ࡱ > s u r 7 bjbjUU ! 7| 7| . l 2 8 , 2 $ D T j j j j j j ,$ .$ .$ .$ .$ .$ .$ $ c% ' R$ j j j j j R$ j j g$ j j j ,$ j ,$ " | $ j 8 ]2 # $ }$ 0 $ .# %( %( $ | before the iowa WORKERS COMPENSATION commissioner ______________________________________________________________________ : JANET LAMMEY FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT , : : Claimant, : File Nos.1254677, 1254678 : vs. : : A R B I T R A T I O N ROCKWELL COLLINS, : : D E C I S I O N Self-Insured, : Employer, : Defendant. : Head Note No.: 1803 ______________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF THE CASE Janet L. Lammey, the claimant, seeks workers compensation benefits from defendants, Rockwell Collins, a self-insured employer, defendant. Presiding in this matter is Larry P. Walshire, a deputy Iowa Workers Compensation Commissioner. I heard the claim on March 27, 2002. The oral testimonies and written exhibits received during the hearing are set forth in the hearing transcript. Claimant seeks benefits for two alleged claims; one for left knee on April 12, 2000, and for occupational asthma on November 6, 1998. The parties agreed to the following matters in a written hearing report submitted at hearing: An employee-employer relationship existed between claimant and Rockwell Collins at the time of the alleged injuries. Claimant is seeking temporary total or healing period benefits only for the occupational asthma claim. The times off work she claims is related to this injury is set forth in exhibit HH. If the knee injury is found to have caused permanent disability, the type of disability is a scheduled member disability to the leg. If the occupational asthma injury is found to have caused permanent disability, the type of disability is an industrial disability to the body as a whole. If I award permanent partial disability benefits, they shall begin on October 22, 2001, for the occupational asthma claim and on April 1, 2000, for the knee claim. At the time of the alleged occupational asthma injury, claimant's gross rate of weekly compensation was $397.91. Also, at that time, she was single and entitled to one exemption for income tax purposes. Therefore, claimants weekly rate of compensation is $246.66 according to the workers compensation commissioners published rate booklet for this injury. At the time of the alleged knee injury, claimant's gross rate of weekly compensation was $420.85. Also, at that time, she was single and entitled to one exemption for income tax purposes. Therefore, claimants weekly rate of compensation is $260.22 according to the workers compensation commissioners published rate booklet for this injury. The parties stipulated that the providers of the requested medical expenses would testify as to their reasonableness and defendants are not offering contrary evidence. It was also agreed that the requested expenses are causally connected to the medical conditions upon which the claims herein are based but that the issue of their causal connection to any work injury remains an issue to be decided herein. ISSUES The parties submitted the following issues for determination in this proceeding: Whether claimant received injuries as alleged arising out of and in the course of employment; The extent of claimant's entitlement to disability benefits; and The extent of claimant's entitlement to medical benefits. FINDINGS OF FACT Joints exhibits were marked numerically. Claimants exhibits were marked with double letters. Defendants exhibits were marked with single letters. References to pages of an exhibit will be made by placing the page number after the particular exhibit number or letter followed by a dash. In these findings, I will refer to the claimant by her first name and to the defendant employer as Rockwell. Janet is seeking benefits for occupational asthma alleging beginning in November 1998 and a knee injury in April 2000. From my observation of their demeanor at hearing including body movements, vocal characteristics, eye contact, and facial mannerisms while testifying, in addition to consideration of the other evidence, I find claimant and the witnesses testifying on he behalf to be credible. This finding is made despite reported histories by two pulmonary physicians (Ralph Beckett, M.D., and Joel Kline, M.D.) in this case that Janet did not report to them any prior significant respiratory problems before November 1998. She did report some prior problems with cleaning agents at home to Dr. Beckett but none to Dr. Kline. The evidence shows a treatment by a family doctor for chronic cough possibly rated to work in May 1993 (Exhibit EE-1) and shortness of breath and probable occupational asthma in February 1994 (Ex. EE-2). This was troubling for me even though doctors reports are not verbatim transcripts. However, what or what is not significant is not particularly clear in any case and this was especially true for Janet, looking at her entire history. I find it reasonable for her to suggest to physicians that her problems before were not significant given the dramatic worsening of her condition after November 1998 evidenced by the increased frequency and severity of her complaints to health providers and her extensive time off work since December 8, 1998. The credible testimony of Janets daughter describing a dramatic change in her breathing symptoms and her extreme behavior in avoiding possible respiratory irritants after the November and December 1998 problems clearly helped to convince me in this case. Rockwell has employed Janet since 1986 and she continues to be employed by Rockwell at this time. However, she has not actually performed work duties since January 10, 2002. At that time, she left work for a hysterectomy and was planning on returning in March 2002 following recovery from this procedure. However, while Janet was off work, Rockwell underwent a plant-wide reduction-in-force and she was bumped from her job, which accommodated for her asthma related restrictions. As there were no other positions which were available to her given her seniority and asthma related restrictions, she was placed on medical leave until January 10, 2004. If no suitable positions develop by that time, she will be permanently terminated. There is no dispute in this record that Janet was a good worker prior to leaving Rockwell. She began with Rockwell in 1986 at their operations in Coralville, Iowa working on a production line soldering parts. She later moved to receiving and inspection in another building after a couple of respiratory events involving shortness of breath in 1993/1994, which Janet attributes to exposure to fumes from soldering flux and other chemicals. On November 1, 1998, Janet transferred to a janitor position at Rockwells operations in Cedar Rapids, Iowa as she felt there was more opportunity for advancement at the Cedar Rapids facilities. It was soon thereafter that Janet claims to have suffered her occupational asthma (hereinafter referred to as OA) from exposure to chemical fumes. Prior to her Rockwell employment, Janet had previously worked for Collins Radio for a number of years, until she began raising her family in 1969, at two locations in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and a facility in California. Collins Radio was later acquired by Rockwell. Work Relatedness of The Claimed Occupational Asthma Janet testifies that her current chronic respiratory (asthmatic) problems stem from exposure to a cleaning agent after beginning her new janitor job. These problems consist of recurrent shortness of breath, wheezing, chest tightness, chest pain, and difficulty sleeping, which is mostly but not always controlled by daily medications. The janitor job required the mixing of NABC, a bathroom cleanser, with hot, steamy water in a scrub bucket. She did this in a small janitor closet. Janet stated that steamy fumes would arise from this. Janet stated that coughing began even after the first exposure, which she states was early in November 1998, either November 3 or 6. The precise date of the first cough is not important. Janet stated that although she attempted to use other cleaners such as Simply Green, she progressively worsened while continuing to work in her janitor job until December 8, 1998, at which time she was placed on medical leave by a Dr. Justice for bronchitis. Rockwell asserts some significance to the fact that the occupational asthma injury was not officially reported until early January 1999. Janet claims that the plant nurses were not always available and she was told by the nurses that this was not a workers compensation matter. The nurses notes in evidence confirm that they and Dr. Justin referred to Janets respiratory problems as bronchitis until physicians diagnosed OA in January 1999. Obviously, everyone involved was aware of her problems but not the cause of those problems. There is an interesting nurses note on January 6, 1999, in which the note states that reports employee told him when she first started working for him that she has asthma and so when she was first ill in December, he had recommended she see a doctor because of her asthma condition. (Ex. 5-7) Little can be gleaned from this note because we do not know who was reporting this and to whom. Following her respiratory problems in November and December 1998, Janet failed to improve and was finally referred to Dr. Beckett, a board certified pulmonologist, in January 1999. He has followed her since upon chronic complaints of coughing, chest pain, and shortness of breath that have waxed and waned in varying degrees since that time. Dr. Beckett opines that Janet suffered a marked worsening of a preexisting inherited or occupational asthma. This worsening occurred according to the doctor from her exposure to NABC and other irritants at work in November and December 1998. The doctor states that while none of these irritants such as NABC and other milder agents such as Simple Green are normally a cause of injuries from exposure, in Janets case, they were sufficient to worsen her preexisting condition permanently requiring a lifetime of medical management. (Ex. 12) While Janet did not specifically relate to Dr. Beckett a prior diagnosis of OA from various irritant exposures in 1994, exhibit 12-15, upon being informed of this in his deposition, Dr. Beckett did not change his causation views due to the dramatic change in her condition following her exposure in the janitor job. (Ex. 12-44) Dr. Beckett explained that unlike before, Janet now is susceptible to even mild irritants. Unlike before Janet is now permanently on daily medications consisting of inhaled steroids and various bronchial anti-inflammatory agents and dilators, which mostly alleviate her symptoms but not always. Although she is able to work physically, Dr. Beckett states that unlike before she can now only do so in a clean environment, free of dust, vapors, or even mild respiratory irritants. Dr. Becketts permanent restriction to a clean work environment has remained unchanged since January 1999. (Ex. 4-37) The seriousness of this restriction is emphasized by the fact that unlike before, Janet has been unable to return to work in any capacity, even at a large electronic manufacturing operation such a Rockwell. Another pulmonologist, Joel Kline, M.D., with the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, also opines that Janets current respiratory problems are work related. Again, Janet did not relate to him any prior significant problems. (Ex. DD-13) He confirmed the presence of moderate bronchial hyper-responsiveness in January 2002 with a methacholine challenge test. (Ex. DD-13) He opines under the AMA Guides that Janet has a 10-25 percent permanent partial impairment to the whole person as a result of her occupational asthma. (Ex. DD-14) While Dr. Klines opinions are less convincing as he was not apprised of any of Janets preexisting conditions, he agrees that her current condition and the daily need for medication is now permanent. Dr. Beckett agrees with Dr. Klines rating. The only medical opinion countering Dr. Becketts causation views comes not from a pulmonologist but from James Beeghly, M.D., a board certified psychiatrist. He evaluated Janet in April 2000 and concluded that there was a substantial psychological component to her breathing difficulties. He also noted a history of psychological problems beginning in 1994 upon a diagnosis of dissociative personality disorder. Janet discussed this somewhat in her deposition but claims that this has resolved. Although there may or may not be a psychological component to her problems, two board certified pulmonologist have concluded that the asthmatic respiratory problems are real using objective testing procedures and extensive clinical observation and have imposed the work restriction to a clean environment. Whether or not she now has additional problems due to psychological overlay does not affect this disability assessment because no physician states that she is not able to work in clean environment or that these additional problems impact Janet vocationally. Therefore, based upon the most convincing opinions from Dr. Beckett, I find that Janets chemical exposures at Rockwell prior to seeing Dr. Beckett for the first time are a cause of a significant permanent aggravation/acceleration/worsening of a preexisting respiratory problem. This constitutes an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment at Rockwell. I further find that this injury is a cause of significant permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole and a permanent work restriction to a clean work environment free of dust, fumes, smoke, or other mild irritants. What I differ with on this claim is the asserted date of injury. The record indicates that the proper injury date is December 8, 1998, the first day Janet left work for an extended period of time after seeking medical assistance for her breathing problems. Janets attorney to attempted to causally relate Janets prior asthmatic problems to her work at Rockwells Coralville facility to bolster his causation assertions. While Dr. Beckett indicated in his deposition a possible relationship, neither he nor anyone else attempted to apportion out the preexisting condition from Janets current disability. Consequently, the issue is moot. Work Relatedness of the Knee Claim. Janets claim for a knee injury of April 12, 2000, is a bit vague. The petition asserts an injury to legs, knees, and feet but her attorneys brief only discusses left knee problems. Janet was treated by David Durand beginning on April 27, 2000, for bilateral leg, knee, and foot pain following an incident where she fell after tripping over a torn rug. (Ex. 7-2) Janet did not discuss her knee problem at hearing but described this injury to both knees in her deposition. (Ex. 13-53) Following a regimen of conservative care consisting of medications, light duty, and physical therapy, Dr Durand released Janet back to full duty on June 15, 2000. (Ex. 7-6) Janet is not asking for healing period benefits for this injury. On July 24, 2000, Janet returned to Dr. Durand for additional treatment due to left knee pain which developed after arising from bed that morning. The doctor did not feel this was related to her April knee injury or her work generally. Although he did not impose work restrictions, he did express concern that Janet not aggravate her knee condition while at work. Dr. Durands assessment was arthritis unrelated to her work. (Ex. 7-1) Upon complaints of continuing knee pain with work activity, Janet was evaluated by Leslie Riley, M.D., in August 2000. Janet did not return to Dr. Durand because she was unhappy with his assessment. Dr. Riley imposed restrictions against riding a socking jack (motorized pallet jack), regular walking up and down stairs, no lifting of 20 pounds or greater, and no standing for prolonged periods. (Ex. BB) The records indicate that these restrictions have not been lifted to date. Dr. Riley made reference to only a knee, not both knees. He also did not identify which knee. Finally, Dr. Riley did not state whether or not the knee condition he evaluated was work related. I am able to find that Janet suffered an injury to her knees which arose out of and in the course of her employment on the April 12, 2000, injury. But, I am unable to find that this injury was more than a temporary aggravation of a preexisting arthritic condition given the views of Dr. Durand, whose views are uncontroverted. Apparently, Dr. Rileys restrictions remain today. However, these restrictions could be accommodated according to Rockwells management representatives who testified at hearing. Consequently, only the occupational asthma is keeping Janet from active Rockwell employment today. Other Prior Problems In addition to some prior mental problems previously discussed, Janet testified in her deposition that was previously treated for right arm/shoulder problems in March 1998 requiring surgery. (Ex. 13-28) Janet denied any on-going residual problems from these conditions at the time of the alleged injuries herein. The written records do not contradict her testimony. Industrial Disability From Occupational Asthma Janet's medical condition before the work injury was not excellent given some respiratory problems, but she was able to remain employed and functional relatively well without medications until this work injury. She remains off work from Rockwell due to her injury. Today, according to her daughter, her activities of daily life are significantly altered to avoid smoke or mild irritants of any kind. Janet is 62 years of age. She has a high school education and took some general classes in community colleges. Her most significant past employment consists of work at Rockwell and Collins Radio. Given her age and education, she has limited potential for vocational rehabilitation. Although she remains unemployed, this is not evidence of total disability. Janet has not shown that he is incapable of full-time light or sedentary work in a clean environment. She has not looked for suitable work outside of Rockwell. From examination of all of the factors of industrial disability, it is found that the work injury of December 8, 1998, is a cause of a 75 percent loss of earning capacity. This injury superimposed upon her already weakened ability to work given her leg problems and her age is quite a significant impediment to future job opportunities. The seriousness of this condition is evidence by Rockwells difficulty in keeping her at work and now returning her to work in any capacity over the last three years since the injury. Healing Period for the Occupational Asthma Injury Claimant listed her absences from work due to her occupational asthma between December 8, 1998, and October 22, 2001, the stipulated conversion date. (Ex. HH) Rockwell disputes that she was always off work due to her asthma for this time noting various absences in their records for other reasons and the absences after the injury due to exposure to non-work irritants (weather, perfume, smoke from grass fire, etc.) Given Janets credible testimony and Dr. Becketts opinion that the work injury made her more susceptible to mild irritants, I find that all of the claim absences were due to the work injury. I find her total absences sum up to 865.60 hours of lost time prior to achieving maximum healing on October 22, 2001, according to both Drs. Beckett and Kline. I find that her normal and customary work week to be 40 hours. Therefore, she lost 22.39 weeks of work in this time period. Medical Expense Claim Given the above, only the medical expenses related to the occupational asthma claim and the temporary injury to the knees can be awarded. The requested expenses are listed in an attachment to the hearing report. Of those expenses, only those pertaining to the occupational asthma treatment by Iowa Health Physicians, St, Lukes, St. Lukes Work Well, Dr Beckett, and Dr. Kline can be awarded. Clearly the treatment by Dr. Durand between April 25, 2000, and June 15, 2000, is related to the aggravation knee injury but any prior or subsequent treatment by him. The amounts in the listing are not itemized. Also, I am unable to determine whether the expenses from Radiological Consultants, Steindler Clinic, or St. Lukes Work Well are related to the asthma or knee. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that claimant received an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The words "out of" refer to the cause or source of the injury. The words "in the course of" refer to the time and place and circumstances of the injury. See generally, Cedar Rapids Community Sch. v. Cady, 278 N.W.2d 298 (Iowa 1979); Crowe v. DeSoto Consol. Sch. Dist., 246 Iowa 402, 68 N.W.2d 63 (1955). An employer takes an employee subject to any active or dormant health impairments. A work connected injury that more than slightly aggravates the condition is considered to be a personal injury. Ziegler v. United States Gypsum Co., 252 Iowa 613, 620, 106 N.W.2d 591 (1961) and cases cited therein. It is not necessary that claimant prove his disability results from a sudden unexpected traumatic event. It is sufficient to show that the disability developed gradually or progressively from work activity over a period of time. McKeever Custom Cabinets v. Smith, 379 N.W.2d 368 (Iowa 1985). The Iowa Supreme Court has also held that the date of injury in gradual or cumulative injury cases is the time at which the disability manifests itself or the date on which both the fact of the injury and the causal relationship of the injury to the claimants employment would have become plainly apparent to a reasonable person. Oscar Mayer Foods Corp. v. Tasler, 483 N.W.2d 824, 829 (Iowa 1992). In McKeever, the proper injury date coincided with the time claimant was finally compelled to leave his job and receive medical treatment. In Tasler, the correct injury date was the date a meat processing plant closed. For cumulative injury cases, the commissioner is given wide latitude and is entitled to consider as an injury date a multitude of factors such as absence from work because of inability to perform, the point at which medical care is received, or others, none of which is necessarily dispositive. Such dates of injury are then used to determine rate and the timeliness of claimant's claim under Iowa Code section 85.26 and notice under Iowa Code section 85.23. The question of causal connection is essentially within the domain of expert testimony. The expert medical evidence must be considered with all other evidence introduced bearing on the causal connection between the injury and the disability. The weight to be given to any expert opinion is determined by the finder of fact and may be affected by the accuracy of the facts relied upon by the expert as well as other surrounding circumstances. The expert opinion may be accepted or rejected, in whole or in part. Sondag v. Ferris Hardware, 220 N.W.2d 903 (Iowa 1974); Anderson v. Oscar Mayer & Co., 217 N.W.2d 531 (Iowa 1974); Bodish v. Fischer, Inc., 257 Iowa 516, 133 N.W.2d 867 (1965). Furthermore, if the available expert testimony is insufficient alone to support a finding of causal connection, such testimony may be coupled with non-expert testimony to show causation and be sufficient to sustain an award. Giere v. Aase Haugen Homes, Inc., 259 Iowa 1065, 146 N.W.2d 911, 915 (1966). Such evidence does not, however, compel an award as a matter of law. Anderson, 217 N.W.2d 531, 536. To establish compensability, the injury need only be a significant factor, not be the only factor causing the claimed disability. Blacksmith v. All-American, Inc., 290 N.W.2d 348, 354 (Iowa 1980). In the case of a preexisting condition, an employee is not entitled to recover for the results of a preexisting injury or disease but can recover for an aggravation thereof which resulted in the disability found to exist. Olson v. Goodyear Service Stores, 255 Iowa 1112, 125 N.W.2d 251 (1963). In the case sub judice, I found that claimant carried the burden of proof and demonstrated by the greater weight of the evidence that she suffered an occupational asthma injury arising out of and in the course of employment with Rockwell. I also found an injury to the leg, albeit temporary. Using much of the same analysis as the Court utilized in McKeever, I found an injury date for OA that differs from the one alleged. As that date differs only slightly from the one alleged, I will use the same stipulated rate of compensation for this new injury date. II. The extent of claimants entitlement to permanent disability benefits is determined by one of two methods. If it is found that the permanent physical impairment or loss of use is limited to a body member specifically listed in schedules set forth in one of the subsections of Iowa Code section 85.34(2), the disability is considered a scheduled member disability. "Loss of use" of a member is equivalent to "loss" of the member. Moses v. National Union C.M. Co., 194 Iowa 819, 184 N.W. 746 (1921). A scheduled disability is evaluated solely by the functional method and the compensation payable is limited to the number of weeks set forth in the appropriate subdivision of Code section 85.34(2). Barton v. Nevada Poultry Co., 253 Iowa 285, 110 N.W.2d 660 (1961). Pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.34(2)(u), the commissioner may equitably prorate compensation payable in those cases where the functional loss is less than 100 percent. Blizek v. Eagle Signal Co., 164 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 1969). On the other hand, if it is found that the work injury was a cause of permanent physical impairment or loss of use involving a body member not listed in the Code section, the disability is considered an unscheduled disability to the body as a whole and compensated under Code subsection 85.34(2)(u). The industrial method is used to evaluate an unscheduled disability. Martin v. Skelly Oil Co., 252 Iowa 128, 133 106 N.W.2d 95, 98 (1960); Graves v. Eagle Iron Works, 331 N.W.2d 116 (Iowa 1983); Simbro v. Delong's Sportswear 332 N.W.2d 886, 997 (1983). Unlike scheduled member disabilities, the extent of unscheduled or industrial disability is determined by assessing the loss of earning capacity resulting from the work injury. Diederich v. Tri-City R. Co., 219 Iowa 587, 593, 258 N.W. 899 (1935). A physical impairment or restriction on work activity may or may not result in a loss of earning capacity. I found in this case that the occupational asthma work injury is a cause of permanent impairment to the body as a whole, a nonscheduled loss of use. Consequently, this agency must measure claimants loss of earning capacity as a result of this impairment. The extent of any loss of earning capacity is determined by examining several factors such as the employee's medical condition prior to the injury, immediately after the injury, and presently; the situs of the injury, its severity, and the length of healing period; the work experience of the employee prior to the injury, after the injury, and potential for rehabilitation; the employee's qualifications intellectually, emotionally, and physically; earnings prior and subsequent to the injury; age; education; motivation; functional impairment as a result of the injury; and inability because of the injury to engage in employment for which the employee is fitted. Thilges v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 528 N.W.2d 614, 616 (Iowa 1995); Peterson v. Truck Haven Cafe, Inc., Vol. 1, No. 3 State of Iowa Industrial Commr Decisions 654, 658 (App. February 28, 1985). Loss of earnings caused by a job transfer for reasons related to the injury is also relevant. Id. Although claimant is closer to a normal retirement age than younger workers, proximity to retirement cannot be considered in assessing the extent of industrial disability. Second Injury Fund v. Nelson, 544 N.W.2d 258 (Iowa 1995). However, this agency does consider voluntary retirement or withdrawal from the work force unrelated to the injury. Copeland v. Boones Book and Bible Store, File No. 1059319 (App. November 6, 1997). Loss of earning capacity due to voluntary choice or lack of motivation is not compensable. Id. Assessments of industrial disability involve a viewing of loss of earning capacity in terms of the injured workers present ability to earn in the competitive labor market without regard to any accommodation furnished by ones present employer. Quaker Oats Co. v. Ciha, 552 N.W.2d 143, 158 (Iowa 1996); Thilges, 528 N.W.2d 614, 617. Ending a prior accommodation is not a change of condition warranting a review-reopening of a past settlement or award. U.S. West v. Overholser, 566 N.W.2d 873 (Iowa 1997). However, an employers special accommodation for an injured worker can be factored into an award determination to the limited extent the work in the newly created job discloses that the worker has a discerned earning capacity. To qualify as discernible, employers must show that the new job is not just make work but is also available to the injured worker in the competitive market. Murillo v. Blackhawk Foundry, 571 N.W.2d 16 (Iowa 1997) In the case sub judice, I found that claimant suffered a 75 percent loss of her earning capacity as a result of the occupational asthma work injury. Such a finding entitles claimant to 375 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits as a matter of law under Iowa Code section 85.34(2)(u), which is 75 percent of 500 weeks, the maximum allowable number of weeks for an injury to the body as a whole in that subsection. Claimant's entitlement to permanent partial disability also entitles her to weekly benefits for healing period under Iowa Code section 85.34 for her absence from work during a recovery period until claimant returns to work; until claimant is medically capable of returning to substantially similar work to the work he/she was performing at the time of injury; or, until it is indicated that significant improvement from the injury is not anticipated, whichever occurs first. I found that claimant was off work due to her occupational asthma prior to reaching maximum healing and total of 22.30 weeks and such will be awarded. III. Pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.27, claimant is entitled to payment of reasonable medical expenses incurred for treatment of a work injury. In the case at bar, I found that only a portion of the listed expenses reimbursable and such will be awarded. ORDER File No. 1254677 (Date of Injury November 16, 1998) 1. Defendant shall pay to claimant three hundred seventy five (375) weeks of permanent partial disability benefits at a rate of two hundred forty six and 66/100 dollars ($246.66) per week from October 22, 2001. 2. Defendant shall pay to claimant twenty two point twenty six (22.26) weeks of healing period benefits due at various times (as set forth in exhibit HH) between December 8, 1998, thru October 21, 2001, at the rate of two hundred forty six and 66/100 dollars ($246.66) per week. 3. Defendant shall pay the medical expenses listed in the attachment to the hearing report that are clearly related to the occupational asthma claim (Iowa Health, St. Lukes, St. Lukes Work Well, Dr. Beckett and Dr. Kline). Defendant shall pay the other expenses only if shown by claimant to be related to either the occupational asthma injury or the temporary injury. 4. Defendant shall pay accrued weekly benefits in a lump sum and shall receive credit against this award for all benefits previously paid. 5. Defendant shall pay interest on weekly benefits awarded herein pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.30. 6. Defendant shall pay the costs of this action pursuant to administrative rule 876 IAC 4.33, including reimbursement to claimant for any filing fee paid in this matter. Defendant shall file a first report of injury for the injury date found herein, 12/8/00 and activity reports on the payment of this award as requested by this agency pursuant to administrative rule 876 IAC 3.1. File No. 1239163 (Date of Injury April 12, 2000) Defendant shall pay the medical expenses listed in the hearing report but only if shown by claimant to be related to the temporary leg injury of April 12, 2000, prior to the full release by Dr. Durand on June 15, 2000. Defendant shall pay the costs of this action pursuant to administrative rule 876 IAC 4.33, including reimbursement to claimant for any filing fee paid in this matter. Defendant shall file subsequent reports of injury on the payment of this award as requested by this agency pursuant to administrative rule 876 IAC 3.1. Signed and filed this ____14th_______ day of May, 2002. ________________________ LARRY P. WALSHIRE DEPUTY WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER Copies to: Mr. Paul McAndrew Attorney at Law 2590 Holiday Rd Ste 100 Coralville, IA 52241 Mr. Scott McLeod Attorney at Law PO Box 2457 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 LAMMEY V. ROCKWELL COLLINS Page PAGE 12 G 8 .U 1U 2U ;U =U `U ~U U V V W W iY Y Y Y =Z CZ \^ u^ ^ ^ ^ ^ _ ` ` ` %a Ea Hb hb b b b b c c yf f g g uh h j 7j ej j j j k k o o p