung cancer from his contact with dangerous work-place fumes, proving that the fumes he was exposed to at work caused the cancer would be difficult, if not impossible. Causation is difficult in these cases because the cancer could have been caused by many different things, such as a genetic predisposition or exposure to cigarette smoke, and doctors are unable (or unwilling) to state to a reasonable degree of medical certainty what the “true” cause of the condition is.

The Minnesota legislature stepped in to address this injustice by adopting a presumption of causation with regard to occupational diseases. A classic example of an occupational disease from the early 20th century is Radium Jaw—a disease that involves the constant bleeding of the gums, which eventually leads to a tumorous jaw bone and severe facial distortion. This condition results from exposure to the radium used in the manufacture of watch dials. With a presumption of causation, an injured watch worker’s Radium Jaw would be presumed to be caused by his or her work. In order to overcome this presumption, counsel for the defense must provide substantive evidence showing the condition was caused by something other than the employee’s work. In other words, the watch dial manufacturer would have to prove that the employee: 1) came into sufficient contact with radium outside of work, and 2) prove that the non-work related radium was the actual cause of the disease.