1992). Specifically, the employer and carrier propose that we adopt Coulter v. Harvey, 190 So.2d 894 (Miss. 1966) (skin rash "contact dermititus"); Thompson v. Wells-Lamont Corp., 362 So.2d 638 (Miss. 1978) (infectious asthma); Pontotoc Wire Products Co. v. Ferguson, 384 So.2d 601 (Miss.

Contact dermatitis may be an accidental injury within the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Act. See Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-3(b) (1972); Hardin's Bakeries v. Ranager, 217 Miss. 463, 64 So.2d 705 (1953) (allergy resulting from contact with mitten used to handle hot pans was accidental injury); Christopher v. City Grill, 218 Miss. 638, 67 So.2d 694 (1953) (allergy caused by dish water soap used at cafe); See also, Coulter v. Harvey, 190 So.2d 894, 896 (Miss. 1966); Thyer Manufacturing Co. v. Mooney, 252 Miss. 629, 638, 173 So.2d 652, 656 (1965); Komp Equipment Co. v. Clinton, 236 Miss. 560, 565, 567-68, 111 So.2d 259, 260-61 (1959). In the case sub judice, the Commission found "both lay and medical evidence [to] establish that claimant developed an allergic reaction to sulfur dioxide which was permanent in nature and which prevents him from working for the employer.

In order to preserve a point for review by the Supreme Court, the point must be presented not only to the commission but also to the circuit court by an assignment of error there by direct or cross-appeal. Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation § 291 (2d edition 1967; 3rd edition 1982). Cf. Coulter v. Harvey, 190 So.2d 894 (Miss. 1966); Dixie Pine Products Company v. Bryant's Dependents, 228 Miss. 595, 89 So.2d 589 (1956). Although appellant states that this assignment "was perserved for appeal in the assignment of errors filed with the Circuit Court of Holmes County," we find no assignment presented to the circuit court wherein he specifically asserted it was error for the commission to hold that the death of Rufus Head arose out of and occurred within the course and scope of his employment.

1979); Thompson v. Wells-Lamont Corp.,supra; Compere's Nursing Home v. Biddy, 243 So.2d 412 (Miss. 1971); and Coulter v. Harvey, 190 So.2d 894 (Miss. 1966). The factual details of each of these must be examined, because "we cannot . . . delineate any hard and fast rule as to how many or exactly what type efforts a claimant must make in every case in order to establish `disability' within the purview of § 71-3-3(i)."

The question here involves her ability to procure another job within the area after reasonable efforts. Coulter v. Harvey, 190 So.2d 894, 897 (1966), held that a "claimant must seek, after the disability subsides, employment in another or different trade to earn his wages." The rationale of Coulter is that a disability such as contact dermatitis, which made it impossible for the claimant there to continue employment as a cement finisher due to his sensitivity to the chromates contained in the cement, would not render him incapable of working in all jobs, but only those involving contact with cement.

Consequently, the judgment of the lower court and the order of the Commission are reversed and judgment is entered here fixing appellant's permanent partial disability at one hundred percent (100%) loss of use of the right upper extremity and allowing permanent compensation benefits for two hundred (200) weeks. Appellees argue here that appellant has not sought employment of any kind since the date of his injury and that under Coulter v. Harvey, 190 So.2d 894 (Miss. 1966), he is not entitled to any award of permanent disability benefits. However, appellees did not cross-appeal and we do not consider that question.

(Emphasis added). In the case of Coulter v. Harvey, 190 So.2d 894, 897 (Miss. 1966) the Court said: We so hold in the instant case, as we are of the firm opinion that the legislative intent as to what constitutes `disability' is expressed in Mississippi Code Annotated section 6998-02(9) (Supp.

1966), interpreted by Southern Pacific Lumber Co., Inc. supra, does not in our opinion contain any major differences in wording from the statute governing appeals from the Workmen's Compensation Commission. This would indicate that there was no legislative intent to limit the powers of circuit courts in appeals of Workmen's Compensation cases. Moreover, we rejected a similar contention of limitation of power in Coulter v. Harvey, 190 So.2d 894 (Miss. 1966). There it was contended that the provisions of Section 6998-26 required the circuit court on appeal to review the entire record in each compensation case appealed to it, whether errors are assigned or not, and if error is detected, it should correct the same and do that which the commission should have done.

¶ 31. Disability is defined as incapacity due to injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of the injury in the same or other employment. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-3(i) (Rev. 2000). When there is a finding of permanent partial disability, the claimant bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that he has sought and been unable to find work in the same or other employment. Coulter v. Harvey, 190 So.2d 894, 897 (Miss. 1966); Miss Code Ann. § 71-3-3(i) (Rev. 2000). The factors to consider in deciding whether the claimant has made an attempt to find employment (a prima facie case of disability) are: (1) economic and industrial aspects of the local community, (2) the jobs available in the community, and (3) the claimant's general educational background, including work skills and the particular nature of the disability for which compensation is sought.

Generally, "a claimant must seek, after the disability subsides, employment in another or different trade to earn his wages." Coulter v. Harvey, 190 So.2d 894, 897 (Miss. 1966). The factors to consider in deciding whether the claimant has made an attempt to find employment are: (1) economic and industrial aspects of the local community, (2) the jobs available in the community, (3) the claimant's general educational background, including work skills and the particular nature of the disability for which compensation is sought.