Opinion
No. 74-147
Decided December 24, 1974. Rehearing denied January 14, 1975. Certiorari denied March 17, 1975.
From Industrial Commission order awarding claimant temporary disability and medical benefits under Occupational Disease Disability Act, employer and its insurer sought review.
Order Affirmed
1. WORKERS' COMPENSATION — Finding — Dermatitis — Causation — Solvents, Detergents or Synthetic Cleaning Compounds — Supports Award. In proceedings under Occupational Disease Disability Act, the Industrial Commission found that claimant's dermatitis was caused by her contact with solvents, detergents, or synthetic cleaning compounds while employed by respondent, and such finding is support by competent evidence or by proper deductions or inferences therefrom; thus, that finding is conclusive on review and is sufficient to support the award of the Commission.
Review of Order from the Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado
William J. Baum, Francis L. Bury, Robert S. Ferguson, William J. Baum, for petitioners.
Francis D. Reibscheid, Thomas C. Singer, for respondent Nellie Williams.
John P. Moore, Attorney General, John E. Bush, Deputy Attorney General, Peter L. Dye, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Industrial Commission of Colorado.
Denver Metal Finishing Co., employer, and its insurer seek review of a final order of the Industrial Commission, entered pursuant to a remand from this court in Denver Metal Finishing Co. v. Williams, 33 Colo. App. 168, 516 P.2d 1137, which order awarded claimant, Nettie Williams, temporary disability and medical benefits under the Occupational Disease Disability Act, C.R.S. 1963, 81-18-1, et seq. We affirm.
As part of her job with the employer, the claimant handled various metal parts which had been plated with metal coatings of silver, chrome and other metals. In such work it was possible for claimant to come in contact with solutions containing copper, chromium, nickel, chlorine, and lead as well as cleaning solutions and acids used to clean the metal parts. After claimant had been so employed for about a year, she developed dermatitis, which she claimed arose out of an in the course of her employment. The employer denied that the disease was related to the job.
In the Commission's previous order it found that the disease was an occupational dermatitis or poisoning resulting from contact with solvents, detergents or various metals. Dermatitis is an occupational disease as defined in section 81-18-9(25) of the Act. Likewise poisoning by various substances is an occupational disease as defined in sections 81-18-9(4), (5), (9), (19), and (30) of the Act. In setting aside that order and remanding the cause in Williams, supra, we said,
"Although claimant might be entitled to an award based upon two or more occupational diseases covered by the Act, the Commission must make specific findings based upon the evidence as to which occupational disease or diseases claimant contacted and which source caused such disease. We therefore conclude that the Commission's findings as drawn are insufficient as the basis for any award."
Pursuant to the remand the Commission found that claimant suffered an occupationally caused dermatitis as defined in section 81-18-9(25) of the Act and that there was no evidence of poisoning as defined in the Act. The Commission also made evidentiary findings relative to claimant's employment. The employer contends here that the claimant failed to establish that the dermatitis was caused by and arose out of her employment, and that the Commission's findings of fact are inadequate. We disagree with both contentions.
The evidence as to the methods of handling the metal parts and claimant's performance thereof was conflicting, as was the medical evidence as it pertained to the cause of the dermatitis. In Crandall v. Watson-Wilson Transportation Service, Inc., 171 Colo. 329, 467 P.2d 48, the court held:
"The weight and sufficiency of the evidence, and the inferences and conclusions drawn therefrom, are matters solely within the prerogative of the Industrial Commission. Hamilton v. Industrial Commission, 132 Colo. 408, 289 P.2d 639; Industrial Commission v. Valdez, 101 Colo. 482, 74 P.2d 710. Also, the matter of determining in the first instance the probative effect of the evidence in cases where the evidence is in conflict, remains exclusively with the Industrial Commission. American Mining Company v. Zupet, 101 Colo. 238, 72 P.2d 281. And, the Industrial Commission's findings based upon conflicting evidence are conclusive on review. Vanadium Corporation of America v. Sargent, 134 Colo. 555, 307 P.2d 454."
[1] In the instant case the Commission's finding that Claimant's dermatitis was caused by her contact with solvents, detergents, or synthetic cleaning compounds while employed at Denver Metal Finishing Company is supported by competent evidence or by proper deductions or inferences therefrom. This finding is therefore conclusive on review, Industrial Commission v. Allen, 28 Colo. App. 546, 478 P.2d 702, and is sufficient to support the award of the Commission.
Although the evidentiary findings are somewhat limited, they do comport with the requirement of specificity outlined in Crandall v. Watson-Wilson, supra, and thus are not fatally inadequate.
Order affirmed.
JUDGE ENOCH and JUDGE SMITH concur.