Verdict No occupational disease due to poisoned cabin air

Social Court Berlin: One-time event is not enough
Berlin (jur). Possible oil vapors in the cabin of an aircraft do not justify recognition as an occupational disease in the event of a nervous disorder occurring. If there is no permanent load of poisoned breathing air in an aircraft cabin, the statutory accident insurance can not recognize an occupational disease, the Berlin Social Court ruled in a ruling announced on Friday, July 22, 2016 (Ref .: S 68 U 637/13). However, it could be that there was an accident at work instead.

Background of the dispute for years reports of pilots, stewardesses and flight attendants on diseases due to poisoned cabin air in the aircraft. In the process, the neurotoxin tricresyl phosphate (TCP) is repeatedly blamed, which under certain circumstances, together with oil vapors from the aircraft turbines, reaches the aircraft via the ventilation system. Whether the occurring toxins in the cabin air, so-called "foot events" cause illness, is still controversial.

Image: Michael Sagittarius - fotolia

In this specific case, the plaintiff had been working as a flight attendant since 1999. In October 2011, he sought a doctor for numerous complaints. He complained of skin tingling, shortness of breath, muscle twitching, stomach and headache and difficulty concentrating. He blamed the inhalation of poisoned cabin air. On 3 October 2011, it came on board a plane to such a "fume event".

When the doctors in the man a Nervleitleitstörung, a so-called polyneuropathy, noted and classified him as unfit for flight and thus incapacitated, this would have recognized his illness as an occupational disease or at least comparable to an occupational disease.

The Berufsgenossenschaft Verkehrswirtschaft post-logistics telecommunications rejected the recognition. Neither is there a recognized occupational disease listed in the Occupational Disease Ordinance, nor is the applicant's illness comparable to a recognized occupational disease. He is therefore not entitled to an injury pension.

Before the social court the flight attendant had no success. Admittedly, according to the opinion obtained, the prerequisites for an occupational disease could exist. In particular, the plaintiff had been used in aircraft known to have been exposed to pollution of cabin air by various pollutants.

However, the expert had not been able to clarify how the various substances interacted and could cause polyneuropathy, the Berlin judges in their judgment of 7 July 2016. The plaintiff had long worked as a flight attendant, but only from a single "fume event" reported. A prerequisite for recognition as an occupational disease, however, is a "permanent burden" and not a one-time concern.

Under certain circumstances, however, an accident at work may have occurred, the court said. But this question was not the subject of the dispute. fle