After this evaluation, even Sauer s treating dermatologist conceded that her uticaria is idiopathic at present. In that testing, Sauer s reactions could not be differentiated between exposures to bleach or distilled water. As for her asthma type symptoms, Dr. Morris ascribed those to exercise or cold air, common to four to five percent of the population. While Sauer s treating allergist and dermatologist continued to opine that bleach may have triggered a pre-existing tendency towards uticaria or asthma, the Department evidently found that Dr. Morris s conclusions were more convincing. Under this record, we cannot override that finding.
Fact finders are free to reasonably accept or reject all, part, or none of an expert s opinion.
See Goebel v. Warner Transp. Sauer offered insufficient evidence to show that her condition was peculiar to her occupation. At best she presented a hypothesis that some environmental circumstance in her workplace triggered a preexisting asymptotic condition. Occupational disease must be attributable to conditions particular to an occupation, rather than conditions coincidental to a workplace. As Sauer has not carried her burden of proving that she suffers from an occupational disease, we affirm the Department s decision and refrain from addressing the other requirements for recovery.