Opinion
No. 73-169
Decided December 4, 1973.
From an order of the Industrial Commission awarding claimant certain benefits under the Occupational Disease Disability Act, the employer sought review.
Order Set Aside
1. WORKERS' COMPENSATION — Occupational Disease Benefits — Awarded — Finding — Claimant Suffered — "Dermatitis or Poisoning" — Not specify — Statutory Disease — Insufficient — Support Award. Where Industrial Commission awarded Occupational disease Disability claimant benefits on the basis that she was suffering from "an occupational dermatitis or poisoning resulting from contact with solvents, detergents, chrome, nickel, copper, lead, or chlorine," such findings did not specify whether the dermatitis resulted from one of the substances set forth in the statute, and did not specify whether the poisoning resulted from a substance which the statute lists as causing an occupational disease; thus, 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 contracted and which source caused each disease; and thus, the Commission's findings as drawn are insufficient to serve as the basis for any award.
Review of Order from the Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado
William J. Baum, Francis L. Bury, Robert S. Ferguson, for petitioners.
Francis D. Reibscheid, Thomas C. Singer, for respondent Nettie Williams.
John P. Moore, Attorney General, John E. Bush, Deputy Attorney General, Peter L. Dye, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Industrial Commission of Colorado (Ex-officio Unemployment Compensation Commission of Colorado).
This is a review of an order of the Industrial Commission awarding claimant certain benefits under the Occupational Disease Disability Act, C.R.S. 1963, 81-18-1 et seq.
Nettie Williams, claimant, was employed by Denver Metal Finishing Company to handle metal parts in connection with the process of plating these parts with metal coatings such as chrome. In conjunction with her employment, it was possible for claimant to come in contact with solutions containing copper, chromium, nickel, chlorine, and lead, as well as cleaning solutions and acid used to clean the metal parts.
The referee found that claimant had contracted dermatitis (an inflammatory disease of the skin) but the dermatitis was not due to oils, cutting compounds, lubricants, solvents, synthetic cleaning compounds, or detergents as specified by C.R.S. 1963, 81-18-9(25), and accordingly made no award. The Industrial Commission reversed stating, insofar as material to this case:
"2. That the claimant became temporarily and totally disabled . . . as a result of an occupational disease occurring in and arising out of the course and scope of her employment with the employer herein.
"3. That said disease was an occupational dermatitis or poisoning resulting from contact with solvents, detergents, chrome, nickel, copper, lead, or chlorine." (emphasis added)
The employer and Division of State Compensation Insurance Fund appeal contending, inter alia, that the Commission's findings are insufficient as a matter of law. We agree.
Section 10(1)(b) of the Act authorizes compensation to a claimant suffering from an occupational disease when there is a direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work was performed and the occupational disease. However, section 9 enumerates those diseases which shall be considered occupational diseases, for purposes of the Occupational Disease Act.
Both "dermatitis" and "poisoning" are covered by the Act, each having statutorily defined causes. In section 9(25) dermatitis is defined as an occupational disease but only when the dermatitis results from inflammation or infection of the skin due to oils, cutting compounds, lubricants, solvents, synthetic cleaning compounds, and detergents. The Commission in its findings does not specify whether the dermatitis resulted from one of the substances set forth in section 9(25) or whether the dermatitis resulted from contact with chrome, nickel, copper, lead, or chlorine. For dermatitis caused by nickel, copper, lead or chlorine to be compensable as an occupational disease, these substances must be part of an oil, cutting compound, lubricant, solvent, synthetic cleaning compound, or detergent.
Section 9 of the Act treats poisoning by chlorine (subsection 4), chrome (subsection 5), nickel (subsection 30), copper (subsection 33), lead (subsection 9), or certain organic solvents (subsection 19) as an occupational disease. However, the Commission did not determine specifically whether the poisoning resulted from one or more of the above substances or from a detergent. Illness caused by a detergent, not containing one of the above substances, is not compensable as a poisoning.
[1] 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 contracted and which source caused each disease. We therefore conclude that the Commission's findings as drawn are insufficient as the basis for any award.
In addition to the defects stated above, the Commission's purported findings amount to conclusions. There are no findings of evidentiary facts from which to draw these conclusions. See Womack v. Industrial Commission, 168 Colo. 364, 451 P.2d 761; Crandall v. Watson-Wilson Transportation System, Inc., 171 Colo. 329, 467 P.2d 48.
Accordingly, the order of the Commission is set aside and the cause remanded to the Commission for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
CHIEF JUDGE SILVERSTEIN and JUDGE ENOCH concur.