or cans for gasoline of various kinds of metal cans so as an aerosol press operator she was stamping out the parts that would be made into cans and weekly the courts a lot of metal then in hide which is present in fifty percent of america formulations now the petitioner testified in her testimony on cross examination that at the time she had the outbreak she had it first around the eyes and she was using i make up so the evidence is that she was using i make up directly and applying it directly to the area where she had the outbreak more it turns out that she's  system around her eyes she were a mask paper filter mask as a janitor to prevent any contact of things with her mouth she wore gloves you were different types of rubber gloves depending on the task  using a harsher chemical latex close to use other times so basically the point is that it does not and in doing her occupational tasks she wore these protective garbs to prevent her from actually having skin contact with substances in the workplace contrast that to her deliberately placing directly onto risk in some cases to where she was allergic for the purpose of makeup she was using gold jewelry in her admitted he didn't say that she had positive patch testing for these some of the things that she might have been exposed to more because he was kind of making gases by the way as to what fragrance actually didn't have physical skin contact with this substance of work she she testified that she wore protective garb so she wouldn't have skin contact with these services at work  missing link i believe in the claimants claim for an occupational disease because she didn't really explain how she had skin contact with these sometimes is a more she just kind of asked the arbitrator in the commission in the lower court to assume that because some of these services can or might have been present workplace in small concentrations that was the reason why she had these rashes what about the cleaning agents that w dermatitis so for her to have a skin contact dermatitis that she's going to have some skin contact and with three days cleaning agents and she uses a janitor she testified that she diligently and successfully used work whereas it's clear that she has skin contact to thing is that she used in her personal life the jewelry the makeup the eye drops to which she was also allergic so that's why i feel that the its entirety should be striken reversed because of the failure to prove the skin contact aspect that would be mandatory for a contact dermatitis case like this is there is another to june twenty fourth of zero three then she came back to work for the same employer they put her to work at things to comply with the sight of restrictions by shimon because they want to get her back to work and give her a chance and paid her the same wage they had her to avoid any metal dust painting was not to be a problem so they had her paint they had her clean offices because cleaning offices wouldn't be a problem and they had to clean up the outside of the building  felt like she had a rash coming on but she didn't go to the doctor she didn't go to any doctor or have any outside observer to verify that she was resuming a rash she did call dr shimon on the telephone july eighth and he said well i'll just post your prescription of ella till just take that but he didn't take her off work didn't recommend that she stop working the client didn't stop working however now had an error factor on which they base the idea that their employer didn't pick comedy and they awarded the petitioner another year in two months of maintenance through september twenty ni four and that was clearly an error of the dissenting commissioner lindsey pointed that out and as an alternative to the first argument i gave at least that portion the war that granted maintenance from july ninth of zero three to suit term or twenty nine to four should be reversed and the promise of partial disability was based in part on the idea that the petitioner had to go out and get a job that paid less y actually she was working for the postal service as a relief mail carrier and she made some two hundred fifty one hour which is actually more per hour than she'd been making for the us can company she have fewer hours stubs that she presented she was actually making about three hundred seventy four dollars a week on the average she was a relief carrier which meant she'd work saturday and she'd also work when somebody else in that same post office was missing so she had more than just one day somebody was sick somebody said some reason vacationer was no guarantee her only guaranteed work was the monday week at that particular time yes but your rational work was quite a bit more than that it was more like mar getting seventeen fifty one an hour and she was making three six to three seventy five a week so she was getting about twenty hours a week of her take she had no rash of the time a trial she had no physical symptoms she actually had no recurrences of the rash except for one time when she use somebody else's shirt without monitoring it and she did get a rash on the abdomen but it cleared up after ten days so she really doesn't have any harm in a physical limitations that would prevent her from doing many almost occupations not even something that would logically prevent her from doing the modified work under any circumstances that the us can't company in a very generous and cautious move offered her they were trying to find something to do you know make sure that she'd be happy  working and they did they were they made every effort of the petitioner climate just walked off the job for no medical excuse and well let me just stop you there and ask  she said the chief out as if she were going to get a rash and that's all she didn't actually have an outbreak she didn't go doctor she didn't have a medical excuse generally are not a cool excuse in the form of a note from a doctor to say puts in regard to the nickel metal exposure and was heated tossed in metal shavings regard to the fragrant cleaning materials she testified that they were very potent cleaning materials that she was working with now lot but they said she was dressed up like it's a hit and hazmat suit that she was protected against all of these exposures that you're alluding to and she didn't have a hazmat suit and she had she did have off a mask on and she had claws and w it's right right right so what you're saying is for them to prevail they need some evidence to show that they find that was where it was thing she was on the last thing she was doing where she started to break out when she was cleaning using cleaning supplies in the cafeteria washing the walls and she testified more then i started to break out again on the record on pages  not one of five she talks about i started freaking out again and later on three four or five she says then i procol more so it wasn't that i just felt like i was breaking out but she broke out and at the time they did pay her disability pay for another eight believe it was even half months thereafter and in so they couldn't they could if they couldn't find a job for her obviously that's why she went to job search and all that stuff so she was off work there paying your disability pay here as to whether they're you know the specific dollar amount of the west testimony as to the dollar amount again i didn't appeal it we thought that one of the appropriate ways that you could have done it was to give a specific dollar amount from his actually testimony was she exposure is not perfume and support issues is that two thousand and six she had this neither of them when she wore a shirt without washing it was a french or it and she had another reaction so this is in two thousand and six and then also there was a testimony that she used a metal razor with metal plates and now she uses one of the products uses it link a razor with this special only and and she also had a breakout as a result of that so although those are specifically related to an exposure she  had at the workplace obviously because we're talking this is years later it does it is relevant as to her long term permanent nature how severe it is because she's you know she's having these reactions years after the fact after the first started and as far as the eighty two job change fifty percent of loss of a person i think that again that that's not against the manifest way of the evidence there's no i don't think anybody is contesting that she can no longer do her janitorial job or aerosol press operator job doctor she made a pint at her restrictions were permanent again we talk about the two thousand and six exposure or a reaction showing this is long term she's kept her outbreaks under control using these products and she was off payments and maintenance payments we've kind of touched on there already that when she came back to work she did have this reaction and certainly i agree with the interchange between counsel and the on it actually did come out and she had another reaction and then she called her doctor and the doctor said just stay and i said i didn't fire a bit and i think she got some additional medication took that and again it's accepted under control for by using interchanging with the employer back in two thousand and two and two thousand and three she notifies or supervisor november thirteenth two thousand and one and she files or claim in june of two thousand and two and so i don't think there's any issue question what type of reaction answer i started breaking out again the thing is when this is coming on i could almost feel it takes two days but it starts out a little it gets a little progressive the next question is ok answer so i finally write couldn't walk in the planning morons outside for three days sweeping the parking lot so that's basically her description of what she was doing she was outside sweeping the parking much she claims she had a reaction but she didn't go to the doctor she shimon at all i asked her not to page one nineteen and she said no she didn't go to the doctor and she never saw him after she returned to work on june twenty fourth of two thousand i don't think it's enough because she's going to have some certification of disability so that she can't be doing the work that's offered by the employer to require her to be on maintenance and domain the purpose of maintenance is for the person who is reached the maximum proven to be mocking for another job or rehabilitating the cells or being rehabilitated with the cooperation of the responde your terms of a union contract which is therefore not from an admission of workers compensation liability and an end date under section eight payment of temporary disability would not be admission of liability anyway but it wasn't more risk compensation it was a disability payment she had on her union contract and she's entitled to that in the a j credit applies we did have the contract spread this is going back to two thousand and one and she was using the eye makeup so that explains why it started running she was using the eyedrops to which she had an hour gee that explains why it's rather cross the face she was also using gold earrings which kind of explains why it's on the side of the face and up an accurate above well the doctor noted twice