Williams v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., WCCA No. WC25-6597 (W.C.C.A. September 22, 2025)
The Employee, was an individual who had experienced a variety of symptoms arising from sensitivity to chemical irritants throughout her life. She started as an employee of Northwest Airlines, but became an employee of Delta Air Lines following a merger. Following the merger, she was required to wear a different “Passport Plum” uniform starting in 2018. In June of 2018, the Employee began experiencing skin rashes and hives, and consulted with her dermatologist. She reported no problems with her previous uniforms.
On November 13, 2019, her symptoms became so severe that she sought medical care, where her medical providers observed redness and swelling appearing on her skin within 10 minutes of her putting on the uniform, showing objective proof of a reaction. The Employee reported the condition as a work-related injury. Her doctor then restricted her from wearing the uniform altogether. After switching to personal clothing, which was approved by Delta, her symptoms completely resolved.
In January 2020, she started experienced breathing difficulties when seated near coworkers wearing the same “Passport Plum” uniforms. These symptoms were noted to have improved when she moved away from her coworkers. The Employee sought treatment after this incident as well, and her medical provider concluded that her breathing difficulties were related to her close proximity to these uniforms. The Employee filed workers’ compensation claims for both incidents.
Later on in the claim process, the Employer had a Dr. Topliff perform a record review as well as an IME for on Employee in 2020 and 2021 respectively. The chart notes from the Employee’s initial November 13, 2019 medical appointment were not included in either of Dr. Topliff’s reviews. Nonetheless, the Dr. Topliff opined that there was no objective evidence of the uniforms being causally connected to the Employee’s complaints.
In May 2023, the Employee obtained a narrative report from her own physician, who opined that Employee’s ongoing need for treatment was conditional on continued exposure to the “Passport Plum” uniform, and was also based on blood work performed when the Employee was initially evaluated. A second subsequent record review was then performed by the Employer’s Dr. Topliff, who reiterated his prior opinions. Again, these initial November 13, 2019 chart notes were not reviewed.
The Employee filed a claim petition for both dates of injury, which resulted in hearing in September 2024. The compensation judge, Amee Pham, found that the Employee’s testimony was “earnest,” but “not credible.” Relying on the opinion of Dr. Topliff, the compensation judge found that the Employee did not suffer work injuries and denied both of the claims.
The Employee then appealed, and challenged several of the compensation judge’s findings and orders, arguing that the judge misapplied the burden of proof for occupational injuries and relied on an unfounded expert opinion. The W.C.C.A. agreed, concluding that the compensation judge had relied on Dr. Topliff, who failed to review key medical evidence, specifically, the November 13, 2019 initial visit and chart note demonstrating a direct causal link between the Employee’s skin reactions and her work uniform. The court also found that the judge’s own assumptions conflicted with her factual findings. Without Dr. Topliff’s unsupported opinion, the remaining evidence showed that the Employee met her burden of proving she sustained an occupational injury in November 2019, when contact with the Passport Plum uniform substantially aggravated her preexisting skin condition.
The W.C.C.A. emphasized that workers’ compensation law does not require proof of a unique mechanism of injury, only that workplace exposure caused or aggravated a condition, and that employers must take employees as they find them. The compensation judge’s reliance on Dr. Topliff’s unfounded opinion was therefore reversible error, as the medical records, witness testimony, and photographs all supported causation.
The W.C.C.A. reversed the denial of the November 2019 work injury and remanded for a determination of benefits. Regarding the separate January 2020 claim for respiratory issues due to proximity to the same uniform, the W.C.C.A. found evidence supporting the Employee’s claim and also vacated the denial, remanding for further consideration under the proper workplace exposure standard. Lastly, although the compensation judge found the Employee not credible regarding causation, that credibility finding did not affect the outcome, as the W.C.C.A. determined the objective evidence supported the Employee’s claims.
Takeaway: In workers’ compensation proceedings, an expert opinion must be based on a complete and accurate review of the relevant medical evidence and consistent facts. Because the compensation judge relied heavily on that unfounded opinion to deny benefits, the appellate court ruled that the decision was clearly erroneous and contrary to the weight of the evidence.