CLAIM NO. E402142
NORMAN DODD, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. COLSON CASTER CORPORATION, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED OCTOBER 18, 1995
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by BRENT STERLING, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by RICHARD LUSBY, Attorney at Law, Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] This matter comes on for review by the Full Commission from the decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed on December 14, 1994 finding that claimant’s allergic reaction in the summer of 1994 is a compensable occupational disease causally connected to his original occupational contact dermatitis which occurred in 1993. Specifically, we find that claimant has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a causal connection between his employment and his allergic reaction in 1994.
[3] Many of the facts in this case are undisputed. Claimant began working for respondent in 1987 as a punch press operator. In July of 1993, claimant broke out in sores primarily on his arms and hands. It is undisputed that claimant did suffer from an allergy which arose out of his exposure to certain oils that are used in respondent’s plant. Respondent accepted responsibility for these difficulties and the appropriate benefits were paid.
[4] The break-outs occurred while claimant was working in Departments 14 and 15 of respondent’s plant. Departments 14 and 15 are the departments in which the oils are primarily located. Once claimant was diagnosed, he was moved to a different department. Claimant has not returned to Departments 14 and 15.
[5] Shortly after returning to work, claimant experienced an exacerbation of the difficulties when he was required to do some painting. Claimant returned to the company doctor who recommended that he not paint. Respondent obliged removing claimant from that particular duty.
[6] Claimant remained off work following the painting episode until the first part of June of 1994. Claimant worked continuously until June 23, 1994. On June 23, 1994, claimant again began to miss work with allergy type complaints. Claimant contends that this episode is causally related to his employment. Respondent controverts this. A hearing was held and an Administrative Law Judge found that claimant had proven by clear and convincing evidence a causal connection between his June of 1994 exacerbation and his employment.
[7] A causal connection between an occupation or employment and the occupational disease must be established by clear and convincing evidence. A.C.A. §
11-9-601.
[8] There is insufficient evidence to establish a causal connection by clear and convincing evidence or even by a preponderance of the credible evidence. For example, claimant’s allergy doctor, Dr. Rosenberg, noted on June 23, 1994, that claimant’s symptoms were “red blotch areas on forearm and face. Few linear streaks not blistered. Some purpura. Dermatitis, cause unknown. . .”. Claimant’s allergist specifically noted that the cause of the difficulties was unknown. In July of 1994, Dr. Rosenberg noted that claimant exhibited different symptoms than those caused by the oil. At that time, Dr. Rosenberg opined that this condition as “contact dermatitis, possible plant and not due to oil at work.” Clearly, Dr. Rosenberg was of the opinion that claimant had come in contact with a type plant, green or otherwise, to which he had a contact dermatitis reaction. Dr. Rosenberg was not of the opinion that claimant’s difficulties in 1994 were caused by the oils found at work. Claimant has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence (or even a preponderance of the credible evidence) that his difficulties in 1994 are causally related to his employment.
[9] Respondent had taken precautions to make sure that claimant was not exposed to any chemicals at work which would cause him to have difficulty. For example, claimant was provided protective gear and the video indicates that his job does not require him to get any materials on his arms, face or eyes.
[10] Claimant developed an allergic problem while working for respondent. However, respondent has paid all the appropriate benefits to which claimant is entitled. The symptoms claimant experienced in June or July of 1994 are not causally related to his employment. Thus, we reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
[11] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALLYN C. TATUM, Commissioner
[12] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.
[13] DISSENTING OPINION
[14] I must respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority finding that the allergic reactions claimant experienced in July and August of 1994 are not causally related to his employment.
[15] As noted by the majority, claimant clearly developed contact dermatitis as a result of exposure to various substances at work. Claimant’s treating physician has been Dr. E. William Rosenberg. Concerning the allergic reactions which are the subject of this appeal, Dr. Rosenberg reported the following:
Mr. Dodd came back to see me again on August 5, 1994. He has previously been here on July 12, 1994 and July 15, 1994. On those days he had redness and swelling of the skin on his face, eyelids, forehead, etc. At that time, he said that he had been sent to work with a scrubber by the housekeeping department and that he was scrubbing floors where oil was. I told him to go home and stay there until this subsided. He returns now approximately three weeks later with signs of a skin eruption on his legs, mostly the right leg, which came up a few days after he was here. The reaction is now clearly subsiding. Present today are areas of dull red papules that probably had been blisters when they were fresh. The distribution of the lesions is quite striking. The trouble extends from a line about where the top of his shoes would come about a third of the way up his leg.
There is a sharp line of demarcation where his shoes were, and the appearance of the eruption is entirely consistent with what could have been expected to occur had he been scrubbing a floor with an automatic scrubber and some oil droplets of the type that he is known to be allergic to mixed in with the scrubbing solution as it splattered off the floor.
I think it is reasonable to assume that his present trouble represents another form of contact dermatitis acquired at work. We know from before that he is allergic to some of the ingredients in the oil products used at that plant.
I prescribed some topical steroid, and told him that I thought this reaction would subside. I told him, also, that I thought this trouble was, in fact most likely a reaction to material encountered at work in the first weeks of July, 1994. (Emphasis added).
[16] Thus, Dr. Rosenberg clearly believed that claimant’s condition continued to be causally related to the work. Based on this evidence, I find that claimant has met his burden of proof and accordingly, would affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s award of benefits.
[17] PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner
