Mangiameli v. The Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

1

2024 IL App (1st) 231397WC-U

THOMAS MANGIAMELI, Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, et al.

Village of Hoffman Estates, Appellee.

No. 1-23-1397WC

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Workers' Compensation Commission Division

November 22, 2024

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No.21-L-050382 Honorable Daniel P. Duffy Judge, Presiding.

BARBERIS, JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hoffman and Mullen concurred in the judgment. Presiding Justice Holdridge dissented. Justice Cavanagh joined in the dissent.

ORDER

BARBERIS, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: We affirm the order of the circuit court confirming the decision of the Commission, where the Commission correctly applied the presumption contained in section 1(d) of the Workers' Occupational Diseases Act (820 ILCS 310/1(d) (West 2020)) and the Commission's finding that claimant failed to prove his workplace exposures were a contributing factor in his development of prostate cancer was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 Claimant, Thomas Mangiameli, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County, which confirmed the decision of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) denying him benefits under the Workers' Occupational Diseases Act (Act) (820 ILCS 310/1 et seq. (West 2020)) for prostate cancer he developed while working for employer, Village of Hoffman Estates, as a firefighter. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. Background

¶ 4 In October 2017, claimant filed an application for adjustment of claim pursuant to the Act, seeking benefits for prostate cancer he allegedly developed as a result of an occupational exposure. The matter proceeded to an arbitration hearing on January 17, 2019. The following factual recitation was taken from the evidence adduced at the hearing.

¶ 5 Claimant testified that he worked for employer as a firefighter from August 26, 1988, until his retirement in July 2018. Claimant's job duties required him to respond to various emergency calls, including car accidents, medical emergencies, and fires. Claimant worked two to three shifts per week. He responded to 5 to 10 calls during each shift. On cross-examination, claimant testified that he became a "combined paramedic firefighter" in 1989 or 1990.

¶ 6 Claimant identified a Hoffman Estates Fire Department Staff Incident Responses report, which detailed his calls from 2005 to 2017. The report listed 1558 calls during that time period. According to the report, claimant spent 507.45 hours responding to calls with an average incident time of .32 hours. Claimant responded to 143 fires, 29 over pressure/explosions, 9 rescues, 169 hazardous conditions, 271 service calls, 283 good intent calls, 650 false alarms, and 4 severe weather calls. Claimant testified that the report did not include medical emergencies, car accidents or the calls he responded to from 1988 to 2005. Claimant estimated that he responded to over 15,000 calls during his employment. On cross-examination claimant testified that the report included calls involving car accidents with fires.

¶ 7 Claimant testified that he wore protective equipment while performing his job duties, including boots, bunker pants, a bunker coat, gloves, a hood, and a helmet. Claimant also had a mask and air-pack that provided him with fresh air. Claimant explained that the equipment improved during his tenure as a firefighter. Claimant wore his mask when he responded to fires with heavy smoke and heat. He generally did not wear his mask for outdoor situations or nonstructure fires. On cross-examination, claimant testified that he could wear a mask in any situation, even if employer did not direct him to do so.

¶ 8 Claimant testified that he responded to 5 to 15 car or semi-truck accidents per week. He did not wear a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) when he responded to an auto accident unless there was a fire. Claimant did not wear an air mask if there were injuries on the scene. During auto accidents, claimant encountered radiator fluid, oil gasoline, and smoke. On crossexamination, claimant could not recall how many accidents resulted in leaking fluids or fumes.

¶ 9 Claimant testified that he did not wear a mask when he responded to outdoor fires, although he was exposed to smoke. Claimant recalled that he coughed up "black stuff" and blew "black stuff" out of his nose after fighting fires without his mask on. He also had "black stuff" on his wrists and around his neck.

¶ 10 Claimant testified that he also responded to fires in houses, apartments, industrial buildings, fields, and dumpsters. He did not "mask up" until he reached areas of heavy smoke and heat. He usually fought fires for 15 to 30 minutes, depending on the size. After suppressing the fire, claimant began the "overhaul" process. During overhaul, he tore open ceilings and walls to ensure there was no fire extension or people or animals in the building. At the beginning of his career, claimant did not wear a mask during overhaul because the overhaul occurred after the structure was ventilated. Later in his career, gas monitors were brought in to check for oxygen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and upper and lower explosive limits. Claimant took off his mask and air-pack when levels normalized. After completion of work at the scene of a fire, claimant rolled the truck hose, attached a new truck hose to the truck, cleaned tools, and refilled air bottles.

¶ 11 Claimant testified that he did not shower or change clothes until he completed all tasks. When asked if he noticed anything about his person after a fire, claimant responded, "Once again, you're wiping soot off your neck, blowing your nose, black soot coming out if you happen to catch some smoke, you are coughing up some black soot." On cross-examination, claimant denied receiving any medical treatment for respiratory or breathing issues during his career.

¶ 12 Claimant testified that his protective equipment also contained soot and residue after a fire. During the first 10 years of his career, claimant rinsed off his protective equipment with a hose and hung it to dry. Employer then purchased special washing machines for the protective equipment. Claimant used the special washing machines when possible.

¶ 13 Claimant testified that the diesel engines of the firetrucks ran inside the station garage for 5 to 10 minutes with the doors open or cracked to ventilate the exhaust. Employer began using exhaust collection devices in the 1990s. Claimant regularly smelled exhaust in the firehouse.

¶ 14 Claimant testified that his father was diagnosed with prostate cancer at age 72. His father was a fire chief in World War II and later worked as a tool and dye man. Claimant's father lived to age 94 and died of old age, not cancer. Claimant had four older brothers and none of them had been diagnosed with cancer.

¶ 15 Claimant next testified regarding his medical history. Claimant was 59 years old at the time of the hearing. In 2002, at age 43, he was diagnosed with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but a biopsy showed no malignancy. Claimant was then diagnosed with elevated PSA in 2015 and again on November 29, 2016. Claimant underwent further testing, including a biopsy, in January 2017 and suffered a neck injury on February 28, 2017. Biopsy results from March 22, 2017, revealed malignancy of the prostate. Claimant was 57 years old when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Claimant underwent a prostatectomy and removal of a lymph node on May 17, 2017. Claimant underwent additional treatment in the form of hormone radiation therapy from October 2017 through January 2018. Claimant underwent Cyberknife Radiation for several days in late December 2017 and early January 2018. Claimant's medical provider then recommended hormone replacement therapy for the next two years. Claimant continued the therapy through the time of the arbitration hearing. Claimant's prostate cancer was in remission at the time of the hearing, but he underwent testing every four months. Claimant also underwent neck surgery in February 2018, and he was released to work full duty for that injury in June 2018. He ultimately retired on July 16, 2018. Claimant's medical records confirmed his testimony regarding his diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.

¶ 16 Employer submitted a series of off-work slips from claimant's medical providers into evidence at the hearing. The off-work slips indicated that claimant's prostate cancer was an "injury/illness off-duty" as opposed to an "injury/illness on-duty."

¶ 17 Both parties presented medical opinions on the issue of causation. Claimant presented the evidence deposition of Dr. Peter Orris, M.D., and employer presented the evidence deposition of Dr. Lev Elterman, M.D. ¶ 18 Dr. Orris testified that he worked as the chief of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois Hospital &Health Sciences System. Dr. Orris also taught various medical school classes, including internal medicine, preventative medicine, occupational medicine, and environmental medicine. Dr. Orris was board-certified in occupational and preventative medicine. He also received a master's degree in public health from Yale University. Dr. Orris reviewed 50 to 60 studies and forms of literature assessing the occupational exposures of firefighters to carcinogens. Dr. Orris additionally edited the state-of-the-art reviews of firefighters' health in 1995 and followed the issue closely since that time.

¶ 19 Dr. Orris testified regarding firefighters' exposures during...