Opinion
No. 2-978 / 00-1071
Filed January 15, 2003
Appeal from the district court for Muscatine County, Mark J. Smith, Judge.
Julia Simmons appeals and Thatcher Tubes cross-appeals from the district court's order on judicial review affirming the decision of the chief deputy workers' compensation commissioner. AFFIRMED.
Paul McAndrew, Coralville, for appellant.
Anne Clark of Hopkins Huebner, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Julia Simmons appeals, and Thatcher Tubes cross-appeals, from the district court's order on judicial review affirming the decision of the chief deputy workers' compensation commissioner. Simmons contends she is entitled to healing period benefits. Thatcher Tubes contends substantial evidence does not support the commissioner's award of twenty-five percent industrial disability benefits to Simmons for an occupational disease. We review these claims for errors at law. IBP, Inc. v. Harpole, 621 N.W.2d 410, 414 (Iowa 2001).
We are bound by the workers' compensation commissioner's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach the same conclusion. St. Luke's Hosp. v. Gray, 604 N.W.2d 646, 649 (Iowa 2000). In reviewing the commissioner's findings of fact, the question is not whether the evidence might support a different finding, but whether it supports the findings actually made. Id. We will not interfere with the decision just because the evidence could support a different conclusion. IBP, 621 N.W.2d at 420.
Simmons worked for Thatcher Tubes for over thirty-one years. She was exposed to epoxy resins for long periods of time and developed contact dermatitis from the exposure. Removed from contact with epoxy resins, her symptoms improved. Her job then brought her back in contact with the chemicals and she developed the same rash and experienced other symptoms including a sore throat and clogged nasal passageways. The record refers to this problem as the "laryngospasm/airway condition".
Thatcher Tubes argues substantial evidence does not support the commissioner's award of twenty-five percent industrial disability. It finds fault with the impairment ratings offered by Drs. Boysen and Merchant. Although Dr. Boysen initially assigned a zero percent rating for Simmons's contact dermatitis, he did not understand the AMA Guides. Dr. Boysen later assigned a five percent impairment rating. Thatcher Tubes notes that Dr. Boysen was unable to link Simmons's contact dermatitis to her work. However, Drs. Zwerling and Merchant did connect Simmons's symptoms to her work environment. Dr. Merchant assigned Simmons a thirty to forty-five percent impairment rating for her laryngospasm. Although Dr. Merchant could not identify the precise method by which he used to calculate Simmons's impairment rating, he testified that he used his expertise and several tables in the guide to adduce this figure because there is not a specific portion of the AMA Guides that covers laryngospasm from chemical exposure. We find substantial evidence supports the commissioner's award of twenty-five percent industrial disability.
We likewise find substantial evidence supports the commissioner's denial of healing period benefits. Healing period benefits are available from the first day of injury until (1) an employee returns to work, (2) it is medically indicated that significant improvement from the injury is not anticipated, or (3) the employee is medically capable of returning to employment substantially similar to the employment in which the employee was engaged at the time of the injury. Iowa Code § 85.34(1)(2001). The commissioner concluded:
No doctor took claimant off work for any temporary period of time because of her laryngospasm/airway condition. No doctor has expected that the underlying condition would improve. Claimant has failed to prove she is entitled to any healing period benefits because of the larynogospasm/airway condition.
Substantial evidence indicates once Simmons developed her sensitivity to epoxy resins, the condition was permanent. As such, she cannot be expected to improve and healing benefits are not available.