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.
A middle school teacher contracted tonsil cancer after 26 years of sharing a small office with a chain-smoking co-worker. The court agreed with the decision of a state workers’ compensation judge that the cancer was an occupational disease subject to compensation. As a result, the Board of Education was ordered to pay the teacher’s past and future medical expenses and temporary disability benefits and to reimburse his used sick leave. Although the teacher was a non-smoker and made attempts to avoid tobacco smoke, the workers’ compensation judge estimated that he had been exposed to approximately 46,800 cigarettes during the 26 years of sharing an office with a smoker. The court said that although there was not definitive scientific evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke causes tonsil cancer, there was sufficient evidence to establish a connection between his disease and his place of employment. Therefore the court upheld the finding of the workers’ compensation judge except for the reimbursement of sick leave, which the court found was beyond the jurisdiction of the judge.