Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

William Franken v. Honeywell FMT f/k/a Bendix Corporation Allied Signal

Decision date: November 10, 201630 pages

Summary

The Missouri LIRC reversed the administrative law judge's decision and awarded compensation to the estate of William Franken for cancer causally related to occupational exposure to beryllium and radiation during his employment as an electronic fabricator and senior analyst. The Commission found that the statute of limitations claim was inapplicable and that the employee's occupational disease was causally connected to his work at the nuclear weapons manufacturing facility.

Archive Notice

This archive contains published Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission workers' compensation decisions reproduced for research convenience. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Practical guidance for this decision

Third-Party Injury Check

This workers' comp decision may point to a separate injury claim.

  • A driver, contractor, property owner, or equipment company may share fault.
  • The injury involved a vehicle, unsafe premises, defective equipment, or a non-employer vendor.
  • A serious injury or death may need both benefits review and civil-claim analysis.

Caption

FINAL AWARD ALLOWING COMPENSATION (Reversing Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)
Employee:William Franken (deceased)
Claimant:Carson Franken, surviving spouse Kristen Thomas, Kaitlyn Thomas, dependent children
Employer:Honeywell FMT f/k/a Bendix Corporation Allied Signal
Insurer:Ace American Insurance Company
This workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided by § 287.480 RSMo. We have reviewed the evidence, read the briefs, heard the parties’ arguments, and considered the whole record. Pursuant to § 286.090 RSMo, the Commission reverses the award and decision of the administrative law judge.
Preliminaries
The parties asked the administrative law judge to resolve the following issues: (1) accident or occupational disease; (2) notice; (3) whether the event arose out of and in the course and scope of employment; (4) medical causation; (5) the nature and extent or cause of death; (6) statute of limitations; and (7) claimant’s motion to strike the 60-day submission of employer’s medical expert testimony.
The administrative law judge concluded as follows: (1) employee’s injury would have been reasonably discoverable at least by October 28, 2004, and the two-year filing period is applicable, so the claim filed on May 11, 2007, is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the testimony of employer’s medical expert is admitted into evidence; and (3) employee’s cancer was not causally related to his employment.
Employee filed a timely application for review alleging the administrative law judge erred: (1) in ruling the statute of limitations barred the claim; (2) in ruling that employee’s cancer was not causally related to his employment; and (3) in admitting the testimony of employer’s medical expert into evidence.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the award and decision of the administrative law judge.
Findings of Fact
Employer contracts with the federal government to manufacture non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons. The principal products produced at employer’s facility include arming systems; fusing and firing systems; radars; power supplies; rubber, plastic, and foam parts; and outer casings. Employer’s operations utilize radiation as one of the analytical tools to accurately manufacture, fabricate, and inspect non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons. The primary radiation sources in employer’s facility involve analytical laboratory technologies for the manufacturing and testing of electronic and mechanical devices. Employer’s operations can generate small quantities of low-level radioactive waste.

Employee: William Franken (deceased)

Beginning in the early 2000s, employer attempted to contact every current and former employee who worked in employer's facility for the purpose of testing them for exposure to beryllium, a highly toxic element used in employer's processes. Numerous employees were found to have been sensitized to beryllium, meaning they were exposed, and were at risk for developing occupational illnesses, including an incurable respiratory illness known as chronic berylliosis. Notably, even employees whose duties had never involved the actual handling of beryllium, such as office or clerical workers, were found to have been exposed to this substance.

Employee worked as an electronic fabricator and senior analyst for employer (then known as the Bendix Corporation) from January 1968 to January 1972. Employee's work as a fabricator involved the layout, fabrication, and modification of electronic, electromechanical, and pressure-type products, test equipment, meters, and special resistors. Employee's work as an analyst involved the calibration and repair of instruments used to measure the materials involved in employer's manufacturing processes. This latter work took place in employer's metrology lab. Employee presented the testimony of Dennis Shepherd, who worked as a security guard for employer from October 27, 1970, until January 31, 2007. Mr. Shepherd persuasively testified (and we so find) that, at least in the more recent years prior to Mr. Shepherd's retirement, the door to the metrology lab included warnings that the lab contained, or had contained in the past, various hazardous materials, including beryllium, asbestos, trichloroethylene, and radiology/x-ray equipment. Mr. Shepherd was unable to remember, however, whether the door to the metrology lab had such warnings during the specific time period that employee worked for employer.

Employer, on the other hand, presented the testimony of its industrial hygienist, William Frede, who indicated that working in employer's metrology lab would not likely involve exposure to any dangerous chemicals, substances, or processes. However, on crossexamination, Mr. Frede conceded that he started working for employer in 1977, and thus had no firsthand knowledge of the working conditions in employer's metrology lab from 1968 to 1972. He also specifically conceded that employee could have been exposed to beryllium in employer's metrology lab, although he maintained that, in his opinion, such (possible) exposure should not be considered dangerous. Mr. Frede did not directly rebut the testimony from Mr. Shepherd that the door to the metrology lab included warnings that the lab contained, or had contained in the past, various hazardous materials including beryllium, asbestos, trichloroethylene, and radiology/x-ray equipment.

For reasons explained more fully below in our discussion of the expert medical testimony advanced by the parties, we do not deem the testimony from Mr. Frede to persuasively establish that employee's job duties would not have posed any risk of exposure to dangerous substances, chemicals, or processes. Instead, we find that workers at employer's plant, including metrology workers such as employee, were subjected to the risk of exposure to the numerous toxic and carcinogenic substances employer kept onsite, including trichloroethylene, beryllium, and ionizing radiation.

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

Im

Employee: William Franken (deceased)

On October 22, 2004, employee underwent a follow-up CT scan to rule out a kidney tumor; this study confirmed the presence of two large diverticula within the bladder, one of which held the tumor seen by Dr. Freiden. On November 9, 2004, Dr. Freiden performed an excision of bladder diverticuli, and biopsied the tumor, which was pathologically identified as a small-cell neuroendocrine carcinosarcoma.

In December 2004, employee came under the care of an oncologist, Dr. William Stephenson. Employee underwent four cycles of chemotherapy, which he tolerated well. On June 16, 2005, employee saw Dr. Stephenson complaining of intermittently severe pelvic pain. On June 17, 2005, employee underwent a CT scan of the abdomen, which revealed two new low density masses within the right lobe of the liver, suspicious for hepatic metastases.

On July 1, 2005, employee underwent a liver biopsy, which confirmed that the lesions seen in his liver represented high-grade metastatic carcinosarcoma of the type previously found in employee's bladder. On July 7, 2005, employee returned to Dr. Stephenson, who prescribed methadone and Percocet to treat the abdominal pain employee was suffering in connection with the metastasized cancer. Dr. Stephenson also referred employee to the M.D. Anderson cancer center in Houston, Texas.

Employee arrived and checked into the M.D. Anderson center on July 12, 2005. On July 13, 2005, employee took his first and only dose of methadone while in his hotel room, and immediately developed shortness of breath. Attending emergency personnel transported him to the M.D. Anderson center, where attending physicians administered epinephrine and intubated employee in an attempt to reverse what appeared to be an allergic reaction to the methadone. This was ineffective however, and employee was deemed to be in a state of septic shock with multiple organ failure. Despite an attempted emergency hemodialysis, employee died on July 14, 2005, of septic shock and metastatic bladder cancer.

On July 15, 2005, Drs. Anais Malpicia and Cesar Moran conducted an autopsy of the lungs, which revealed employee was suffering from pneumonia at the time of his death. These practitioners deemed the lung autopsy to be generally negative for granulomatous disease or emphysematous changes; although Dr. Moran noted that beryllium exposure could not be excluded. The autopsy did reveal a small focus of metastatic small cell carcinoma in the right upper lung.

On December 21, 2005, Dr. Freiden wrote a letter indicating that beryllium exposure during employee's work for employer was a potential risk factor for the development of his bladder cancer. Although employee and claimant had discussed the possibility of various occupational exposures before, it appears from this record that this was the first time a diagnostician positively identified a likely causal link between employee's work for employer and the development of the claimed work injury. We find, therefore, that December 21, 2005, was the first date upon which it was reasonably discoverable or apparent to claimant that employee's fatal bladder cancer was the product of a

Imprv No.: 05-143993

Employee: William Franken (deceased)

- 5 -

compensable work injury by occupational disease.² Claimant filed her claim for compensation on May 11, 2007.

On May 9, 2007, Dr. Dempsey wrote a letter indicating that the possibility of beryllium exposure should be reconsidered as the probable cause of employee's lung condition. Dr. Dempsey noted that employee's chronic cough had previously been diagnosed as asthma or COPD (which Dr. Dempsey deemed interesting, due to employee's history of being a lifetime non-smoker), but that it had recently come to his attention that workers in employer's facility, including employee, were likely exposed to beryllium. Dr. Dempsey noted that the treatment employee received for his chronic pulmonary complaints had been only mildly successful.

**Expert medical testimony**

Claimant presents the expert medical testimony of the occupational physician Dr. Allen Parmet, who believes that employee's cancer was occupationally related to his exposure while working for employer, and that such exposure was a substantial factor in causing employee's cancer. Dr. Parmet pointed to the risk of employee's exposure to dangerous substances which were documented to have been present at employer's facility; the absence of any other known exposure or significant risk factors for developing bladder cancer; the compatibility of the typical latency period of 20 to 30 years with the timeline of employee's period of employment and subsequent development of bladder symptoms; the fact that the type of cancer found in employee's bladder is extremely rare and is seen more often in occupational exposure cases; and his opinion that occupational exposures, after smoking, are the most common cause of bladder cancers.

At his deposition, Dr. Parmet made clear that he was not linking employee's cancer to beryllium exposure specifically, but instead his opinion turned on the documented presence of multiple dangerous substances at employer's facility, including beryllium, trichloroethylene, and ionizing radiation. Dr. Parmet also discussed his firsthand expe

Full decision text continues in the plain-text archive copy.

Related Decisions

affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award allowing workers' compensation benefits for Jason L. Collins' occupational disease claim involving cumulative trauma to his back and right lower extremity sustained while employed as a truck driver/laborer. The Commission rejected the employer's argument that an untimely answer resulted in admission of all facts including legal conclusions about whether the injury arose out of employment.

occupational disease9,505 words
affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award of death benefits to the widow of Russell Hayes, a volunteer firefighter killed in the line of duty. The majority awarded death benefits at the statutory minimum wage rate of $40.00 per week, though a dissenting opinion argued for a higher wage determination based on the statutory provisions for calculating average weekly earnings.

occupational disease5,849 words
affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award denying compensation to Carl Hanes for an alleged occupational disease from radiation exposure at the Department of Corrections. The Commission found the employee failed to provide proper notice and that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, resulting in no benefits awarded.

occupational disease6,305 words
affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award of workers' compensation benefits to Elizabeth A. Steele for injuries sustained when a patient slammed his leg down on her head, neck, and shoulders while she was working as a critical care unit nurse. The Commission found the award was supported by competent and substantial evidence and determined the employee is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.

occupational disease10,794 words

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's Temporary or Partial Award in a workers' compensation case for employee Cynthia Porter, finding the award supported by competent and substantial evidence. The Commission upheld the ALJ's determination that the claimant's diabetes was well-controlled, rejecting the employer/insurer's challenge to this medical finding.

occupational disease7,008 words