Woodall v. Idaho Potato Processors, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1967
• Docket Number: No. 9872,9872
• Citation: 428 P.2d 943,91 Idaho 626
• Parties: Mae WOODALL, Claimant-Appellant, v. IDAHO POTATO PROCESSORS, INC., and the Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 943

428 P.2d 943

91 Idaho 626

Mae WOODALL, Claimant-Appellant, v. IDAHO POTATO PROCESSORS, INC., and the Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 9872.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

June 16, 1967.

Kales E. Lowe, Burley, and Weldon S. Wood, Boise, for appellant.

Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett & Blanton, Boise, for respondents.

TAYLOR, Chief Justice.

Claimant (appellant) filed her petition November 15, 1963, under the provisions of the occupational disease compensation law, claiming entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits. She alleged the disability occurred August 16, 1962, while she was in the employ of defendant (respondent) Idaho Potato Processors, Inc. She was employed by defendant at its plant in Burley, commencing September 13, 1960, specking potatoes at the trim table.

At the end of each work week it was customary to have two or three of the workers clean the working area and the steel cutters used in the plant. In thi operation the steel cutters were taken apart and dipped in solutions containing an acid detergent. The first time claimant was assigned to the clean-up detail she did not use the acid detergent and the second time for only about half an hour. On January 8, 1961, on the occasion of her third clean-up duty she used the acid from 10;30 a. m. to 4:00 p. m., during which time she began to feel a burning sensation in her hands. That evening a red spot appeared on one hand; the next morning the redness had spread over the back of the hand. Her supervisor advised her to see a doctor, which she did on January 10, 1961, by which time the malady had spread to both hands. The doctor diagnosed the condition as 'allergic type rash' attributable to 'washing compound at plant.' (I.C. § 72-1204(9)).

January 11, 1961, claimant gave formal notice of her injury. In her claim for compensation filed January 16, 1961, she described the accident as 'washing shaker, burned right arm with acid water.' Since appellant at that time did not contend that she had lost any work time, the case was deemed settled on March 10, 1961, when the defendant insurance company paid her doctor and drug bills. The medication prescribed did not prove entirely satisfactory. Claimant saw her doctor again on January 17, 1961, at which time additional medication was prescribed and the doctor gave her a written statement to the effect that she should not continue to work where lye or strong detergent solutions were used. Upon presentation of this statement claimant's employer transferred her to the packaging department where she remained and worked until December 1, 1961, during which time her hands aparently healed. Claimant testified that about the first of December (1961) her employer required her to work at the trim table; that when she did so her rash again appeared. When she refused to go to the trim table she was sent home until needed in the packaging department, where her employment continued intermittently until August 15, 1962, at which time her employment was terminated by the employer.

Sometime prior to November, 1962, appellant obtained employment at another potato processing plant operated by Eastern Idaho Packing Corporation. There too she experienced recurrences of the dermatitis when assigned to certain tasks. She visited her doctor again on November 3, 1962, at which time the doctor recommended that she stay away from aggravating chemicals. This she was unable to do. During her last week of employment, August 26 to 30, 1963, she suffered her most severe exacerbation while spray painting. There is no evidence that she had previously done spray painting in either employment.

Claimant contends that since she first suffered dermatitis in the employ of the defendant she has become allergic to various household detergents and sprays, which had never caused her any difficulty prior to that time. Since September, 1963, treatment has been successful to the extent that the condition does not become so serious nor prolonged upon contact with an offending substance, as it did before that time.

At the time of termination of her employment by defendant claimant contended that wages for thirty days of that employment had not been paid to her. April 23, 1963, she wrote defendant again asserting her claim for such past-due wages. No settlement of that claim was made by the employer, and on November 15, 1963, she filed with the industrial accident board her claim for permanent disability benefits. This claim was summarized by the board as follows:

'Period of employment with Idaho Potato Processors, Inc.' October 13, 1960 to August 16, 1962.

'First manifestation of disease: While employed specking potatoes at trim table with no prior history of dermatitis, I got burned with acid January 8, 1961, while cleaning stainless steel cutters and had to cease work on that occasion January 24.

'Last injurious exposure in employer's service: In June, 1962. I ceased work on account of disease August 16, 1962.

'Subsequent employment: Intermittent employment with Eastern Idaho Packing Corporation at Heyburn, Idaho; 9-26-62 to 5-22-62; 8-28-63 to 9-1-63. In this employment, allergic to rubber gloves, sprout inhibitors, Wisk and paint.

'Present allergens: Strong detergents; rubber gloves, sprays, insecticides, perfumes, paint and any chemicals. Exhibit 2.'

In its rulings of law the board said:

'V *Claimant's contention herein is essentially that she is permanently disabled for work by allergic dermatitis first manifested in the employ of defendant upon hazardous exposure to an acid in her occupation. That subsequent exacerbations and manifestations of dermatitis upon hazardous re-exposures to the same or other chemicals or substances are merely evidence of the residual of the first manifestation.

'This theory does have some medical support in the record, particularly in the reports of Dr. Lloyd (Exhibit 6) and of Dr. Christensen (Exhibit 14).

'VI Claimant's theory, however, is not tenable under the Idaho Occupational Disease Compensation Law. Therein it is the last hazardous exposure to an allergen and the last manifestation of contact dermatitis which fix liability not upon the first but upon the last employer.

'The statute provides:

"Where compensation is payable for an occupational disease, the employer in whose employment the employee was last injuriously exposed to the hazards of such disease shall be liable therefor; * * * Sec. 72-1207, I.C.'

'VII Defendants have pleaded in bar a limitation prescribed in I.C., Sec. 72-1209, which reads as follows:

"An employer shall not be liable for any compensation for an occupational disease * * * unless disablement * * * results within * * * one year * * * after the last injurious exposure to such disease in such employment, * * *'

'Claimant's contention alleged in her petition is substantially that within the definition of I.C., Sec. 72-1205, she became actually and totally incapacitated, because of an occupational disease from performing her work in the last occupation in which she was injuriosul exposed to the hazards of such disease. She fixes the date of such total disability as August 16, 1962. That was the day following her last two days of work for Idaho Potato Processors, Inc. During...