CASE NO. 729 CRD-6-88-9Workers’ Compensation Commission
OCTOBER 19, 1989
The claimant was represented by Paul Chill, Esq., and Marcus L. Penzel, Esq., both of Garrison, Kahn, Silbert and Arterton.
The respondents were represented by Kevin Maher, Esq., Maher Williams.
This Petition for Review from the April 5, 1988 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Sixth District was heard June 23, 1989 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Michael S. Sherman and A. Thomas White, Jr.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.
The Sixth District April 5, 1988 Finding and Award granted permanent partial disability benefits to claimant for both hands, fifty per cent loss of use. There had previously been a disfigurement award for fifteen weeks.
Respondents’ appeal argues: (1) the trial commissioner’s conclusion was not legally supported by the evidence below[1]
and (2) the trial commissioner’s conclusion was the result of a misinterpretation of the applicable law. The commissioner found that claimant was employed as a plumber from 1964 through April 15, 1983. In the course of his employment claimant was exposed to chemicals and mechanical friction causing chronic hand contact dermatitis compatible with psoriasis. Additionally the condition of claimant’s skin caused restricted motion and desensitization of claimant’s hands.
Our review of the record indicates the trial commissioner relied heavily on the testimony of Dr. Steven R. Cohen, M.D. as presented in his deposition of July 24, 1984. Respondents contend that testimony did not support the findings and conclusions. Our review on appeal is limited to determining whether there was evidence to support the conclusions reached and whether those conclusions were based on impermissible or unreasonable factual inferences, Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535 (1988).
Dr. Cohen testified that claimant’s skin condition restricted motion in the hands and caused pain and decreased sensation (Deposition, of July 24, 1984, p. 81). His opinion, was that there was a fifty per cent to sixty per cent permanent partial disability. (Deposition, p. 46, 58) The conclusion drawn by the trial commissioner does not therefore justify judicial interference. Bailey v. Mitchell, 113 Conn. 721
(1931). What weight and credibility is to be given evidence is a matter to be decided by the trier of facts. Wheat v. Red Star Express Lines, 156 Conn. 245 (1968).
As to the second issue respondents contend there was no orthopedic or neurologic permanent impairment and therefore there could be no disability found under Sec. 31-308(b). We have cited Dr. Cohen’s testimony above. From that evidence the commissioner below could reasonably infer that the chronic dermatitis suffered by the claimant reached sufficient levels to impair the motion and use of his hands. No less an authority than the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment has stated:
Impairments of other body systems, such as behavioral problems, restriction of motion or ankylosis of joints, and respiratory, cardiovascular, endocrine, and gastrointestinal disorders, may be associated with a skin impairment. When there is permanent impairment in more than one body system, the degree of impairment for each system should be evaluated separately and combined, using the combined values chart, to determine the impairment of the whole person.
Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, American Medical Association at 203 (2nd ed. 1984).
The AMA’s suggested evaluation methods as to skin impairments lends credence to a finding of permanent disability of claimant’s hands due to the skin disorder. Respondents have cited no precedents holding that Sec. 31-308(b) permanent disability can only be based on orthopedic or neurologic impairment. We, therefore, conclude that the trial commissioner’s award was proper under sec. 31-308(b) and not erroneous as a matter of law.
We, therefore, affirm the trial commissioner’s Finding and Award.
Commissioners Michael S. Sherman and A. Thomas White, Jr. concur.