BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER
 
        
 
        
 
        DEANA ASKELSON,
 
        
 
             Claimant,
 
             
 
        vs.                                               File No. 
 
        771130
 
        
 
        J & M INC. OF BADGER,                             A R B I T R A 
 
        T I O N
 
        
 
            Employer,                                    D E C I S I O 
 
        N
 
        
 
        and
 
                                                       F I L E D
 
        UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY,
 
                                                      MAR 29 1989
 
             Insurance Carrier,
 
             Defendants.                          INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
 
             
 
             
 
                                      INTRODUCTION
 
        
 
             This is a proceeding in arbitration brought by the claimant, 
 
             Deana Askelson, against her employer, J & M Inc. of Badger, and 
 
             its insurance carrier, United Fire & Casualty Company, to recover 
 
             benefits under the Iowa Workers' Compensation Act as a result of 
 
             an injury sustained on July 23, 1984. This matter came on for 
 
             hearing before the undersigned deputy industrial commissioner at 
 
             Fort Dodge, Iowa on January 18, 1989. A first report of injury 
 
             was filed on August 6, 1984. A final report was received on 
 
             March 5, 1985 which final report indicates that claimant was paid 
 
             14 weeks of temporary total/healing period benefits and 12.5 
 
             weeks of permanent partial disability benefits as well as medical 
 
             benefits in the amount of $19,245.68. The record in this 
 
             proceeding consists of the testimony of claimant, of Kelly 
 
             Gonder, of Norman E. Moon, and of Herbert Kersten, M.D., as well 
 
             as of claimant's exhibits 1 through 7 and defendants' exhibits A 
 
             through K as identified on the parties' respective exhibits 
 
             lists.
 
        
 
                                      ISSUES
 
        
 
             Pursuant to the prehearing report and the oral stipulations 
 
             of the parties at hearing, the parties stipulated that claimant 
 
             sustained an injury on July 23, 1984 which arose out of and in 
 
             the course of her employment which was the cause of temporary and 
 
             permanent disability for which claimant has been paid all 
 
             temporary total/healing period and permanent partial disability 
 
             benefits to which she is entitled. The parties agreed that the 
 
             only issue remaining to be decided is whether claimant is 
 
             entitled to payment of certain medical costs, that is, costs for 
 
             treatment with Douglas S. Parks, M.D., at Iowa Methodist Medical 
 
             Center and related care as care authorized by the defendants, as 
 
             care reasonable and necessary for the treatment of claimant's 
 
             condition, and as care, the costs of which are fair and 
 
             reasonable.
 
        
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
                                 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
 
        
 
             Claimant is a 24-year-old single woman with one child. She 
 
             sustained burns on the right side of her face, right side of her 
 
             neck, chest and breast as well as on her stomach and the right 
 
             side of her trunk and right underarm when a broiler exploded 
 
             during the course of her work as a cook for the defendant 
 
             employer. Immediately subsequent to the injury, claimant was 
 
             hospitalized at Trinity Regional Hospital for approximately two 
 
             months during which time Herbert Kersten, M.D., a Dr. LeValley, 
 
             and a Dr. Miller treated claimant . Claimant testified that she 
 
             received skin grafts and physical therapy intended to relieve 
 
             tightness and pulling of the scar tissue in the upper arm area. 
 
             She stated that her skin grafts did not increase right arm 
 
             mobility, but "greatly improved" the skin's appearance.
 
        
 
            Claimant expressed her belief that her face was discolored 
 
        subsequent to her burn injury and reported that she was 
 
        self-conscious about her burn following her hospital release. No 
 
        visible scarring or discoloration was observed on claimant's face 
 
        at hearing. Claimant reported that she could wear clothing on 
 
        the burned areas of her body only subsequent to her hospital 
 
        release, but that clothing irritated the burned areas. She 
 
        stated that discomfort prevented her from wearing a bra.
 
        
 
            Claimant reported that she saw Ralph Cram, M.D., at the 
 
        University of Iowa Burn Unit in January, 1985. She stated that 
 
        Dr. Cram recommended dermabrasion treatment at least two years 
 
        subsequent to her injury. Claimant later saw Gerald P. Kealey, 
 
        M.D., at the University of Iowa Burn Unit. She reported that Dr. 
 
        Kealey did not recommend dermabrasion as her scarring was too 
 
        deep. He did give her names of physicians qualified to perform 
 
        dermabrasion, however. Claimant subsequently saw Douglas Parks, 
 
        M.D., who performed tissue expansion procedures at Iowa Methodist 
 
        Hospital. Claimant stated that the procedures were carried out 
 
        in the right lower arm, in the chest below the breast and on the 
 
        right side of her trunk in an attempt to normalize the skin's 
 
        appearance. She agreed that all areas on which the procedures 
 
        were performed were covered with clothing save for the lower arm. 
 
        Claimant reported that the tissue expansion procedures had 
 
        increased her movement in the arm and had improved her appearance 
 
        although the effect on her appearance had not been as beneficial 
 
        as she had hoped. She reported that the procedures had decreased 
 
        her problems with not being outgoing and that she no longer found 
 
        clothing irritating although it was still uncomfortable to wear a 
 
        bra.
 
        
 
            Claimant agreed that she had not advised defendants that she 
 
        was treating with Dr. Parks, but for a casual conversation with 
 
        her own insurance agent. She stated that Dr. Parks' bill as well 
 
        as the anesthesiologist's bill remain unpaid. She agreed that 
 
        defendants had paid all Trinity Regional Hospital and University 
 
        of Iowa medical bills and agreed that she had advised the insurer 
 
        of her Trinity and University of Iowa care.
 
        
 
             Kelly Gonder identified herself as a friend of claimant and 
 
             reported that prior to her injury, claimant had been outgoing, 
 
             but subsequent to her injury, claimant's personality changed. 
 
             She reported that claimant has now "gotten better" insofar as she 
 
             is able to interact with persons other than her close friends. 
 
             She reported that claimant continues to wear long-sleeved shirts 
 
             in hot summer weather.
 
        
 
            Norman E. Moon testified that he is supervisor for workers' 
 
        compensation claims with the insurance carrier. He reported that 
 
        the insurer had relied upon August 12, 1985 and December 18, 1985 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        letters of Drs. Cram and Kealey respectively stating that 
 
        claimant required no further treatment but for possible 
 
        dermabrasion. He reported the insurer was first aware that 
 
        claimant was treating with Dr. Parks when defendants' counsel 
 
        inquired regarding mileage payments for treatment with Dr. Parks. 
 
        Moon indicated that neither claimant nor her counsel ever 
 
        contacted the insurer regarding care with Dr. Parks even though 
 
        claimant's workers' compensation claim had been filed in 
 
        September, 1986.
 
        
 
            Herbert Kersten, M.D., identified himself as a general 
 
        surgeon practicing in the Fort Dodge area since 1952. Dr. 
 
        Kersten stated that, while hospitalized at Trinity Regional 
 
        Hospital, claimant had had contracture in the anterior fold of 
 
        the right axilla which he characterized as shrinkage of scar 
 
        tissue in front of the fold that goes from the chest to the right 
 
        arm. The arm was manipulated and stretched and then dressed away 
 
        from the body in order to minimize the web formation. Dr. 
 
        Kersten stated that such contractures are usually but not always 
 
        permanently controllable. Dr. Kersten stated that, after 
 
        claimant's skin grafts had healed, claimant had normal arm 
 
        motion, but needed to stretch the arm tissue uncomfortably to 
 
        achieve that motion. Dr. Kersten testified that, following 
 
        claimant's graft, she had minimal scarring on her face and neck, 
 
        but did have significant scarring on the chest wall and arm. Dr. 
 
        Kersten reported that claimant had second degree burns on her 
 
        face, neck and arm and extensive third degree burns on the side 
 
        of her chest and near the breast. Dr. Kersten stated that a 
 
        graft over a third degree burn is essentially numb, but does 
 
        produce permanent impairment of sensation.
 
        
 
            Dr. Kersten characterized claimant's tissue expansion 
 
        procedure as corrective plastic surgery primarily done to correct 
 
        impaired function and not primarily done for appearance's sake.
 
        
 
            Dr. Kersten reported that he had examined claimant on 
 
        January 9, 1989. He reported that claimant's chest area 
 
        extending under the arm and into the back was "close to normal 
 
        except for appearance." He stated there was no visible 
 
        contracture, but minimal scarring. He characterized the risk of 
 
        future contracture as a "diminishing probability as time goes 
 
        by." Dr. Kersten stated that the tissue expansion procedure does 
 
        not really improve the skin's appearance, but for eliminating the 
 
        underlying contracture so that the skin adapts a more normal 
 
        contour. Dr. Kersten opined that, if the record shows that 
 
        contracture was again trying to form, the tissue expansion 
 
        procedure was justified. He opined that severe burns permanently 
 
        change the body's appearance and thereby affect an individual's 
 
        self-image and confidence. He stated it was appropriate to work 
 
        with those changes in dealing medically with a burn victim.
 
        
 
             On August 12, 1985, Albert E. Cram, M.D., reported that 
 
             under the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 
 
             for skin disorders, claimant had a class 2 impairment 
 
             representing a 12% permanent impairment of the whole person. He 
 
             stated he did not anticipate any additional or future surgical 
 
             procedure, but had prescribed an overhead pulley system to help 
 
             claimant exercise the burn contracture in the axilla which 
 
             contracture he characterized as extremely mild. On January 31, 
 
             1985, he recommended claimant be considered for dermabrasion two 
 
             years post surgery.
 
        
 
            On December 18, 1985, Gerald P. Kealey, M.D., Assistant 
 
        Professor of Surgery at the University of Iowa, reported that 
 
        claimant's burn injury to the right anterolateral thorax was 
 
        fully healed and that she had no loss of motion of the right 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        shoulder. He reported that she had no scar contracture or loss of 
 
        function of the right upper extremity, but did have some 
 
        hypopigmentation of the grafted area over the right breast and 
 
        right anterior chest. He stated that claimant had no complaints 
 
        of itching or dryness and that there was no evidence of 
 
        hypertrophic scarring. Dr. Kealey reported claimant as wishing to 
 
        consider dermabrasion for cosmesis some time in the future.
 
        
 
            On November 19, 1984, Dr. Kersten reported that claimant's 
 
        major sequelae of her burns were scarring of the chest wall, arm, 
 
        breast and contracture of the right axillary fold. He reported 
 
        that her graft donor sites had healed well with faint scarring 
 
        which would be permanent. The first and second degree burns on 
 
        the right side of her face and neck were reported as having 
 
        healed with very faint residual scarring that may fade further, 
 
        but which will leave some permanent scarring. He reported that 
 
        the deeper burns on the right anterior chest, right breast, right 
 
        axilla and right inner and anterior arm were all well healed with 
 
        considerable cosmetic scarring and with the development of an 
 
        early contracture along the right axillary fold. He then thought 
 
        that such would require revision the following Spring. On 
 
        January 29, 1985, Dr. Kersten advised claimant that she should 
 
        wait for her scars to stop shrinking before undergoing skin 
 
        grafting and revision. He stated, "[t]he bands which are forming 
 
        can then be correct [sic]."
 
        
 
             On November 23, 1987, Dr. Parks of Plastic-Reconstructive, 
 
             Cosmetic & Hand Surgery, reported that claimant had significant 
 
             residual scarring on her chest, arm, and back. He further 
 
             reported the following:
 
        
 
             She originally had some skin grafting done but now she has 
 
             significant residual scarring on her chest, arms and back. 
 
             At this time she presents to have this burn revised.
 
             
 
             I counselled her in the various techniques available and at 
 
             this time tissue expansion under the normal skin next to the 
 
             burn area with expansion of the skin and excising the burn 
 
             and pulling this normal skin up seemed most appropriate in 
 
             her case. This she desires to have done to reconstruct her 
 
             chest wall to a more normal looking appearance. This should 
 
             allow her to function more effectively.
 
             
 
             In an office note of March 10, 1988, Dr. Parks stated:
 
             
 
             ...the object is to get normal looking skin to cover most of 
 
             her back and side so she would look better in her clothes 
 
             and feel better.
 
             
 
             In a note to United Fire & Casualty Company dated November 
 
             10, 1987, Dr. Parks stated the following in response to Norman E. 
 
             Moon's request that he advise who had referred claimant to him as 
 
             a patient:
 
        
 
             Pt was referred by my office manager, as her surgeon in Iowa 
 
             City was gone.
 
             
 
             Medical bills outstanding are apparently a bill of 
 
             Associated Anesthesiologists in the amount of $930.00; a bill of 
 
             Dr. Parks in the amount of $5,297.50; and, bills of Iowa 
 
             Methodist Medical Center in the amounts of $30.90 and $3,477.25. 
 
             On claimant's exhibit list, claimant lists an Iowa Methodist 
 
             Medical Center bill in the amount of $2,100.36. No exhibit 
 
             documenting such charge was submitted into evidence, however. 
 
             Claimant, by way of her exhibit 11, states that she has traveled 
 
             2,750 miles to Des Moines as expenses in this matter.
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        
 
                            APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
 
        
 
             Our only issue is whether claimant is entitled to payment of 
 
             her medical costs and medical mileage expenses related to the 
 
             tissue expansion procedures which Dr. Parks performed.
 
        
 
            Section 85.27 provides that employers furnish employees 
 
        reasonable surgical, medical, and hospital services and supplies 
 
        when an injury arises out of and in the course of the employment. 
 
        Medical treatment provided need not reduce impairment or 
 
        disability. Zimmerman v. L. L. Pelling Co., II Iowa Industrial 
 
        Commissioner Report, 462, 463 (App. Decn. 1982). The section 
 
        also provides that claimant shall be paid reasonable and 
 
        necessary transportation expenses incurred in the course of 
 
        receiving such medical services. The employer has the right to 
 
        chose the care. "The employee has the burden of showing the 
 
        treatment is related to the injury. Proof of the necessity of 
 
        the treatment may be found in the claimant's own testimony." 
 
        Lawyer and Higgs, Iowa Workers' Compensation--Law and Practice, 
 
        section 15-1.
 
        
 
             Where a designated physician refers a claimant to another 
 
             physician, the designated physician acts as the employer's agent. 
 
             It is not necessary then for defendants to authorize such 
 
             referral. See Kittrell v. Allen Memorial Hospital, 34th Biennial 
 
             Report of the Iowa Industrial Commissioner, 164 (1979).
 
        
 
            Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines 
 
        "reasonable" as agreeable to reason; not extreme or excessive; 
 
        moderate; fair.
 
        
 
            Defendants first contend that claimant's treatment with Dr. 
 
        Parks was not reasonable and necessary. We note that section 
 
        85.27 expressly states only that the treatment must be 
 
        reasonable, not that such be necessary. Nor can it be inferred 
 
        from the section or from the common definition of reasonable that 
 
        treatment must be absolutely necessary before such is permissible 
 
        as reasonable treatment. Claimant reports that the tissue 
 
        expansion procedure which Dr. Parks performed increased her arm 
 
        movement. Objective records would suggest that claimant received 
 
        relatively little, if any, benefit by way of increased arm 
 
        movement given the extremely mild contracture which Dr. Cram 
 
        reported in August of 1985 and the lack of any loss of motion in 
 
        either the right shoulder or the right upper extremity which Dr. 
 
        Kealey reported in December 1985. Hence, it appears that the 
 
        real benefit, if any, derived from the tissue expansion procedure 
 
        related to claimant's appearance and self-image. Indeed, while 
 
        Dr. Kersten testified that the tissue expansion procedure was 
 
        primarily corrective plastic surgery and to increase claimant's 
 
        arm movement, Dr. Parks who performed the tissue expansion 
 
        procedure apparently felt that the primary purpose was for 
 
        cosmesis. Dr. Parks stated, "The objective is to get normal 
 
        looking skin to cover most of her back and side so she would look 
 
        better in her clothes and feel better."
 
        
 
            Defendants apparently assert that if the primary purpose was 
 
        cosmesis, the treatment was not reasonable. They appear to rely 
 
        upon the fact that the areas affected can generally be covered 
 
        with clothing. Defendants argument is not well taken. A sense 
 
        that one's body appears normal and need not be constantly covered 
 
        is generally important to most individuals' well being. Dr. 
 
        Kersten reported that changes in physical appearance and 
 
        resulting changes in self-image and individual confidence were 
 
        typical sequelae following burn injuries. He opined that it was 
 
        appropriate [medically] to work with such changes. Both claimant 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        and Kelly Gonder testified that claimant had a decrease in 
 
        self-confidence and decreased ability to internsion procedures which Dr. Parks performed.
 
        
 
            Section 85.27 provides that employers furnish employees 
 
        reasonable surgical, medical, and hospital services and supplies 
 
        when an injury arises out of and in the course of the employment. 
 
        Medical treatment provided need not reduce impairment or 
 
        disability. Zimmerman v. L. L. Pelling Co., II Iowa Industrial 
 
        Commissioner Report, 462, 463 (App. Decn. 1982). The section 
 
        also provides that claimant shall be paid reasonable and 
 
        necessary transportation expenses incurred in the course of 
 
        receiving such medical services. The employer has the right to 
 
        chose the care. "The employee has the burden of showing the 
 
        treatment is related to the injury. Proof of the necessity of 
 
        the treatment may be found in the claimant's own testimony." 
 
        Lawyer and Higgs, Iowa Workers' Compensation--Law and Practice, 
 
        section 15-1.
 
        
 
             Where a designated physician refers a claimant to another 
 
             physician, the designated physician acts as the employer's agent. 
 
             It is not necessary then for defendants to authorize such 
 
             referral. See Kittrell v. Allen Memorial Hospital, 34th Biennial 
 
             Report of the Iowa Industrial Commissioner, 164 (1979).
 
        
 
            Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines 
 
        "reasonable" as agreeable to reason; not extreme or excessive; 
 
        moderate; fair.
 
        
 
            Defendants first contend that claimant's treatment with Dr. 
 
        Parks was not reasonable and necessary. We note that section 
 
        85.27 expressly states only that the treatment must be 
 
        reasonable, not that such be necessary. Nor can it be inferred 
 
        from the section or from the common definition of reasonable that 
 
        treatment must be absolutely necessary before such is permissible 
 
        as reasonable treatment. Claimant reports that the tissue 
 
        expansion procedure which Dr. Parks performed increased her arm 
 
        movement. Objective records would suggest that claimant received 
 
        relatively little, if any, benefit by way of increased arm 
 
        movement given the extremely mild contracture which Dr. Cram 
 
        reported in August of 1985 and the lack of any loss of motion in 
 
        either the right shoulder or the right upper extremity which Dr. 
 
        Kealey reported in December 1985. Hence, it appears that the 
 
        real benefit, if any, derived from the tissue expansion procedure 
 
        related to claimant's appearance and self-image. Indeed, while 
 
        Dr. Kersten testified that the tissue expansion procedure was 
 
        primarily corrective plastic surgery and to increase claimant's 
 
        arm movement, Dr. Parks who performed the tissue expansion 
 
        procedure apparently felt that the primary purpose was for 
 
        cosmesis. Dr. Parks stated, "The objective is to get normal 
 
        looking skin to cover most of her back and side so she would look 
 
        better in her clothes and feel better."
 
        
 
            Defendants apparently assert that if the primary purpose was 
 
        cosmesis, the treatment was not reasonable. They appear to rely 
 
        upon the fact that the areas affected can generally be covered 
 
        with clothing. Defendants argument is not well taken. A sense 
 
        that one's body appears normal and need not be constantly covered 
 
        is generally important to most individuals' well being. Dr. 
 
        Kersten reported that changes in physical appearance and 
 
        resulting changes in self-image and individual confidence were 
 
        typical sequelae following burn injuries. He opined that it was 
 
        appropriate [medically] to work with such changes. Both claimant 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        and Kelly Gonder testified that claimant had a decrease in 
 
        self-confidence and decreased ability to internsion procedures which Dr. Parks performed.
 
        
 
            Section 85.27 provides that employers furnish employees 
 
        reasonable surgical, medical, and hospital services and supplies 
 
        when an injury arises out of and in the course of the employment. 
 
        Medical treatment provided need not reduce impairment or 
 
        disability. Zimmerman v. L. L. Pelling Co., II Iowa Industrial 
 
        Commissioner Report, 462, 463 (App. Decn. 1982). The section 
 
        also provides that claimant shall be paid reasonable and 
 
        necessary transportation expenses incurred in the course of 
 
        receiving such medical services. The employer has the right to 
 
        chose the care. "The employee has the burden of showing the 
 
        treatment is related to the injury. Proof of the necessity of 
 
        the treatment may be found in the claimant's own testimony." 
 
        Lawyer and Higgs, Iowa Workers' Compensation--Law and Practice, 
 
        section 15-1.
 
        
 
             Where a designated physician refers a claimant to another 
 
             physician, the designated physician acts as the employer's agent. 
 
             It is not necessary then for defendants to authorize such 
 
             referral. See Kittrell v. Allen Memorial Hospital, 34th Biennial 
 
             Report of the Iowa Industrial Commissioner, 164 (1979).
 
        
 
            Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines 
 
        "reasonable" as agreeable to reason; not extreme or excessive; 
 
        moderate; fair.
 
        
 
            Defendants first contend that claimant's treatment with Dr. 
 
        Parks was not reasonable and necessary. We note that section 
 
        85.27 expressly states only that the treatment must be 
 
        reasonable, not that such be necessary. Nor can it be inferred 
 
        from the section or from the common definition of reasonable that 
 
        treatment must be absolutely necessary before such is permissible 
 
        as reasonable treatment. Claimant reports that the tissue 
 
        expansion procedure which Dr. Parks performed increased her arm 
 
        movement. Objective records would suggest that claimant received 
 
        relatively little, if any, benefit by way of increased arm 
 
        movement given the extremely mild contracture which Dr. Cram 
 
        reported in August of 1985 and the lack of any loss of motion in 
 
        either the right shoulder or the right upper extremity which Dr. 
 
        Kealey reported in December 1985. Hence, it appears that the 
 
        real benefit, if any, derived from the tissue expansion procedure 
 
        related to claimant's appearance and self-image. Indeed, while 
 
        Dr. Kersten testified that the tissue expansion procedure was 
 
        primarily corrective plastic surgery and to increase claimant's 
 
        arm movement, Dr. Parks who performed the tissue expansion 
 
        procedure apparently felt that the primary purpose was for 
 
        cosmesis. Dr. Parks stated, "The objective is to get normal 
 
        looking skin to cover most of her back and side so she would look 
 
        better in her clothes and feel better."
 
        
 
            Defendants apparently assert that if the primary purpose was 
 
        cosmesis, the treatment was not reasonable. They appear to rely 
 
        upon the fact that the areas affected can generally be covered 
 
        with clothing. Defendants argument is not well taken. A sense 
 
        that one's body appears normal and need not be constantly covered 
 
        is generally important to most individuals' well being. Dr. 
 
        Kersten reported that changes in physical appearance and 
 
        resulting changes in self-image and individual confidence were 
 
        typical sequelae following burn injuries. He opined that it was 
 
        appropriate [medically] to work with such changes. Both claimant 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        and Kelly Gonder testified that claimant had a decrease in 
 
        self-confidence and decreased ability to internsion procedures which Dr. Parks performed.
 
        
 
            Section 85.27 provides that employers furnish employees 
 
        reasonable surgical, medical, and hospital services and supplies 
 
        when an injury arises out of and in the course of the employment. 
 
        Medical treatment provided need not reduce impairment or 
 
        disability. Zimmerman v. L. L. Pelling Co., II Iowa Industrial 
 
        Commissioner Report, 462, 463 (App. Decn. 1982). The section 
 
        also provides that claimant shall be paid reasonable and 
 
        necessary transportation expenses incurred in the course of 
 
        receiving such medical services. The employer has the right to 
 
        chose the care. "The employee has the burden of showing the 
 
        treatment is related to the injury. Proof of the necessity of 
 
        the treatment may be found in the claimant's own testimony." 
 
        Lawyer and Higgs, Iowa Workers' Compensation--Law and Practice, 
 
        section 15-1.
 
        
 
             Where a designated physician refers a claimant to another 
 
             physician, the designated physician acts as the employer's agent. 
 
             It is not necessary then for defendants to authorize such 
 
             referral. See Kittrell v. Allen Memorial Hospital, 34th Biennial 
 
             Report of the Iowa Industrial Commissioner, 164 (1979).
 
        
 
            Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines 
 
        "reasonable" as agreeable to reason; not extreme or excessive; 
 
        moderate; fair.