I’ve worked in nursing homes, and you’re told not to wear perfume at all, due to residents being sensitive to the smell. i think the employee that sprayed the perfume should be sued.
Good post, Matt; let me add one more note, that I wonder why she didn’t sue the co-worker….this stretches vicarious liability for the nursing home a little too far. I never see common sense appear in these lawsuits but I suspect plaintiff’s attorney needs money given the recession. I too feel bad for this poor woman who has been victimized; hasn’t she suffered enough from the cigarettes? (tongue firmly in cheek)
Read about a policeman who was processing some petty thief who passes gas toward the officer and he filed assault charges against the poor soul….anything is possible. My dad would have just given both of them a clap on the brow and said, “get with it or get over it, WIMP!”
I am sorry, but that has to be one of the silliest things I have read lately!! If someone can sue bacause an co-worker sprayed perfume 3 times in one day and it made her ill, then how is she certain that it wasn’t something else she could have been breathing… like her cigarette smoking!!! sorry, but I had to vent!!!
We have some funky smells coming from the cafeteria, but you don’t see me in line for an attorney…
Some perfumes that have certain chemicals in them feels as if someone has poured acid on my skin. Just walking be me or being in the same room. I do my best to steer clear of anyone that is affecting me. I do not believe there should be a law suit but I think in the workplace perfumes should be banned. BTW, I do not go into candle shops or department stores where I am exposed, but since I like to eat, I do work.
A lot of controversy has arisen over the recent “perfume case”. In Sexton vs. Cumberland County/Cumberland Manor the N.J. Appellate Court held that a worker was entitled to pursue workers’ compensation benefits because perfume exposure at work aggravated a pre-existing lung condition. Contrary to the opinion of some critics, the holding does not stink. The furor expressed by those opposed to the decision is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of N.J. workers compensation law.
The N.J. workers compensation law was adopted in the early 1900s. It confiscated every worker’s right to sue his employer. The law deprives the worker and his family of the right to claim adequate compensation for work-related injury (for example, damages for pain and suffering, future wage loss, spousal claims for loss of society and services, exemplary damages, loss of enjoyment of life damages, and the like). Instead, the worker was limited to three potential benefits: authorized medical treatment, temporary total disability, and permanent disability.
As a matter of law, the worker and his family lost the right to sue a grossly negligent or careless employer, even if that gross negligence or carelessness caused serious injury or death. Indeed, the workers compensation law confers immunity on the employer to an extreme degree. For example, if an employer fails to maintain safety devices on a dangerous machine and that failure causes amputation of the worker’s arm, the employer’s exposure was limited to workers compensation benefits.
In order to make certain the scales of justice were more fairly balanced, the worker’s entitlement to workers compensation benefits was made less difficult. The worker only needs to prove that the injury “arose out of and during the course of employment”. The “arise out of” component simply means that the cause of the injury was “work connected”, i.e., the worker encountered the risk when engaged in rendering service to his/her employer. The “during course of employment” component is a primarily a temporal and geographical concept focusing on whether the worker had begun work on premises controlled by the employer.
In addition, because the law was tilted so heavily in favor of the employer, the law further provided that an employer “take an employee as the employer finds him or her.” This means that if an exposure at work aggravated a pre-existing condition of the worker, the worker was nevertheless entitled to workers compensation even though the prior medical condition predisposed that worker to suffer more serious medical consequences. As a matter of law, it makes no difference that a different worker, subject to the identical work exposure, would incur no injury because that worker had no prior medical condition susceptible to aggravation by exposure.
The sound reasoning of the Sexton opinion is more readily understood in this context. Mrs. Sexton, during her day at work, was subjected to three separate exposures to perfume sprayed by a co-worker. Before that incident at work, the petitioner was routinely employed, was able to perform chores at work and at home, and was able to lead a normal life. After the work incident, Mrs. Sexton was repeatedly hospitalized and after being discharged from a rehabilitation center weeks after the accident, was oxygen-dependent. She could barely function. The perfume incident at work, which aggravated Mrs. Sexton’s pre-existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” The incident occurred because both she and her co-worker were captives of their employment. She could not have avoided the second or third exposure. The contaminated air was a “condition of her employment.” The exposures occurred because of her employment. The debilitating effects of that exposure are what the workers’ compensation law was designed to remedy, albeit in a limited fashion.
It must be repeated, a worker cannot sue his employer, regardless of how gross the employer’s negligent conduct or the severity of the worker’s injury. To make up for this immunity, the law requires that the employer accept the employee regardless of his/her pre-existing medical condition. The employer’s insurance company must pay for injuries that arise “out of and during the course of employment”, regardless of fault. Work aggravation of pre-existing medical conditions are protected by the limited remedies available under the workers compensation system.
It is hoped that having supplied this information, those opposed to Mrs. Sexton receiving benefits for her debilitating condition would be more tolerant and understanding. By its decision the Appellate Court simply reaffirmed the principles of workers compensation law and properly adjusted the scale of justice to protect the worker.
Kenneth A. DiMuzio Sr.
Hoffman DiMuzio
25-35 Hunter St.
Woodbury, NJ 08096
Mr. DiMuzio,
How do we KNOW that the perfume aggrivated Mrs. Sexton’s pre-existing condition? Since she was a heavy smoker with a pre-existing condition, why can’t we assume that it was the next cigarette or two that actually aggrivated her condition? What if it was something else? Exhaust from a bus or car, even? It would seem to me that Mrs. Sexton would perhaps have to practically be sitting on top of her co-worker while she was spritzing her perfume to get enough of the perfume into her lungs to cause her to be hospitalized and oxygen dependent. Surely you can’t be serious?
After smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 43 years, I have a really hard time believing that a copule of spritzes of perfume could actually render someone totally disabled. How can you possibly prove a case like this? Did an independent physician give any kind of expert testimony? I’m terribly sorry, but with the information given, this case does stink. It reeks with greed and unaccountability on Mrs. Sexton’s part.
Have you ever walked in to a room, Restaurant,bar or any public place and either smelt it or had someone sit down next to you and thought to yourself omg did you take a bath in that perfume? Well now imagine with just a 10th of that smell,an instant migraine headache, you can’t breath, you need to get out and get out now!!!!
I am not against purfumes at all but I live with someone that is and I have come to understand why he is.
Facts:
My husband has this disease. I or anyone that enters our home cannot burn candles, wear perfume, body wash or hairspray. Any strong house cleaners are also out. Some things are better then others or he tolerates them such as my shampoo/conditioner, deorderant, laundry soap or dryer clings. I use to get soooo mad because any other friends of mine could burn a candle in her house. I can understand why people think this is just bullcrap because I have for years. If perfume or any strong smelling flowery item is near he immeditatly gets a pounding headache, his noise plugs up and he is contantly trying to blow it to get it unplugged. I have done some reading on this disease and found that their are several people with this problem. The chemicals in all these items are probably killing people and definately causing cancer. I myself not being around any perfume smell even get overwhelmed when a overly strong scent hits me. In fact I smoke and he deals with that. I use to burn canles when we both smoked but since he quit smoking his senses have improve and made the perfume smell worse than ever. So as his wife I suffer too. Having the job my husband has,there are times he goes out of town for 4-5- days. Its not nice to say but I love the time. I burn every canle in the house, spray on perfume and love my house. There is a lot of information on the internet about disease. Search Perfume allergies and read on the latest information.
I wish therte was something that smells pretty that would not bother him. If anyone with this problem has found something let me know please.
The one thing I do is boil apples and cinn. anything natural he can tolerate.
Perfumes are made up of toxic chemicals one of which is formaldehyde. If you are farting chemicals I would truly be concerned and get myself to the dr. You are ignorant and it shows. People who are sensitive to the chemicals in perfumed products are not affected by natural smells….repulsed, yes, but not affected. Your mother must be very proud of you. Things you do and say reflect your upbringing. Before you make a statement like that do some research into the multitude of chemicals used in perfumes, including carcinogens (cancer-causing). I have never heard of anyone getting cancer from a fart. Please, don’t embarrass yourself with these comments
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I’ve worked in nursing homes, and you’re told not to wear perfume at all, due to residents being sensitive to the smell. i think the employee that sprayed the perfume should be sued.
Good post, Matt; let me add one more note, that I wonder why she didn’t sue the co-worker….this stretches vicarious liability for the nursing home a little too far. I never see common sense appear in these lawsuits but I suspect plaintiff’s attorney needs money given the recession. I too feel bad for this poor woman who has been victimized; hasn’t she suffered enough from the cigarettes? (tongue firmly in cheek)
Read about a policeman who was processing some petty thief who passes gas toward the officer and he filed assault charges against the poor soul….anything is possible. My dad would have just given both of them a clap on the brow and said, “get with it or get over it, WIMP!”
I am sorry, but that has to be one of the silliest things I have read lately!! If someone can sue bacause an co-worker sprayed perfume 3 times in one day and it made her ill, then how is she certain that it wasn’t something else she could have been breathing… like her cigarette smoking!!! sorry, but I had to vent!!!
We have some funky smells coming from the cafeteria, but you don’t see me in line for an attorney…
How is her suit against R.J. Reynolds et al going?
Some perfumes that have certain chemicals in them feels as if someone has poured acid on my skin. Just walking be me or being in the same room. I do my best to steer clear of anyone that is affecting me. I do not believe there should be a law suit but I think in the workplace perfumes should be banned. BTW, I do not go into candle shops or department stores where I am exposed, but since I like to eat, I do work.
A lot of controversy has arisen over the recent “perfume case”. In Sexton vs. Cumberland County/Cumberland Manor the N.J. Appellate Court held that a worker was entitled to pursue workers’ compensation benefits because perfume exposure at work aggravated a pre-existing lung condition. Contrary to the opinion of some critics, the holding does not stink. The furor expressed by those opposed to the decision is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of N.J. workers compensation law.
The N.J. workers compensation law was adopted in the early 1900s. It confiscated every worker’s right to sue his employer. The law deprives the worker and his family of the right to claim adequate compensation for work-related injury (for example, damages for pain and suffering, future wage loss, spousal claims for loss of society and services, exemplary damages, loss of enjoyment of life damages, and the like). Instead, the worker was limited to three potential benefits: authorized medical treatment, temporary total disability, and permanent disability.
As a matter of law, the worker and his family lost the right to sue a grossly negligent or careless employer, even if that gross negligence or carelessness caused serious injury or death. Indeed, the workers compensation law confers immunity on the employer to an extreme degree. For example, if an employer fails to maintain safety devices on a dangerous machine and that failure causes amputation of the worker’s arm, the employer’s exposure was limited to workers compensation benefits.
In order to make certain the scales of justice were more fairly balanced, the worker’s entitlement to workers compensation benefits was made less difficult. The worker only needs to prove that the injury “arose out of and during the course of employment”. The “arise out of” component simply means that the cause of the injury was “work connected”, i.e., the worker encountered the risk when engaged in rendering service to his/her employer. The “during course of employment” component is a primarily a temporal and geographical concept focusing on whether the worker had begun work on premises controlled by the employer.
In addition, because the law was tilted so heavily in favor of the employer, the law further provided that an employer “take an employee as the employer finds him or her.” This means that if an exposure at work aggravated a pre-existing condition of the worker, the worker was nevertheless entitled to workers compensation even though the prior medical condition predisposed that worker to suffer more serious medical consequences. As a matter of law, it makes no difference that a different worker, subject to the identical work exposure, would incur no injury because that worker had no prior medical condition susceptible to aggravation by exposure.
The sound reasoning of the Sexton opinion is more readily understood in this context. Mrs. Sexton, during her day at work, was subjected to three separate exposures to perfume sprayed by a co-worker. Before that incident at work, the petitioner was routinely employed, was able to perform chores at work and at home, and was able to lead a normal life. After the work incident, Mrs. Sexton was repeatedly hospitalized and after being discharged from a rehabilitation center weeks after the accident, was oxygen-dependent. She could barely function. The perfume incident at work, which aggravated Mrs. Sexton’s pre-existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” The incident occurred because both she and her co-worker were captives of their employment. She could not have avoided the second or third exposure. The contaminated air was a “condition of her employment.” The exposures occurred because of her employment. The debilitating effects of that exposure are what the workers’ compensation law was designed to remedy, albeit in a limited fashion.
It must be repeated, a worker cannot sue his employer, regardless of how gross the employer’s negligent conduct or the severity of the worker’s injury. To make up for this immunity, the law requires that the employer accept the employee regardless of his/her pre-existing medical condition. The employer’s insurance company must pay for injuries that arise “out of and during the course of employment”, regardless of fault. Work aggravation of pre-existing medical conditions are protected by the limited remedies available under the workers compensation system.
It is hoped that having supplied this information, those opposed to Mrs. Sexton receiving benefits for her debilitating condition would be more tolerant and understanding. By its decision the Appellate Court simply reaffirmed the principles of workers compensation law and properly adjusted the scale of justice to protect the worker.
Kenneth A. DiMuzio Sr.
Hoffman DiMuzio
25-35 Hunter St.
Woodbury, NJ 08096
Mr. DiMuzio,
How do we KNOW that the perfume aggrivated Mrs. Sexton’s pre-existing condition? Since she was a heavy smoker with a pre-existing condition, why can’t we assume that it was the next cigarette or two that actually aggrivated her condition? What if it was something else? Exhaust from a bus or car, even? It would seem to me that Mrs. Sexton would perhaps have to practically be sitting on top of her co-worker while she was spritzing her perfume to get enough of the perfume into her lungs to cause her to be hospitalized and oxygen dependent. Surely you can’t be serious?
After smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 43 years, I have a really hard time believing that a copule of spritzes of perfume could actually render someone totally disabled. How can you possibly prove a case like this? Did an independent physician give any kind of expert testimony? I’m terribly sorry, but with the information given, this case does stink. It reeks with greed and unaccountability on Mrs. Sexton’s part.
Have you ever walked in to a room, Restaurant,bar or any public place and either smelt it or had someone sit down next to you and thought to yourself omg did you take a bath in that perfume? Well now imagine with just a 10th of that smell,an instant migraine headache, you can’t breath, you need to get out and get out now!!!!
I am not against purfumes at all but I live with someone that is and I have come to understand why he is.
Facts:
My husband has this disease. I or anyone that enters our home cannot burn candles, wear perfume, body wash or hairspray. Any strong house cleaners are also out. Some things are better then others or he tolerates them such as my shampoo/conditioner, deorderant, laundry soap or dryer clings. I use to get soooo mad because any other friends of mine could burn a candle in her house. I can understand why people think this is just bullcrap because I have for years. If perfume or any strong smelling flowery item is near he immeditatly gets a pounding headache, his noise plugs up and he is contantly trying to blow it to get it unplugged. I have done some reading on this disease and found that their are several people with this problem. The chemicals in all these items are probably killing people and definately causing cancer. I myself not being around any perfume smell even get overwhelmed when a overly strong scent hits me. In fact I smoke and he deals with that. I use to burn canles when we both smoked but since he quit smoking his senses have improve and made the perfume smell worse than ever. So as his wife I suffer too. Having the job my husband has,there are times he goes out of town for 4-5- days. Its not nice to say but I love the time. I burn every canle in the house, spray on perfume and love my house. There is a lot of information on the internet about disease. Search Perfume allergies and read on the latest information.
I wish therte was something that smells pretty that would not bother him. If anyone with this problem has found something let me know please.
The one thing I do is boil apples and cinn. anything natural he can tolerate.
Perfumes are made up of toxic chemicals one of which is formaldehyde. If you are farting chemicals I would truly be concerned and get myself to the dr. You are ignorant and it shows. People who are sensitive to the chemicals in perfumed products are not affected by natural smells….repulsed, yes, but not affected. Your mother must be very proud of you. Things you do and say reflect your upbringing. Before you make a statement like that do some research into the multitude of chemicals used in perfumes, including carcinogens (cancer-causing). I have never heard of anyone getting cancer from a fart. Please, don’t embarrass yourself with these comments