5 min read
Our client loves her job as an airline flight attendant. But when the airline introduced a new required uniform, problems started.
Within hours of wearing the uniform, she developed skin rashes. Her throat swelled. She had trouble breathing. And every time she put the uniform back on, the same symptoms returned.
She went to see a physician assistant, who decided to run a simple test. Our client put on the uniform right there in the medical office. The physician assistant (PA) looked at her skin first—it was clear. Then he watched for 10 minutes while she wore the uniform. A visible rash appeared on her skin. He took notes and diagnosed contact dermatitis from the uniform.
Our client filed for workers' compensation benefits. She had medical documentation, photographs showing her reactions, and her husband who had witnessed the symptoms. Her treating doctor believed the uniform was making her sick.
But the airline and its insurance company fought back hard. They hired their own expert who said our client had no evidence to prove her case. She hired AFL’s Jeremy Lagasse to represent her.
At the trial level, the judge agreed with the airline and denied her claim. We decided to ask the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals to review what happened at the trial to challenge the result.
"We work hard to scrutinize the results at trial and are always looking at options to continue the fight on appeal," Jeremy explains. This case was about protecting every Minnesota worker who gets sick from exposure at their workplace.
Changing the Rules
At the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals, Jeremy explained exactly what the airline was trying to do.
They “attempted to move the goalposts in the law," he told the judges. The company was trying to make Jennifer meet a much higher standard of proof than the law actually requires.
Here's what Minnesota law says: If you get sick from something you're exposed to at work, you need to:
- Show a connection between the exposure and your illness
- Show that your symptoms happen when you're exposed to the workplace hazard.
- Show that your doctor believes there's a cause-and-effect relationship.
That's it. You don't have to identify the exact chemical making you sick. You don't need laboratory analysis. You just need to show the pattern: exposure leads to symptoms, consistently.
But the airline wanted our client to prove more than the law requires. They demanded she identify the specific chemical in the uniform causing her reactions. They brought in an expert who never examined her but still claimed there was "no objective evidence" that she was injured. They tried to apply federal law standards to a Minnesota workers' compensation case.
Their expert, according to his initial report, had already made up his mind that our client could not have suffered a work-related injury before even examining her. Jeremy pointed this out to the appeals court: "It didn't matter whether he examined my client or not. He was already predisposed to the opinion that causation could not be established."
This video has been edited to include select excerpts relevant to the topics discussed in this blog. To view the full proceedings, visit the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals YouTube channel.
They Ignored the Medical Test
Remember that test at the physician assistant's office? The assistant watched our client's skin before she put on the uniform—it was clear. He watched her wear it for 10 minutes—a rash appeared. He documented everything and diagnosed contact dermatitis.
This was objective medical evidence. A healthcare provider directly observed our client's reaction to the uniform.
The airline’s expert never mentioned this visit in his report. Even though the airline held the records that referred to the contact dermatitis diagnosis, he ignored it completely.
"I think it's extremely troubling that in his bookend reports, which are again document reviews and not a physical examination, he makes reference in each of those to the absence of evidence," Jeremy told the appeals court.
The trial judge made four separate findings acknowledging this evidence—our client's testimony, her husband's testimony, the PA’s observation, and time-stamped photographs.
The airline never appealed those findings. They were accepted as facts.
"That is evidence of the reaction," Jeremy argued. "This is why I'm troubled by the compensation judge's decision."
Your Medical History Shouldn't Disqualify You
The airline also tried to use our client's past against her. Twenty years earlier, she'd had some mild skin sensitivities to certain perfumes and detergents.
So the airline argued: How can she prove the uniform caused her problems? Maybe it was something else!
But workers' compensation law doesn't work that way. In legal terms, it's called taking the worker "as you find them." If someone has a sensitivity that makes them more likely to react to a workplace hazard, that doesn't mean they lose their right to benefits.
"The law does not set forth in an occupational exposure injury that pre-existing conditions are insignificant," Jeremy explained to the court.
Think about it: Occupational exposure laws exist precisely because some people react to workplace substances that don't bother everyone else. If having any past sensitivity disqualified you from benefits, the law would be meaningless.
When the appeals court questioned Delta's attorney about this, the exchange was revealing:
Judge: "You think her pre-existing condition is relevant?"
The airline's attorney: "I think it's very relevant."
Judge: "And 20 years later, it's relevant?"
Under the airline's logic, our client’s entire future would be held hostage to past skin issues that never stopped her from working until this specific uniform arrived.
You Don't Have to Identify the Exact Chemical
Jeremy also tackled the airline's demand that our client name the specific chemical in the uniform making her sick.
In occupational exposure cases, workers often can't point to a single chemical or toxin. That's especially true when the employer won't allow the testing that might identify it.
That's exactly what happened here. Our client was approved for comprehensive allergy testing that could have identified what she was reacting to. Then the airline pulled the approval.
"If he says that she needs diagnostic testing, that should have been categorically approved immediately," Jeremy argued. "They had her approved for this testing, and then it was pulled."
The airline’s strategy became clear: Demand impossible proof. Block the testing that might provide that proof. Then claim no proof exists.
"It appears as though the presentation of evidence was used against her both by the defense and the compensation judge," Jeremy told the court.
What This Case Means for Workers
The Minnesota Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. They sent the case back to be reconsidered using the actual legal standards for occupational exposure injuries—not the impossible standards the airline tried to create.
The appeals court rejected the airline's attempt to make workers prove more than the law requires. They affirmed that you don't need to identify specific chemicals or be examined by experts who've already decided you're lying.
If you're getting sick from something at work—whether it's uniforms, cleaning chemicals, dust, fumes, or anything else—you have the right to have your case judged fairly.
The airline has now appealed the decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and we continue the fight for our client’s rights.
This case shows what AFL provides for clients: We don't just accept it when the trial court gets the law wrong. We scrutinize every result. We know when to keep fighting. And we take cases to the next level when that's what it takes.
If you're experiencing health problems connected to something at your workplace, you shouldn't have to prove the impossible. You need to show the connection between your work and your symptoms. Your doctor's opinion matters. The pattern of your symptoms matters. Medical observations matter.
And if you lose at trial because the judge applied the wrong standard, you need attorneys who know the law well enough to recognize that—and who are willing to appeal.
We work hard to scrutinize the results at trial. We're willing to continue the fight on appeal. And we protect your rights at every level of the system.
