Legal aspects of radiation injuries and compensation.

Abstract

There are a half dozen background factors in considering legal liability for and compensability of radiation injuries for persons occupationally exposed to radiation. First, all persons, as well as those occupationally involved, are regularly exposed to radiation. Occupational exposure is but a small percentage of the overall from all sources. Second, existing medical knowledge can tell us much about the damage inflicted by acute massive doses of radiation (and some of this is discussed) but very little concerning lesser doses spread over a period of time. Note also the unresolved conflict between the linear and threshold theories. Third, in the atomic energy industry the record of accidental high exposures has been very good and limited to a few cases. The more likely problem area may arise in cases where there is evidence only of very low exposures bordering on the risk'' levels set by law of 5 rem per year. Fourth, these maximum standards of exposure for workers are on the extremely low side, unrelated to any evidence of damage. They rest on the concept of minimizing risk. In the present state of medical knowledge, it can hardly be said that an insubstantial exceeding of the radiation protection guide ormore » maximum permissible exposure limits, which are fixed in AEC regulations, is injury or causative of injury. Testimony in the recent Kellogg Compary case (McVey v. Phillips) is illustrative. Fifth, many of the diseases which may be induced by less than lethal doses of radiation do not manifest themselves for years after exposure; and, as in the cases of leukemia, skin cancer, and aplastic anemia, are produced by causes in addition to radiation. Sixth, some bodily malfunctions which radiation may induce, such as epilation and sterility, do not necessarily create a compensable disability under workmen s compensation law. Turning to compensation, most workers must look to workmen's compensation statutes, generally administered by the states (with some comparable federal coverage). This is a strict, without fault, liability of the employer, but limited in amount, generally related to reduction in earning power. There is also the possibility of alternative or additional recovery for damages against any third party who caused or contributed to the injury, usually a common law action grounded in negligence or fault. In the light of the background considerations, the big problem for most potential claimants will be to establish that late emerging diseases or malfunctions are the result of exposure to, usually, low level radiation. The Kellogg Company case affords a recent example. Adding to claimants' difflculties are certain barriers in the workmen's compensation laws themselves, such as the limitations statutes on emergence of injuries. Recent thinking on the use of presumptions or a contingent injury fund'' raise problems of larger scope than just the industries or occupations that use radiation, and move into the area of general disability insurance. In that perspective they deserve fair study by labor, management and government. Meantime further study of the effects of low level radiation in man must continue. An immediate temporary assurance would be the removal by state legislatures of the time emergence barriers to action where latent diseases emerge years hence.« less