After the testing, the Department s record was supplemented with affidavits and depositions. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Department ruled that Sauer had failed to show that she had a disease that was peculiar to her occupation, and thus she did not suffer from an occupational disease. Her appeal in the circuit court was affirmed. She now appeals to this Court. Sauer asserts that she is totally disabled by her occupational disease.
Claimants have the burden of proving all elements necessary to qualify for compensation.
We must evaluate the evidence presented to the Department to decide whether Sauer is entitled to benefits. She need not establish the requirements with absolute certainty, but recovery may not be granted on mere possibility or speculation. Sauer believes her chronic uticaria, asthma, and angioedema are peculiar to her occupation as a commercial laundry worker. A condition is peculiar to a particular occupation when it is the result of a distinctive feature of the kind of work performed by a claimant and others similarly employed. Unless the condition is intrinsic to an occupation, one does not suffer from an occupational disease.