Opinion
No. 3-229 / 02-1347.
Filed May 29, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, DEWIE J. GAUL, Judge.
An employer seeks further review of a workers' compensation decision finding an employee totally and permanently disabled. AFFIRMED.
Rene LaPierre of Klass, Stoik, Mugan, Villone, Phillips, Orzechowski, Clausen LaPierre, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellant.
Alice Horneber of Horneber Law Firm, Sioux City, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
An employer seeks further judicial review of a workers' compensation decision finding an employee totally and permanently disabled. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Becky Clausen worked as a clerk for the Woodbury County Recorder's office, located in the county courthouse. Over a weekend in the summer of 1997, new carpeting was installed throughout the office. When Clausen came to work the following Monday, she experienced an allergic reaction. Her symptoms included "headache, fatigue, shortness of breath with periodic hoarseness, occasional vomiting, difficulty swallowing and episodes of red facial rash." When the symptoms did not abate, the county moved Clausen to various locations. The symptoms persisted.
Clausen filed a workers' compensation claim. The county conceded she was exposed to a substance that caused temporary disability. The only issue was whether the exposure also resulted in permanent, total disability. A deputy workers' compensation commissioner concluded it did. He stated the evidence pointed "to the existence of a workplace-mediated somatic disorder that currently leaves Clausen unable to function in the marketplace of competitive labor." A chief deputy workers' compensation commissioner affirmed the decision, as did the district court on judicial review. This appeal followed.
II. Merits
The key question is whether the final agency decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Iowa Code section § 17A.19(10)(f) (2001); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Caselman, 657 N.W.2d 493, 499 (Iowa 2003) (holding date of final agency action governs whether the original or amended judicial review provisions apply). In answering this question, we are mindful of the principle that "[t]otal disability does not mean a state of absolute helplessness." IBP, Inc. v. Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d 621, 633 (Iowa 2000). A person is entitled to permanent disability benefits "when the injury wholly disables the employee from performing work that the employee's experience, training, intelligence, and physical capacities would otherwise permit the employee to perform." Id.
The record contains substantial evidence to satisfy this permanent disability standard. Clausen suffered a severe physical reaction to her work environment. The reaction recurred when she returned to work and continued even after she was transferred to other work settings.
A psychologist retained in 1997 to conduct an independent psychological examination concluded Clausen suffered from a "somatoform disorder." In his words, "Ms. Clausen believes that the workplace has harmed her. The belief has generated somatization and phobia which are sufficient to undermine her tolerance of the workplace." Although he opined that, with psychological therapy, she showed a "good prognosis for recovery and returning to employment and a fully functional life," the record reveals that his early prognosis was overly optimistic.
Clausen continued to experience similar reactions over the next several years, in a variety of settings. She testified, for example, that she reacted in a grocery store, a department store, a technical school, and while working for a dentist following her termination by the county. She stated there was nothing she knew of that would prevent these reactions.
Clausen's testimony was corroborated by a vocational rehabilitation employee. She testified that Clausen enrolled in various courses at a local technical school but was advised to withdraw when she began experiencing bouts of wheezing and gasping for air. The employee encouraged Clausen to apply for social security disability benefits.
The records of a social worker who treated Clausen in the year before her workers' compensation hearing also support the agency decision. This professional opined that Clausen's physical reactions to her environment were "more than just a discomfort" and were "really debilitating."
In light of this evidence, we agree with the district court that the agency decision should be affirmed.
The county argues that this is a case involving a mental/mental injury. See Brown v. Quik Trip Corp., 641 N.W.2d 725, 727 (Iowa 2002); Dunlavey v. Economy Fire Casualty Co., 526 N.W.2d 845, 853 (Iowa 1995). For purposes of addressing this contention, we will assume without deciding that this is a mental/mental injury case, defined as a "mental injury caused merely by psychological stress or trauma without an accompanying physical injury", see Brown 641 N.W.2d at 727. The evidence cited above refutes the county's assertion that `[t]here is simply no expert testimony or medical testimony in any fashion in this record to support and uphold the finding of temporary [sic] total disability based on a psychological (mental-mental) condition." Additionally, there is evidence to establish the legal causation requirement of a mental/mental case, as Clausen's reactions were worse than anything her co-employees experienced. See Blanchard v. Belle Plaine/Vinton Motor Supply Co., 596 N.W.2d 904, 909-10 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
ZIMMER, J., concurs; SACKETT, C.J., dissents.
I dissent.
The majority has affirmed a finding Clausen is totally and permanently disabled as a result of an incident that occurred on August 11, 1997 in the county office where Clausen worked. New carpet had been installed in the office the weekend before. She testified that day at work "I kind of had the sinus and my eyes were watering and stuff like that. Then I lost my voice."
Since that time she has seen a number of medical professionals, worked in different areas and at different jobs. The problems she experiences are nasal swelling, congestion and puffy lower eyelids. She is unsure of what causes her problems, be it something from the carpet, cleaning products, perfume, or other substances. She claims the above symptoms prevent her from gainful employment though she has held several jobs since the carpet incident.
There is confusion as to whether this is a physical or a mental injury. I fail to find substantial credible evidence to support a finding Clausen suffers a total and permanent disability under either theory from working for a short time in a room where new carpet was installed on August 11, 1997. I would reverse.