Occupational Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Cases Evaluated by Workers' Compensation in Korea.
- Author:
Hwa Pyung LEE
1
;
Dong Hee KOH
;
Eui Cheol LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Gumi CHA Medical Center, College of Medicine, CHA University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
Occupational exposure;
Workers' compensation;
Dust
- MeSH:
Academies and Institutes;
Cadmium;
Dust;
Employment;
Gases;
Korea;
Occupational Exposure;
Occupational Health;
Oxygen;
Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive;
Smoke;
Smoking;
Tuberculosis;
Vehicle Emissions;
Welding;
Workers' Compensation
- From:Korean Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
2009;21(1):53-62
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the characteristics of occupational COPD (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) cases that were evaluated by the Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute (OSHRI) of the Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency (KOSHA). METHODS: Using the OSHRI database from KOSHA, we collected 13 cases of occupational COPD that had been evaluated from 1998 to 2007. RESULTS: Four cases had been evaluated as occupational COPD: 1) a nonsmoking road sweeper exposed to automobile exhaust gases and trash dust; 2) an oxygen welding worker exposed to cadmium fumes; 3) a cotton mill air conditioner cleaning worker exposed to cotton dust; and 4) a foundry grinding worker exposed to dust, gases, vapors and fumes. Nine cases had been evaluated as non-occupational COPD: 1) 4 cases in which smoking was determined to be the main cause rather than occupational exposure; 2) 1 case that was evaluated as another respiratory disease (severe tuberculosis sequelae); 3) 1 case that had been misdiagnosed as COPD; 4) 2 cases in which the exposure levels in the workplace environments were too low; and 5) 1 case that had developed before the employment. Among these 13 cases, a shipyard grinding worker had been evaluated in 2006 as having had a low occupational hazard, but a similar case (a foundry grinding worker) was evaluated as having had a high hazard in 2007. CONCLUSIONS: Proper evaluation of occupational COPD demands an accurate diagnosis of COPD itself and also the exclusion of other respiratory diseases that have similar symptoms; an investigation of the relevant occupatioonal hazards and the amount of the exposure; and a consideration of smoking history. The evaluation should also take into account any substantial loss of life due to occupational hazards as well as any disease-free periods.
