Claimant,                              File No. 769809
         vs.                                      A R B I T R A T I O N
         SPECIALIZED HAULING, INC.,                  D E C I S I O N
                                                        F I L E D
                                                       JAN 23 1989
         COMPENSATION GROUP,                       INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
              Insurance Carrier,
                              STATEMENT OF THE CASE
              This is a proceeding in arbitration brought by Susan 
         Ketzback, claimant, against Specialized Hauling, Inc., employer 
         (hereinafter referred to as Specialized), and The Iowa 
         Contractors Workers' Compensation Group, insurance carrier, 
         defendants, for workers' compensation benefits as a result of an 
         alleged injury on June 28, 1984.  On June 21, 1988, a hearing was 
         held on claimant's petition and the matter was considered fully 
         submitted at the close of this hearing.
              The parties have submitted a prehearing report of contested 
         issues and stipulations which was approved and accepted as a part 
         of the record of this case at the time of hearing.  Oral testimony 
         was received during the hearing from claimant and Mary Foster.  
         The exhibits received into the evidence at the hearing are listed 
         in the prehearing report.  However, exhibits 21 and 22 (claimant's 
         driving logs for 1983 and 1984) and exhibits 24 and 25 (driving 
         logs for claimant's husband) were not submitted during the hearing 
         in the package of exhibits.  Therefore, exhibits 21, 22, 24 and 25 
         could not be considered in arriving at this decision.  According 
         to the prehearing report, the parties have stipulated to the 
         following matters:
              1.  An employer-employee relationship existed between 
         defendant and claimant on June 28, 1984 at the time claimant 
         alleges to have received her injury herein.
              2.  If the alleged injury is found to have caused permanent 
         disability, the type of disability is an industrial disability to 
         the body as a whole.
              3.  For purposes of computing the compensation rate in this 
         proceeding, claimant was married and entitled to two exemptions 
         on her tax returns at the time of the alleged work injury.
              4.  With reference to the medical bills submitted by 
         claimant at hearing, exhibits 31 and 32, the medical service 
         providers would testify that the charges were fair and 
              The parties submitted the following issues for determination 
         in this proceeding:
                I.  Whether claimant received an injury arising out of and 
         in the course of employment;
               II.  Whether there is a causal relationship between the 
         work injury and the claimed disability;
              III.  The extent of claimant's entitlement to weekly 
         benefits for disability; and,
               IV.  The extent of claimant's entitlement to medical 
                        SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
              The following is a very brief overview of the more important 
         evidence presented.  Whether or not specifically referred to in 
         this summary, all of the evidence received at the hearing was 
         independently reviewed and considered in arriving at this 
         decision.  Any conclusionary statements in the following summary 
         should be considered as preliminary findings of fact.
              Claimant is a 47 year old high school graduate who worked 
         only sporadically outside the home prior to her employment with 
         defendant.  Claimant's earnings from seasonal type employment as 
         a waitress and a store clerk consisted primarily at or slightly 
         above minimum wage.
              Claimant testified that she began her employment at 
         Specialized primarily to save her marriage.  Her husband also 
         worked for Specialized as an over-the-road trucker.  When her 
         husband began to drive with a female team driver, claimant 
         objected.  Claimant then became interested in becoming her 
         husband's team driver.    She attended driving school in 1981 and 
         was hired upon the completion of this training course by 
         Specialized as her husband's team driver.  She began driving with 
         her husband in 1982 but her driving was intermittent in 1982 and 
         1983.  At the time she was not driving with her husband, claimant 
         continued to work at various seasonal employment jobs.  At the 
         time of her claimed work injury herein she was acting as a team 
         driver for her husband and had completed 24 consecutive hauling 
         trips with her husband between March and June 1984.
              Claimant never received any paychecks in her name from 
         Specialized.  All the money earned from her and her husband's 
         driving efforts when they were acting as a team was paid by a 
         check made out to claimant's husband.  Claimant said that she 
         objected to this manner of payment to the president of Specialized 
         but was told that this would be best to preserve her husband's 
         pension rights. Claimant said that she told Specialize to make the 
         check out in both names but this was not done at any time prior to 
         her injury. Claimant said that regardless of the manner of 
         payment, she considered their earnings as joint and all of their 
         earnings were placed into a joint checking account.  Claimant said 
         that her and her husband intended that the money be split 50/50 
         between them.
              Mary Foster, the administrator of Specialized, testified 
         that claimant had no earnings from Specialized and was allowed to 
         drive only as an accommodation to her husband.  She offered 
         statistical evidence to show that claimant and her husband when 
         they acted as a team generated little, if any, additional income 
         as compared to the earnings of claimant's husband while he was 
         driving as a single and as compared to the earnings of other team 
         drivers. Foster also stated that the female team driver who drove 
         with claimant's husband before claimant began driving had 
         received one-third of the trip earnings.  However, the president 
         of Specialized stated in a letter in evidence that Specialized 
         had other team drivers and the money was split among these team 
         drivers on a 50/50 basis.  Foster testified that the claimant and 
         her husband earned the sum of $9,691.43 for 24 completed trips 
         between March 12, 1984 and claimant's injury on June 28, 1984.  
         Claimant's husband drove by himself between January and March of 
         1984 and during the balance of 1984 after claimant received her 
         injuries. Foster testified that one half of the earrings from the 
         trips in which claimant and her husband drove as a team in a 13 
         week period prior to the injury was $4,403.62.
              Claimant testified that she was injured on June 28, 1984, 
         while on a truck driving trip with her husband.  Claimant was 
         attempting to climb into a truck cab when she slipped and fell 
         approximately five feet onto a rock driveway in the State of 
         Arizona.  Claimant said that she lost consciousness momentarily 
         and woke up lying on the ground.  She said that her arm and lower 
         back "hurt bad" and she crawled to an adjacent truck stop 
         building to receive help.  Claimant was taken to a hospital in 
         Arizona and received medical treatment for a fractured right 
         elbow and pelvis. Claimant remained in the hospital for 
         approximately 16 days and returned home by airplane.  Upon her 
         return, claimant continued to receive treatment from D. M. 
         Youngblood, M.D., consisting of physical therapy.  Claimant said 
         that the elbow fracture injury improved but not her back or 
         tailbone.  Claimant said that she was then referred to M. E. 
         Wheeler, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon.  In November 1984, Dr. 
         Wheeler stated that he had nothing to offer for claimant's low 
         back and tailbone pain.  He rated claimant's impairment as four 
         percent of the upper extremity but found no impairment for the 
         pelvic fracture or low back pain.  However, Dr. Wheeler continued 
         to treat claimant until May 1985 and at that time indicated that 
         he could offer no further treatment due to chronic coccydynia.  
         At that time he noted that claimant will have marked difficulty 
         in the future with prolonged sitting.  Claimant was then referred 
         by Dr. Wheeler to the Mayo Clinic.  Physicians at Mayo diagnosed 
         chronic coccydynia and prescribed medication, heat and use of a 
         cushion while sitting.  They noted that with such a condition it 
         would be difficult for claimant to return to truck driving.  Mayo 
         rated claimant's impairment as consisting of four percent to the 
         body as a whole.
              Claimant and her husband moved for a period of time to Texas 
         and claimant received treatment from Arthur L. Sarris, M.D., 
         another orthopedic surgeon.  Dr. Sarris rated claimant's low back 
         problems as consisting of a 25 percent permanent partial 
         impairment to the back as a result of the fall on June 28, 1984. 
         Claimant had underwent a CT scan by Dr. Sarris which indicated 
         degenerative disc disease with moderate bulging of the disc at 
         L4-5 and mild bulging at L5-S1.  Claimant was also evaluated in 
         Texas by Gary Hutchinson, M.D., a neurosurgeon, who diagnosed 
         that claimant was suffering from a lumbar strain superimposed 
         upon degenerative disc disease with no remission and pain 
         according to the history provided since the work injury.  The 
         doctor felt that fusion surgery may be necessary but would 
         recommend medication at the present time.  Upon claimant's return 
         to Iowa, Dr. Wheeler could not relate the CT scan findings to 
         this June 1984 injury noting that claimant's only problems to him 
         concern tailbone pain.
              Claimant admitted at hearing to a prior auto accident 
         involving her neck in July 1981 and received chiropractic 
         treatments following this injury.  Little else was offered into 
         the evidence concerning this injury.
              To date, claimant has refused to pursue the surgery option 
         due to the risks involved and has opted instead for extensive 
         chiropractic treatments between 1986 and 1988 from William 
         Zincke, D.C., and Mark Hagan, D.C.
              Claimant has not returned to truck driving since the June 
         1984 injury.  Claimant states that such driving would be too 
         painful given her chronic low back and tailbone problems. 
         Claimant, however, has returned to employment in jobs similar to 
         the type of jobs she held prior to her driving service with 
         Specialized.  While in Texas, claimant worked as an assistant 
         postal clerk and as a store clerk at Target Stores.  After 
         returning to Iowa claimant worked at a truck stop as a waitress 
         and in telephone sales.  Claimant stated that all of these jobs 
         since the work injury were part-time as she could not work more 
         than a few hours a day due to back pain.  Claimant continues to 
         receive regular chiropractic care and states that she has not 
         been offered any treatment alternative by defendants.  Claimant 
         testified that she continues to have chronic lower back pain and 
         tailbone pain which restricts her ability to sit or stand for 
         prolonged periods of time.
                        APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
              Defendants' briefs and contentions at hearing indicate that 
         claimant's credibility is at issue with reference to the type and 
         extent of her disability and the pain she has experienced since 
         the injury.  Therefore, it will be specifically found that 
         claimant was credible from her consistent and uncontroverted 
         statements to her physicians while testifying at hearing.  Most 
         importantly, her appearance and demeanor while testifying 
         indicated she was testifying truthfully.
                I.  Claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance 
         of the evidence that claimant received an injury which arose 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 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, and a work connected injury 
         which 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 (1960) and cases cited 
              Whether or not claimant suffers from permanent injury from 
         the incident, her uncontroverted and credible testimony clearly 
         established in the record that she suffered an injury to her 
         elbow and tailbone from the fall from her truck on June 28, 
               II.  The claimant has the burden of proving by a 
         preponderance of the evidence that the work injury is a cause of 
         the claimed disability.  A disability may be either temporary or 
         permanent.  In the case of a claim for temporary disability, the 
         claimant must establish that the work injury was a cause of 
         absence from work and lost earnings during a period of recovery 
         from the injury.  Generally, a claim of permanent disability 
         invokes an initial determination of whether the work injury was a 
         cause of permanent physical impairment or permanent limitation in 
         work activity.   However, in some instances, such as a job 
         transfer caused by a work injury, permanent disability benefits 
         can be.awarded without a showing of a causal connection to a 
         physical change of condition.  Blacksmith v. All- American, Inc., 
         290 N.W.2d 348, 354 (Iowa 1980);  McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 
         288 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1980).
              The question of causal connection is essentially within the 
         domain of expert medical opinion.  Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist 
         Hospital, 251 Iowa 375, 101 N.W.2d 167 (1960).  The opinion of 
         experts need not be couched in definite, positive or unequivocal 
         language and the expert opinion may be accepted or rejected, in 
         whole or in part, by the trier of fact.  Sondag v. Ferris 
         Hardware, 220 N.W.2d 903 (Iowa 1974).  The weight to be given to 
         such an opinion is for the finder of fact, and that may be 
         affected by the completeness of the premise given the expert and 
         other surrounding circumstances.  Bodish v. Fischer, Inc., 257 
         Iowa 516, 133 N.W.2d 867 (1965).
              Furthermore, if the available expert testimony is 
         insufficient along to support a finding of causal connection, 
         such testimony may be coupled with nonexpert testimony to show 
         causation and be sufficient to sustain an award.  Giere v. Asse 
         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 v. Oscar Mayer & Co., 217 N.W.2d 531, 536 (Iowa 
         1974).  To establish compensability, the injury need only be a 
         significant factor, not be the only factor causing the claimed 
         disability.  Blacksmith, 290 N.W.2d 348, 354.  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, several physicians have rendered 
         evaluations and conflicting opinions.  However, when combined 
         with claimant's credible testimony, the greater weight of such 
         evidence established that claimant suffered a 10 percent 
         permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole from the 
         injury on June 28, 1984 as a result of her elbow, tailbone and 
         low back injury and pain. The low back condition apparently is a 
         chronic strain syndrome superimposed upon a prior existing 
         degenerative disc disease which was not symptomatic until the 
         June 1984 fall.  Only Dr. Wheeler disagrees with the causal 
         connection of the disc problems to the injury.  His views are 
         somewhat confusing as well as he has opined that there was no 
         permanent partial impairment to the back but expressed the 
         opinion that claimant's condition is permanent and it would be 
         difficult for claimant to return to truck driving due to chronic 
         pain in the tailbone.  Consequently, whether or not such a 
         condition causes impairment of mobility, such a condition does 
         certainly impact upon her earning capacity, a matter to be 
         discussed below.  The 25 percent ratings of Dr. Sarris and Dr. 
         Zincke appear quite high for chronic low back strain and pain in 
         the experience of this deputy commissioner.  Therefore, the 10 
         percent impairment finding was chosen as an appropriate rating to 
         give weight to both the views of the Mayo Clinic and those of Dr. 
         Sarris combined with the experience of this agency with injured 
         workers with similar problems.  Again, such a finding of 
         impairment is only one factor in the total industrial disability 
         analysis which will be discussed below.
              III.  Claimant must establish by a preponderance of the 
         evidence the extent of weekly benefits for permanent disability 
         to which claimant is entitled.  As the claimant has shown that 
         the work injury was a cause of a permanent physical impairment or 
         limitation upon activity involving the body as a whole, the 
         degree of permanent disability must be measured pursuant to Iowa 
         Code section 85.34(2)(u).  However, unlike scheduled member 
         disabilities, the degree of disability under this provision is 
         not measured solely by the extent of a functional impairment or 
         loss of use of a body member.  A disability to the body as a 
         whole or an "industrial disability" is a loss of earning capacity 
         resulting from the work injury.  Diederich v. Tri-City Railway 
         Co., 219 Iowa 587, 593, 258 N.W. 899 (1935).  A physical 
         impairment or restriction on work activity may or may not result 
         in such a loss of earning capacity.  The extent to which a work 
         injury and a resulting medical condition has resulted in an 
         industrial disability is determined from examination of several 
         factors. These factors include 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.  Loss of earnings caused by a job 
         transfer for reasons related to the injury is also relevant.  
         Olson, 255 Iowa 1112, 1121, 125 N.W.2d 251, 257 (1963).  See 
         Peterson v. Truck Haven Cafe, Inc., (Appeal Decision, February 
         28, 1985).
              Claimant's medical condition before the injury was 
         apparently excellent and she had no functional impairments or 
         ascertainable disabilities from the evidence presented.  Nothing 
         was shown to indicate that claimant had any chronic problems 
         after the 1981 auto accident.  Claimant was able to fully perform 
         physical tasks involving the driving of a truck and assisting her 
         husband in the loading and unloading process when necessary.
              Most of claimant's treating physicians have given claimant a 
         significant permanent impairment rating to the body as a whole. 
         More importantly, all have said that claimant will not be able to 
         return to work as a truck driver due to her inability to sit for 
         prolonged periods of time.
              Apart from her lost earnings during her healing period which 
         will be compensated by healing period benefits, claimant has 
         suffered a significant permanent loss in actual earnings ,as a 
         result of her disability.  Claimant currently is unable to 
         perform full time work.  However, claimant's prior employment was 
         quite sporadic and seasonal.  Therefore, her loss is quite 
         moderate when compared to other similarly situated injured 
         workers with permanent light duty restrictions.
              Claimant's age and lack of transferable skills.other than as 
         a retail sales clerk or waitress indicates a low potential for 
         vocational rehabilitation even if such counseling would have been 
         offered by defendants.
              Finally, claimant took the truck driving job for noneconomic 
         reasons.  Claimant had no apparent intention to become a full 
         time truck driver absent her husband's driving.  This aspect also 
         has a moderating impact on the award in this case.
              After examination of all the factors, it is found as a 
         matter of fact that claimant has suffered a 15 percent loss in 
         earning capacity from her work injury.  Based upon such a 
         finding, claimant is entitled as a matter of law to 75 weeks of 
         permanent partial disability benefits under Iowa Code section 
         85.34(2)(u) which is 15 percent of 500 weeks, the maximum 
         allowable for an injury to the body as a whole in that 
              As claimant has established entitlement to permanent partial 
         disability, claimant is entitled to weekly benefits for healing 
         period under Iowa Code section 85.34 from the date of injury 
         until claimant returns to work or until it is indicated that 
         significant improvement from the injury is not anticipated, 
         whichever occurs first.
              In this case, Dr. Wheeler essentially released claimant from 
         his care on May 13, 1985.  However, he did schedule an evaluation 
         at Mayo Clinic for a "second opinion."  This was accomplished on 
         July 5, 1985, upon a recommendation by Mayo doctors of 
         maintenance treatment consisting of heat, medication and use of a 
         cushion during flare-ups.  Claimant received treatment in Texas 
         after that time but nothing new in the form of treatment was 
         offered. Claimant's complaints appear to level off after the Mayo 
         Clinic evaluation.  Therefore, it shall be found that claimant 
         reached maximum healing on July 5, 1985 after the second opinion 
         was issued from the Mayo Clinic.  Benefits will then be awarded 
         from the date of injury until July 5, 1985.
               IV.  Pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.27, claimant is 
         entitled to payment of reasonable medical expenses incurred for 
         treatment of a work injury.  Claimant seeks in this case 
         reimbursement for the chiropractic care she has received from 
         Drs. Hagan and Zincke from 1986 through 1988.  However, both of 
         these bills indicate that the charges were for treatment to both 
         the neck or thoracic spine pain as well as low back pain.  No 
         attempt was made by claimant to separate the charges despite the 
         fact that no work injury to the neck or thoracic area was alleged 
         or shown in the proceeding.  Consequently, claimant's request for 
         full payment of these benefits is denied.  However, it is ordered 
         that defendants shall seek from these doctors an apportionment of 
         their respective bills to show only charges for low back and 
         tailbone pain treatment and defendants shall pay such charges.  
         If these doctors refuse or are unable to do so, defendants shall 
         not be obligated to pay such bills.
                V.  The parties raise an issue of the appropriate rate of 
         compensation to be utilized for the payment of weekly benefits 
         awarded herein.  This dispute involves only the amount of gross 
         weekly benefits as entitlement to marital status and exemptions 
         have been stipulated.  After considering the evidence, it is found 
         that the most appropriate gross weekly rate is the average of 50 
         percent of the earnings from the trips in which both the claimant 
         and husband drove for the 13 week period prior to the injury.  
         This is the method set forth in Iowa Code section 85.36(7).  The 
         undersigned does not feel bound by who was listed as payee on the 
         checks or how claimant and her husband completed their income tax 
         returns.  The testimony of claimant that such money was intended 
         to be split 50/50 when she drove with him is uncontroverted and 
         supported by the evidence when you consider other team drivers 
         working at Specialized.  Whether or not other teams made more 
         money is not significant.  The evidence shows that claimant 
         actually worked as a team driver at the time of injury.  
         Furthermore, each check received by claimant and her husband was 
         placed into a joint checking account and spent on family expenses 
         from which each derived an equal economic benefit.
              According to the uncontroverted testimony of Foster, 
         claimant's 50 percent share of earnings during this 13 week 
         period prior to June 28, 1984 was $4,403.62 or an average of 
         $338.74 per week.  This equates to a rate of compensation 
         according to the commissioner's rate booklet for a June 1984 
         injury of $214.58.
                               FINDING OF FACT
              1.  Claimant was a credible witness.
              2.  On June 28, 1984, claimant suffered an injury to the 
         right elbow, pelvis, low back and tailbone which arose out of and 
         in the course of her employment with Specialized.  Claimant fell 
         from her truck while on a road trip with her husband while acting 
         as a team driver with him.
              3.  The work injury was a cause of a period of total 
         disability from work beginning on June 28, 1984 and ending on 
         July 5, 1985, at which time claimant reached maximum healing.
              4.  The work injury of June 28, 1984 was a cause of a 10 
         percent permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole as a 
         result of chronic low back pain and tailbone pain and of 
         permanent restrictions upon claimant's physical activity 
         consisting of no prolonged sitting or standing.  Claimant's 
         chronic low back strain from the injury was superimposed upon a 
         prior existing degenerative disc disease which made the prior 
         existing condition symptomatic and there has been no remission of 
         these symptoms since the time of the injury.
              5.  The work injury of June 28, 1984 and the resulting 
         permanent partial impairment was a cause of a 15 percent loss of 
         earning capacity.  Claimant is 47 years of age and has a high 
         school education but no other formal training except for driving 
         a semi tractor trailer truck.  Claimant is unable to return to 
         truck driving due to her impairment and work restrictions.  
         Claimant's employment before the work injury and before her 
         driving employment with Specialized was intermittent and sporadic 
         seasonal work as a waitress and retail sales clerk.  Claimant's 
         employment since the injury has been in part-time waitress and 
         retail sales clerk work.  Claimant is unable to work full time 
         due to her employment caused by the work injury.  However, 
         claimant became a truck driver with her husband to save her 
         marriage and had no independent desire to be a truck driver on 
         her own.
              6.  A finding could not be made that the chiropractic care 
         claimant received from 1986 through 1988 was causally related to 
         the work injury due to treatment for both non-work and work 
         related conditions by Drs. Mark Hagan and William Zincke.
                             CONCLUSION OF LAW
              As set forth in the analysis section, claimant has 
         established under law entitlement to disability benefits awarded 
              1.  Defendants shall pay to claimant seventy-five (75) weeks 
         of permanent partial disability benefits at the rate of two 
         hundred fourteen and 58/100 dollars ($214.58) per week from July 
         6, 1985.
              2.  Defendants shall pay to claimant healing period benefits 
         from June 28, 1984 through July 5, 1985 at the rate of two 
         hundred fourteen and 58/100 dollars ($214.58) per week.
              3.  Defendants shall pay accrued weekly benefits in a lump 
         sum and shall receive credit against this award for weekly 
         benefits previously paid as stipulated in the prehearing report 
         filed herein.
              4.  Defendants shall request from William Zincke, D.C., and 
         Mark Hagan, D.C., an apportionment of charges submitted in 
         exhibits 31 and 32 in this proceeding to identify only treatment 
         for low back and tailbone pain and defendants are directed to pay 
         that amount so apportioned.  Any charges that the doctors cannot 
         so apportion will not be the responsibility of the defendants.
              5.  Defendants shall pay interest on weekly benefits as set 
         forth in Iowa Code section 85.30.
              6.  Defendants shall pay the cost of this action pursuant to 
         Division of Industrial Services Rule 343-4.33.
              7.  Defendants shall file activity reports on the payment of 
         this award as requested by this agency pursuant to Division of 
         Industrial Services Rule 343-3.1.
              Signed and filed this 23rd day of January, 1989.
                                            LARRY P. WALSHIRE
                                            DEPUTY INDUSTRIAL 
         Copies To:
         Mr. Harry H. Smith
         Attorney at Law
         P. 0. Box 1194
         Sioux City, Iowa  51102
         Mr. John A. Templer, Jr.
         Mr. Dean C. Mohr
         Attorneys at Law
         3737 Woodland, STE 437
         West Des Moines, Iowa  50265
                                            1802; 1803; 2500; 3000
                                            Filed January 23, 1989
                                            LARRY P. WALSHIRE
         vs.                                         File No. 769809
         SPECIALIZED HAULING, INC.,               A R B I T R A T I 0 N
              Employer,                              D E C I S I 0 N
              Insurance Carrier,
         1802; 1803; 2500; 3000
              Claimant was a team driver with her husband but only worked 
         intermittently before the work injury.  Claimant began team 
         driving primarily to save her marriage when she disliked the idea 
         of her husband teaming up with another female driver.  Claimant's 
         injury caused disability which prevents her return to truck 
         driving and prevents full time work in the seasonal type of 
         employment that she had performed before becoming a truck driver. 
         Only 15 percent permanent partial impairment was awarded due to 
         her erratic and low earnings from employment prior to the work 
         injury and given the circumstances behind her becoming a team 
         truck driver.  It is found that she did not have an independent 
         desire to be a truck driver without her husband's involvement.  
         The rate was calculated on the basis of 50 percent of the 13 week 
         earnings prior to the injury. Although all the money was paid by 
         Specialized trucking to her husband, the paychecks were placed 
         into a joint checking account and each derived an equal economic 
         benefit from the earnings.
         vs.                                        File No. 769809
         SPECIALIZED HAULING, INC.,                  A M E N D E D
              Employer,                             D E C I S I 0 N
         and                                           F I L E D
         THE IOWA CONTRACTORS WORKERS'                JAN 26 1989
                                             IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER
              Insurance Carrier,
              The following finding no. 7 was inadvertently left out of 
         the original decision and is now added to the arbitration 
         decision filed January 23, 1989:
              7.  Claimant's gross weekly earnings during the 13 week 
         period prior to the work injury of June 28, 1984 averaged 
         $338.74. This is 50 percent of the total earnings earned by both 
         claimant and her husband during the period although the money was 
         paid by check only to claimant's husband.  Claimant worked full 
         time with her husband and deserved an equal economic benefit from 
         her earnings which were placed into a joint checking account.
              Signed and filed this 26th day of January, 1989.
                                            LARRY P. WALSHIRE
                                            DEPUTY INDUSTRIAL 
         Copies To:
         Mr. Harry H. Smith
         Attorney at Law
         P. 0. Box 1194
         Sioux City, Iowa  51102
         Mr. John A. Templer, Jr.
         Mr. Dean C. Mohr
         Attorneys at Law
         3737 Woodland, STE 437
         West Des Moines, Iowa  50265