Opinion ID: 1615386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Appropriate Chapter to be Applied.

Text: St. Luke's argues that the latex allergy is compensable, if at all, as an industrial disease under chapter 85A and not as an injury under chapter 85. However, St. Luke's did not raise this until the matter had been appealed to the industrial commissioner. On appeal, the commissioner ruled that St. Luke's had waived this issue because it had not raised it in the parties' prehearing report as required by the agency's rules. Further, the commissioner concluded that to allow St. Luke's to raise the claim for the first time on appeal would constitute unfair surprise and prejudice to Gray. The district court agreed. Our administrative code establishes a prehearing procedure in which the industrial commissioner or deputy may order the parties to confer, in order, among other things, to state and simplify the factual and legal issues to be determined. Iowa Admin. Code r. 873-4.20(5) (1997). St. Luke's did not raise chapter 85A as an issue in that manner, and the commissioner therefore did not consider it. Our review of contested case decisions is limited to those questions considered by the agency. Soo Line R.R. v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 521 N.W.2d 685, 688 (Iowa 1994). We agree with the industrial commissioner and the district court that St. Luke's waived its argument that chapter 85A was the proper chapter under which to proceed. The issue remains, however, whether chapter 85 applies. St. Luke's argues that a latex allergy, as a matter of law, is not an injury; therefore, it cannot be compensated under chapter 85. The commissioner found that Gray's exposure to latex triggered an underlying latex allergy that resulted in a work-related injury. This allergy caused itching, swelling, edema of the eyelids, sneezing, nasal congestion, coughing, tightness in the chest, shortness of breath, and wheezing. Her reaction to latex was so severe that she was advised to avoid contact with latex and to not work in any setting in which avoidance of latex products was not possible. We have apparently never considered allergy reactions in the context of a workers' compensation case. One case, Doerfer Division of CCA v. Nicol, 359 N.W.2d 428 (Iowa 1984), involved a claimant who had developed allergic contact dermatitis from contact with various substances in the workplace. The claimant sought compensation benefits, alleging an injury. Doerfer Div. of CCA, 359 N.W.2d at 431. The employer cross-petitioned, alleging the claimant's condition was an occupational disease, not an injury. Id. The commissioner ruled it was an occupational disease, and on appeal that was not an issue. Therefore, we have never ruled on the issue of whether allergic reactions may be considered injuries under Iowa Code chapter 85. We have, however, adopted an expansive definition of injury: A personal injury, contemplated by the Workmen's Compensation Law, obviously means an injury to the body, the impairment of health, or a disease, not excluded by the act, which comes about, not through the natural building up and tearing down of the human body, but because of a traumatic or other hurt or damage to the health or body of an employee.... The injury to the human body here contemplated must be something, whether an accident or not, that acts extraneously to the natural processes of nature, and thereby impairs the health, overcomes, injures, interrupts, or destroys some function of the body, or otherwise damages or injures a part or all of the body. This is the personal injury contemplated by ... the ... Code.... Dunlavey, 526 N.W.2d at 850-51 (quoting from Almquist v. Shenandoah Nurseries, Inc., 218 Iowa 724, 732, 254 N.W. 35, 39 (1934) (citations omitted)). Several authorities have recognized allergies as injuries for purposes of workers' compensation. Preexisting disease or infirmity of the employee does not disqualify a claim under the arising out of employment requirement if the employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the disease or infirmity to produce the death or disability for which compensation is sought. 1 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 9.02[1], at 9-17 to 9-18 (1999) (footnotes omitted). One of the conditions mentioned is allergy. Id. § 9.02[3], at 9-19 to 9-20. Webb v. New Mexico Publishing Co., 47 N.M. 279, 141 P.2d 333 (1943), involved a workers' compensation claim by a printer for a publishing company who was highly allergic to the type of soap provided by the employer. Webb, 141 P.2d at 334-35. The New Mexico Supreme Court found this to be a compensable injury, stating: His duties required him to wash his hands to prevent soiling the products of his labor. Except for his idiosyncrasy, it is true, he would not have suffered an injury, but the same may be said of a workman who, but for a defective physical condition, would have withstood the strain of his ordinary labors, yet suffered a compensable injury because of an exertion too great for one in his condition of health. Such are workmen who have heart afflictions, tuberculosis, etc., whose deaths result from strains or labor too heavy for their strength. Id. at 344. Hardin's Bakeries, Inc. v. Ranager, 217 Miss. 463, 64 So.2d 705 (1953), involved a baker who became disabled as a result of a rash on his hands and arms caused by an allergy to mittens used in handling hot pans of bread. Hardin's Bakeries, 64 So.2d at 706. The issue was whether this condition was the result of an occupational disease or accidental injury. The court held it was an injury for purposes of workers' compensation. Id. at 710. In reaching that conclusion, the court quoted from Vogt v. Ford Motor Co., 138 S.W.2d 684 (Mo.Ct.App.1940), a case involving a claimant who suffered from asthma. The court said: The proof does not bear any of the earmarks of an occupational disease; in this particular factory, no one else was ever similarly affected; asthma is not a disease, which from the common experience of humanity, is known to result to others engaged in the same work; in other words, the disease is not a usual concomitant or result of the work he was doing.... It cannot be attributed to the occupation because it is not a disease which men in the occupation are subject to contract; it is not a disease known to be incidental to that particular employment. Hardin's Bakeries, 64 So.2d at 708-09 (quoting Vogt, 138 S.W.2d at 687). Other jurisdictions also recognize the compensability of allergies as an injury under workers' compensation law. In Bidermann Industries Corp. v. Peterson, 655 So.2d 997 (Ala.Civ.App.1994), the claimant was a seamstress who experienced allergic contact dermatitis at work. Bidermann, 655 So.2d at 998. When she was away from work, her condition improved. When she returned to work, it worsened. Id. at 999. The court found that claimant did not suffer from an occupational disease; rather her condition was compensable as an accident under the workers' compensation act. Id. Pennsylvania has recognized allergic reactions as compensable as an injury, even though the underlying allergy would not be considered an injury. See National Underground Storage v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd. ( Durochia ), 658 A.2d 1389, 1392-93 (Pa.Cmwlth.Ct.1995). National Underground Storage involved an employee who was allergic to a paint used at his workplace. Id. at 1390-91. The court concluded: Claimant's injury, for the purposes of the Act, is the periodic outbreak of swelling and hives, not his hypersensitivity. There was no evidence whatsoever, that Claimant's allergy was caused by exposure to paint. Rather, Claimant's reactions are caused by the paint.... .... In sum, Claimant had periods of time when he did not suffer from hives and swelling. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that his hypersensitivity was caused by his exposure to paint. Rather, the pain exacerbated a preexisting condition. Thus, every time Claimant suffered an outbreak of hives and swelling due to his exposure to the paint on Employer's premises, he suffered an injury under the Act. Id. at 1393-94. Under our broad definition of injury, as illustrated by Dunlavey, and the authorities discussed above, we believe the commissioner and the district court were correct in holding that allergic reactions may be considered injuries under chapter 85.