曝光臺 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

The applicant puts her case in the alternative so I do not think it necessary for me to decide whether or not a diagnosis of multiple chemical sensitivity is appropriate in this case. I must say at the outset though that there certainly is a weight of medical evidence in this case against such a label …
I prefer the evidence given by the respondent's doctors, in particular, Dr Carroll and Professor Loblay, that the diagnosis of multiple chemical sensitivity is wrong and that the applicant is suffering from an aggravation of glandular fever or Epstein Barr virus. 67
3.64 Justice Moran ultimately found in Ms Chew’s favour in respect of her second submission and decided that:
.  
Ms Chew suffered injury arising out of and in the course of her employment with the respondents from January 1992 to 30 October 1993; and

.  
Section 47 of the Workers Compensation Act applies and that the applicant as a result of the injury, “is unable without substantial risk of further injury to engage in employment of a certain kind because of the nature of that employment shall be deemed to be incapacitated for her employment at that kind.” 68

3.65 Justice Moran also commented that evidence in relation to contaminants was as follows:
The levels of measured chemical contaminants in the cabin air were not a threat to the health of aircrew or passengers.
Contaminant levels were well below internationally accepted occupational health standards and cannot precipitate any chronic disorders.
The levels of contaminants were hundreds to thousands of times below those levels known to cause neurotoxic sequelae.69
66  Judgment given in the Alysia Chew case heard in the Compensation Court of New South Wales and delivered on 28 April 1999, pp 1-2.
67  Judgment given in the Alysia Chew case heard in the Compensation Court of New South Wales and delivered on 28 April 1999, p 10.
68  Judgment given in the Alysia Chew case heard in the Compensation Court of New South Wales and delivered on 28 April 1999, pp 12-13.
69  Submission 11, British Aerospace, p 4; see Judgment given in the Alysia Chew case heard in the Compensation Court of New South Wales and delivered on 28 April 1999, pp 8-9.
3.66 In its submission to the inquiry Ansett referred to the Chew case stating that:
The Compensation Court of NSW made a decision in April 1999 that a Flight Attendant's rare pre-existing viral condition was aggravated by exposure to fumes aboard a BAe 146. The judge accepted expert evidence from witness Dr Crank that there was no toxicity in the fumes coming into the cabin and that they posed no threat to anyone without an extraordinary susceptibility, such as the claimant.70
Medical evidence
3.67 During its public hearing in Sydney on 1 February 2000 the Committee heard evidence from medical professionals, Dr Mark Donohoe and Dr Richard Teo, both of whom have examined patients affected by fumes while working on BAe 146 aircraft. Both Dr Donohoe and Dr Teo gave evidence supporting claims that exposure to fumes on BAe 146 have led to long term illness and evidence of neurotoxicity.
　
中國航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality in the BAe 146 Aircraft(48)