Adverse health effects of so-called “forever chemicals” — an ongoing topic for general liability insurers — are making their way into discussions about potential claim activity in workers compensation, experts say.
Otherwise known as PFAS, an abbreviation for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the chemicals are used in manufacturing a wide array of everyday items and do not break down naturally. They have become problematic in recent years as science has exposed their dangers.
PFAS are almost everywhere — 97% of the U.S. population has the chemicals in their system — and can cause myriad health issues, including kidney disease, autoimmune disorders, effects on the reproductive system, birth defects and a variety of cancers, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC named several occupations that are known to be exposed to PFAS more than the general U.S. population — chemical manufacturing workers and firefighters are the most affected — yet workers compensation experts say government policy changes and more attention in the media are raising concerns for workers in various other industries.
“They say it’s the next asbestos,” said Richard Czaplinski, Meriden, Connecticut-based senior loss control specialist with AmTrust Financial Services Inc., adding that it isn’t surprising that the issue is finding its way into comp. “It’s a chemical that’s been used for years in industries.”
In the federal government alone “there is a lot of scrutiny” concerning the current and historic use of PFAS, said Eduardo Benatuil, a Chicago-based broker in the umbrella and excess liability large and complex casualty practice for Willis Towers Watson PLC.
There’s also an active plaintiffs bar that has seen PFAS-related property/casualty lawsuits settled for undisclosed sums, causing some to compare them to tobacco settlements, experts say.
“From a brokerage standpoint it’s something we are keeping a very close eye on,” Mr. Benatuil said.
For employers and workers compensation insurers, widespread awareness may lead to claim activity.
Claim disputes will be costly, experts say, as PFAS face a question common in comp with cancers and other ailments with dormancy periods: Was the worker exposed enough to connect an illness to the chemicals?
“Workers compensation claims still need to be evaluated like they are for any type of alleged injury; we need to determine if the alleged injury or exposure occurred while the employee was in the course and scope of their employment,” said Dennis Tierney, Norwalk, Connecticut-based national director of workers compensation claims for Marsh LLC. Much will depend on medical evidence, he added.
The prevalence of PFAS in the environment “is going to make it harder for an injured worker to prove that (their illness) is causally related. They would have to give a specific connection to how they were exposed … and how that’s connected to their job,” Mr. Tierney said.
The science is also unclear, said Haytham Zohny, New York-based senior vice president, complex risk and casualty practice, for Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
“When it comes to workers compensation and forever chemicals, it is an area that’s very murky,” he said. “Going back to asbestos, there’s a direct connection usually shown between asbestos and the cancer mesothelioma,” Mr. Zohny said.
With PFAS, it’s “hard to trace” a clear connection between exposure, illness and causation in some cases, said Christopher Garrabrant, Naperville, Illinois-based senior principal risk engineer for Zurich North America, who also compared PFAS with asbestos.
“There have been studies that show the connection between exposure and some types of illnesses, but those types of illnesses could be caused by numerous other factors,” Mr. Tierney said. “What we’re starting to see in the workers compensation space is concern around whether (PFAS) can be covered … or whether it can be determined that the cancer or illness was caused by another type of exposure.”
Repeated exposure to the toxin must also be factored in, said Mr. Czaplinski, who compared PFAS exposure to work-related hearing loss: How often the worker was exposed to the hazard will be a factor.
“It’s the long-term exposure,” he said. “You have an employee that works in a metal shop who one day is exposed to the noise level at or above 90 (decibels),” which is considered loud. “It’s not going to really injure the employee; he might have some ringing in the ear but the next day he’s going to be fine. It’s the five to 10 years’ exposure (to that sound) that will cause injury,” he said.
As the workers compensation industry grapples with the possibility of claim activity stemming from alleged exposure to “forever chemicals,” experts say enhanced safety protocols help with managing the risk.
“Even though it’s an emerging and difficult, complex issue, basic risk management tells us that we want to evaluate what the risk is, evaluate what our exposure is, and then start taking steps to engineer it, replace it, eliminate it, reduce exposures to it so that we can protect customers, employees and the general public,” said Fred Myatt, Durham, North Carolina-based assistant vice president of technical underwriting for liability for Zurich North America.
Richard Czaplinski, Meriden, Connecticut-based senior loss control specialist with AmTrust Financial Services Inc., referred to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s 10-year-old revised hazard communications standard, which calls on employers to warn about and mitigate chemical hazards.
“Employers should be having an inventory of all the chemicals they have in their workplace,” he said, adding that such chemicals are required to have a safety data sheet. “The employer is required by law to review each and every one of those safety data sheets with the employee.”
The data sheets address mitigation issues, such as the type of personal protective equipment employees working with the chemical should be using, and how the chemicals are measured in the environment, Mr. Czaplinski said. “There are control mandates for both the manufacturer and the employer,” he said.
