Court of Appeals Affirms Award of Benefits Based on Exposure to Dust or Mold at Work
The court in United Heartland and Camanche Community School District v. Brown, No. 14-1070 (Iowa App. April 8, 2015) concluded that claimant's allegations that she suffered a respiratory injury due to exposures to dust and mold in the classroom were supported by substantial evidence. The court affirmed the commissioner's decision that claimant had suffered a compensable injury.
Claimant was a teacher who taught in a windowless room with little ventilation. In 2000, she developed severe bronchitis and missed school due to lung ailments. Because of this, she was assigned to a different classroom. She stayed in that classroom for nine years, until her employment ended. Claimant described that room and other rooms in the school as filthy and she battled repeated bronchial infections, asthma and sinus infections. These maladies would remit over the summer when she was away from school.
Testing showed fungal growth and a hygienist suggested the school conduct a remedial cleaning strategy. Claimant had a positive methacholine challenge test, but tested negative for five common molds. In May of 2010, claimant had a reactive airway breathing attack at school. Dr. Wong placed her on steroids. She left school at that time.
Dr. Bruyntjens diagnosed claimant with occupational environmental lung disease. While her claim was pending, she saw Dr. Witmer, who found no abnormal lung function and no obstruction. Dr. Kline at UIHC opined that claimant had asthma which was substantially aggravated by the exposures at work. Dr. Fuortes, also at UIHC, found that the school was not grossly contaminated but acknowledged there was contamination, including mold in the ventilation systems.
Following hearing, the deputy concluded that claimant had suffered an injury which arose out of and in the course of employment. The commissioner's designee affirmed the finding on judicial review. The Court of Appeals decision does not make clear whether permanency had been reached by the time of the hearing or whether there was any permanency award.
The employer argued that claimant had not suffered an injury and if she had, it did not arise out of her employment. The court affirmed the decision of the agency on the first point, finding that the opinions of Dr. Brown and Dr. Bruyntjens were supported by substantial evidence. The court also rejected the argument that Dr. Kline's opinion was tainted by subjective information he received from Dr. Brown. On the arising out of argument, the employer argued (apparently with a straight face) that because claimant could not show that her exposures to mold at work were greater than anywhere else, she could not recover. Claimant's retort was that employees are taken as the employer finds them. The court agreed that substantial evidence also supported the finding that the condition arose out of employment. The court noted that evidence had been presented from other teachers indicating problems similar to those of claimant. The agency's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and the application of law to the facts was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.
Brown represents yet another case where substantial evidence prevails. Unless there is evidence that the agency completely ignored evidence, recent decisions of the appellate courts continue to reject the argument that the agency's findings were illogical, irrational and wholly unjustifiable and instead conclude that those decisions are supported by substantial evidence.
Claimant was a teacher who taught in a windowless room with little ventilation. In 2000, she developed severe bronchitis and missed school due to lung ailments. Because of this, she was assigned to a different classroom. She stayed in that classroom for nine years, until her employment ended. Claimant described that room and other rooms in the school as filthy and she battled repeated bronchial infections, asthma and sinus infections. These maladies would remit over the summer when she was away from school.
Testing showed fungal growth and a hygienist suggested the school conduct a remedial cleaning strategy. Claimant had a positive methacholine challenge test, but tested negative for five common molds. In May of 2010, claimant had a reactive airway breathing attack at school. Dr. Wong placed her on steroids. She left school at that time.
Dr. Bruyntjens diagnosed claimant with occupational environmental lung disease. While her claim was pending, she saw Dr. Witmer, who found no abnormal lung function and no obstruction. Dr. Kline at UIHC opined that claimant had asthma which was substantially aggravated by the exposures at work. Dr. Fuortes, also at UIHC, found that the school was not grossly contaminated but acknowledged there was contamination, including mold in the ventilation systems.
Following hearing, the deputy concluded that claimant had suffered an injury which arose out of and in the course of employment. The commissioner's designee affirmed the finding on judicial review. The Court of Appeals decision does not make clear whether permanency had been reached by the time of the hearing or whether there was any permanency award.
The employer argued that claimant had not suffered an injury and if she had, it did not arise out of her employment. The court affirmed the decision of the agency on the first point, finding that the opinions of Dr. Brown and Dr. Bruyntjens were supported by substantial evidence. The court also rejected the argument that Dr. Kline's opinion was tainted by subjective information he received from Dr. Brown. On the arising out of argument, the employer argued (apparently with a straight face) that because claimant could not show that her exposures to mold at work were greater than anywhere else, she could not recover. Claimant's retort was that employees are taken as the employer finds them. The court agreed that substantial evidence also supported the finding that the condition arose out of employment. The court noted that evidence had been presented from other teachers indicating problems similar to those of claimant. The agency's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and the application of law to the facts was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.
Brown represents yet another case where substantial evidence prevails. Unless there is evidence that the agency completely ignored evidence, recent decisions of the appellate courts continue to reject the argument that the agency's findings were illogical, irrational and wholly unjustifiable and instead conclude that those decisions are supported by substantial evidence.
Comments
Post a Comment