Opinion ID: 2159046
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Characteristically Improve

Text: Hill also contends the following statement is not supported by evidence in the record: The symptoms from an overuse cumulative injury characteristically improve when the injurious activity ceases. We conclude this statement is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. [3] We now analyze whether the commissioner's use of this statement was actually prejudicial to Hill's substantial rights. A review of the context of this statement shows this statement was used alongside other factual findings that were supported by substantial evidence in the record. None of the treating or examining physicians assigned a rating of permanent impairment. Neither Dr. Bahls nor Dr. Sieh identified any permanent physiological change in Hill's body caused by work-related injuries. In addition, one treating physician opined it is clearly obvious to me that stress is playing a significant role in exacerbating her symptoms. This one improper inference was merely a cumulative finding used to support the commissioner's decision. If the finding was excised from the commissioner's decision, there are still numerous factual findings to support his conclusion. The use of one unsupported finding was not prejudicial to Hill's substantial rights. Having found none of these statements were prejudicial to Hill's substantial rights, we next consider whether the commissioner incorrectly decided Hill was not entitled to permanent partial disability compensation benefits.