Dauer, 020818 WIWC, 2014-003387

Case DateFebruary 08, 2018
CourtWisconsin
John D. Dauer Employee-Applicant
Grede, LLC Employer
Helmsmann Management Services Insurer
No. 2014-003387
Wisconsin Workers Compensation
State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission
February 8, 2018
          Matthew K. McCasland           Thomas M. Rohe           WORKER’S COMPENSATION DECISION 1           Georgia E. Maxwell, Chairperson          The commission modifies the decision of the administrative law judge to conform to the following, and as modified, affirms the decision. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.          By the commission:           Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner          Commissioner Falstad did not participate in the decision of this matter.          Procedural Posture          On October 29, 2014, the applicant filed a hearing application seeking compensation for an injury that occurred on July 5, 2012. An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Department of Administration, Division of Hearings and Appeals, Office of Worker’s Compensation Hearings, heard the matter on July 9, 2015 and April 19, 2016.          The parties stipulated to jurisdictional facts; an average weekly wage of $1,104.14 as of the alleged date of injury; last day of employment of January 19, 2014; and development by the applicant of a dermatological condition that necessitated medical treatment and imposition of restrictions that precluded the applicant’s return to work from the time of separation to the last date of hearing and ongoing. In dispute was whether the condition was brought about by a liver disorder or an immunological/ allergic process, or both.          The ALJ issued a decision on January 3, 2017, dismissing the application, and the applicant filed a timely petition for review.          The commission has considered the petition of the applicant and the positions of the parties, and reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission affirms the ALJ’s dismissal, and adopts the findings and conclusions of the ALJ, with the following:          Modifications          1. In the second full paragraph on page 5, delete the first clause of the second sentence, so that the sentence reads:
The medical proof established applicant was sensitized to BPA-epi and BPF-epi; he did not react to the smaller BPA and, unless the test reflects a false negative, the test indicates that he was not allergic to the monomeric BPA.
         2. Delete the last sentence of the second full paragraph on page 5.          Memorandum Opinion          The applicant, born January 3, 1962, worked for Grede Foundries for about 13 years, beginning in 1999. For the last six years of his employment, he was a molding operator. He developed a set of dermatological symptoms in 2012, characterized by swelling around the eyes, a rash and flaking skin on the face, neck, hands, arms and chest, and photosensitive skin eruptions. The rash and flaking skin started while he was away from work on vacation in July 2012. He was referred by his primary care physician to the UW dermatology department. An allergy was suspected, so the applicant underwent patch testing. It revealed sensitivity to Bisphenol-A/epichlorohydrin and Bisphenol-F/epichlorohydrin (BPA-epi and BPF-epi), which are compounds found in some epoxy resins, but no sensitivity to the monomer form of BPA. Dr. Rita Lloyd, chief of dermatology at UW recorded the following assessment and plan on October 15, 2012:
Contact allergy to epoxy resin (bisphenol-A/epichlorohydrin and bisphenol-F/epichlorohydrin) evolving into chronic actinic dermatitis.[2] He did not react to bisphenol-A as this is a monomer; it is the polymer resin (polymer of either bisphenol A or F) that is implicated in his dermatitis…
         Dr. Lloyd sent letters to the applicant’s employer to find out if the applicant had been exposed to epoxy resin in the workplace. The manufacturer of a product called SigmaCure 7252, which had been used at the plant until May 2012, stated that the product contained 2% bisphenol A. Dr. Lloyd opined in November 2012 that the applicant’s dermatitis was triggered by exposure to the heated gaseous form of this epoxy resin monomer. The applicant was treated with an immunosuppressant called CellCept.          In March 2013 the applicant underwent an independent medical evaluation conducted by Dr. Thomas Jetzer. In his report on April 12, 2013, Dr. Jetzer noted that the applicant’s patch testing showed allergies to bisphenol A in some form, and that the most likely agent was SigmaCure 7252. He found no basis to dispute Dr. Lloyd’s opinion that the condition was occupation-related. He also noted that the condition seemed to be controlled by CellCept.          In September 2013 the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT