Rose worked for Parr Manufacturing as an at-will employee. When she began her employment, she worked with plastisol, a chemical used in the manufacture of fuel filters. Within six months of her employment, she noticed that she was developing a skin condition on her face. She was referred to a dermatologist who linked her condition to her job. Following conversations with her supervisor and the president of the company, she was terminated. a. Should Rose be eligible for workers’ compensation for her condition? What are the factors to be considered?
b. Are there any other causes of action that Rose could use to sue her employer?

1. Rose, should be eligible for compensation in view of having a skin-related disease on her face as referred by a dermatologist which was directly linked to her condition of her job. It’s always the organization's duty to thoroughly check the candidate’s health/fit before providing an employment opportunity on performing such Cautious Chemical production activity. The factors to be considered while paying compensation is directly linked to the serious health issue of the employee. If the condition is worsening, the organization will be held responsible for employing her into performing a certain dangerous act. In this case, compensation will be in form of paying the doctor's fees and medical expenses and also pay the compensatory amount as she has terminated from her job.

2. No, other causes of action could be seen in the case provided, that Rose could use to sue her employer Parr Manufacturing.

it was decent, could have been a little better.. how bout you lol.

one of the appeals of a sole proprietorship is that business expenses are kept separate from your personal income tax return