Dalam kemas kini ini
Summary and Facts
Dr Nurul Aiman bt Mohd Yusof v Universiti Sains Malaysia [2026] 9 MLJ 893 concerned a lecturer who developed a heart condition which she attributed to years of exposure to formaldehyde and xylene fumes from a nearby cadaver room and pathology lab. USM had relocated the labs, upgraded ventilation and provided ongoing treatment. She sued for over RM4 million in damages.
Legal Issues
-
Whether the chemical contamination caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff’s specific heart condition.
-
Whether USM breached its duty of care given the remedial steps it had taken.
High Court’s Findings
-
Contamination was proven, but there was insufficient evidence it caused the plaintiff’s specific condition – medical evidence pointed to a likely congenital abnormality, and she alone among similarly-exposed colleagues developed it.
-
Applying Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya v Steven Phoa Cheng Loon [2006] 2 MLJ 389, negligence without proof the breach was the operative and effective cause of the specific injury cannot sustain a claim.
-
-
USM had taken substantial remedial measures – relocation, a three-year renovation, upgraded ventilation and ongoing medical treatment – and had not fallen below the required standard of care.
-
The plaintiff also failed to adduce evidence substantiating her claim for special, general or exemplary damages.
Practical Implications
This case shows that a genuine and proven workplace hazard does not automatically translate into a successful negligence claim – the plaintiff must still separately prove the medical causal link on the balance of probabilities.
-
Employers who respond promptly and substantively to safety complaints materially strengthen their defence even where some contamination is established.
-
Claimants relying on occupational exposure should obtain independent expert evidence linking the specific condition to the exposure; shared symptoms among co-workers are not, by themselves, sufficient.