Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
An office assistant sought workers’ compensation benefits for her asthmatic episodes, including two asthma attacks which required her to be rushed to the hospital for emergency treatment. The court upheld the finding of the Workers’ Compensation Board that the employee’s aggravated asthma, which was caused by prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke in her confined workplace, constituted an “accidental injury” under workers’ compensation law. The court found that cigarette smoke is not a natural byproduct of the work at her office and the secondhand smoke exposure qualified as an “unusual hazard.”