Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas; January 5, 2006; Kansas; State Appellate Court
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (formerly IBP, Inc.) appeals the Workers Compensation Board’s decision granting Frank Garcia permanent partial disability benefits. Garcia has worked for Tyson since September 19, 1988, primarily in the intestine room, where he trimmed fat from intestines contaminated with fecal matter. Despite wearing gloves, he experienced skin issues starting around 1991-1992, including itching, weakness, pain, swelling, and discoloration of his hands, prompting medical treatment and job reassignment.
After working in the paint room for two years, where he managed to control his symptoms, Garcia was reassigned back to the intestine room in a cleaning role, exacerbating his hand problems. Following a physician's recommendation, he later transitioned to washing cows, where he still encountered minor hand issues, and then to the laundry room for 4-5 years, handling soiled clothing, which may have contained irritants. Garcia attributed his hand problems to his initial work in the intestine room, claiming significant limitations in lifting due to persistent symptoms.
Dr. Peter Bieri evaluated Garcia and concluded that he suffered from contact dermatitis due to chemical exposure, establishing that Garcia had reached maximum medical improvement with a permanent 10% whole-person impairment rating linked to skin disorders. This rating was grounded in the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th ed. 1995).
Garcia filed an amended application for a hearing, claiming he suffered from bilateral dermatitis due to his work in the intestine room, which began on June 10, 1997. He reported multiple flare-ups since the onset of the condition. It was stipulated that his wages were $9.45 per hour in February 1999 and $10.30 per hour in August 2003, with an average weekly wage of $417.35. The administrative law judge (ALJ) assessed Garcia with a 10% functional impairment to the body but ruled he had not experienced a loss of earning capacity, as his wages remained stable or increased. Consequently, Garcia was denied monetary compensation for his injury.
Upon appeal, the Board affirmed the 10% impairment assessment and granted Garcia 41.5 weeks of permanent partial disability compensation at $278.25 per week, totaling $11,547.38. Tyson appealed, contending the Board erred by awarding benefits without any evidence of wage loss. The legal standard for interpreting the Workers Compensation Act, particularly regarding occupational diseases, emphasizes that disablement from an occupational disease is equivalent to an injury by accident, entitling the employee to compensation. Tyson's sole argument focused on the assertion that Garcia's lack of wage loss precluded eligibility for permanent disability benefits. Relevant statutory definitions clarify that disablement occurs when an employee is incapacitated due to an occupational disease, and occupational disease is defined as a condition arising from work-related exposure. Permanent partial general disability is characterized as a lasting and partial impairment not specified in the statutory schedule.
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that scheduled injuries under K.S.A. 44-510d do not apply to occupational diseases, as established in Schubert v. Peerless Products, Inc. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Board confirmed that Garcia had dermatitis, classified as an occupational disease, resulting in a 10% whole body functional impairment; however, they also found no loss of wages due to this condition. K.S.A. 44-510e(a) outlines the calculation of benefits for temporary and permanent partial disabilities, specifying that in cases of permanent partial general disability, the calculation includes the loss of ability to perform work tasks and the difference in wages before and after the injury. Tyson argued against Garcia's entitlement to compensation since he experienced no wage loss. However, the statute stipulates that the extent of permanent partial general disability cannot be less than the percentage of functional impairment. Additionally, it limits compensation for permanent partial disability to individuals earning at least 90% of their average weekly wage at the time of injury. K.S.A. 44-5a04(b) allows an ALJ to cancel disability awards if an employee earns the same or higher wages post-injury. The Workers Compensation Act accounts for employees who may be disabled yet capable of earning comparable wages, affirming that while excessive compensation is not permitted, some compensation for the injury is warranted. It recognizes that a disability can negatively impact quality of life or employability, even if wage levels remain unchanged. The Board's conclusion that Garcia deserved compensation reflecting his functional impairment aligns with the Workers Compensation Act and was thus affirmed.
