East News
Viewing comments for:
Court: New Jersey Woman Can Pursue Perfume Lawsuit
East News • January 12, 2009
A New Jersey woman who claims she was disabled by a co-workers' perfume can move forward with her worker's compensation lawsuit, an appeals panel ruled Friday.
Doris Sexton sued the county-owned ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| RE: Perfume Decision | SFOInsuranceLady | Mar 15, 2009, 8:11 pm |
| Perfume Decision | K. DiMuzio Sr | Mar 14, 2009, 1:41 pm |
| I understand | mcc | Jan 20, 2009, 12:33 pm |
| I wonder... | Ha! | Jan 20, 2009, 12:06 pm |
| Oh Poooolease!!! | gekoluv | Jan 19, 2009, 1:58 pm |
| RE: What about farts? | Stat Guy | Jan 13, 2009, 10:58 am |
| RE: RE: RE: w/c application revision | Stat Guy | Jan 13, 2009, 10:54 am |
| RE: RE: w/c application revision | hmmm | Jan 13, 2009, 10:15 am |
| Thanks, IJ.... | SFOInsuranceLady | Jan 12, 2009, 2:31 pm |
| Another Step | DWT | Jan 12, 2009, 2:28 pm |
| Perfume Lawsuit | Sweet smell of a lawsuit | Jan 12, 2009, 2:23 pm |
| RE: RE: What about farts? | Plug your nose | Jan 12, 2009, 2:12 pm |
| life in general must be disabling to her | claims | Jan 12, 2009, 2:06 pm |
| RE: What about farts? | Joey | Jan 12, 2009, 2:03 pm |
| THE WHOLE THING STINKS! | KRM | Jan 12, 2009, 2:03 pm |
| What about farts? | Exadjuster | Jan 12, 2009, 1:57 pm |
| perfume suit | mike | Jan 12, 2009, 1:42 pm |
| RE: retirement | smelly | Jan 12, 2009, 1:18 pm |
| Who was the stinky one? | Adirondacker | Jan 12, 2009, 1:01 pm |
| Taking a Step Back | Plymn | Jan 12, 2009, 1:00 pm |
| 2nd Injury Fund | Missouri Insurance Dweeb | Jan 12, 2009, 12:50 pm |
| retirement | Debby | Jan 12, 2009, 12:47 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: w/c application revision | Allergy | Jan 12, 2009, 12:35 pm |
| Obama will fix this. | Democrat | Jan 12, 2009, 12:33 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: w/c application revision | U B Wrong | Jan 12, 2009, 12:28 pm |
| RE: RE: w/c application revision | matt | Jan 12, 2009, 11:21 am |
| RE: w/c application revision | Odie | Jan 12, 2009, 10:33 am |
| w/c application revision | staff underwriter | Jan 12, 2009, 9:34 am |
| Back to article | ||
Subject: RE: Perfume Decision
How do we KNOW that the perfume aggrivated Mrs. Sexton's pre-existing condition? Since she was a heavy smoker with a pre-existing condition, why can't we assume that it was the next cigarette or two that actually aggrivated her condition? What if it was something else? Exhaust from a bus or car, even? It would seem to me that Mrs. Sexton would perhaps have to practically be sitting on top of her co-worker while she was spritzing her perfume to get enough of the perfume into her lungs to cause her to be hospitalized and oxygen dependent. Surely you can't be serious?
After smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 43 years, I have a really hard time believing that a copule of spritzes of perfume could actually render someone totally disabled. How can you possibly prove a case like this? Did an independent physician give any kind of expert testimony? I'm terribly sorry, but with the information given, this case does stink. It reeks with greed and unaccountability on Mrs. Sexton's part.