BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER
 
        
 
        
 
        DEAN YOUNG,
 
        
 
            Claimant,
 
        
 
        vs.                               File No. 793528
 
        
 
        DAHL'S FOODS,                       A P P E A L
 
        
 
            Employer,                    D E C I S I O N
 
        
 
        and
 
        
 
        MARYLAND CASUALTY,
 
        
 
            Insurance Carrier,
 
            Defendants.
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
                                 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
        
 
        Claimant appeals from an arbitration decision awarding permanent 
 
        partial disability benefits.
 
        
 
        The record on appeal consists of the transcript of the 
 
        arbitration proceeding; joint exhibits 1 through 6; claimant's 
 
        exhibit 6 (in 3 parts); and defendants' exhibits A through D. 
 
        Defendants' proposed exhibit E, filed post-hearing, was not 
 
        considered pursuant to the ruling of the deputy industrial 
 
        commissioner dated December 10, 1986. Both parties filed briefs 
 
        on appeal.
 
        
 
                                      ISSUE
 
        
 
        Claimant states the following issue on appeal: The extent of 
 
        claimant's industrial disability.
 
        
 
                                 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
 
        
 
        The arbitration decision adequately and accurately reflects the 
 
        pertinent evidence and it will not be totally set forth herein.
 
        
 
        Briefly stated, claimant worked as a meat cutter and as second 
 
        man or assistant meat manager at defendant Dahl's food store for 
 
        over 17 years. Claimant's duties included boning, cutting, 
 
        sawing, and grinding of meat products as well as clean up and 
 
        working with customers. Claimant was required to lift various 
 
        weights of meat up to 100 pounds.
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 2
 
        
 
        
 
        On March 13, 1985, claimant was dumping a bone barrel weighing 
 
        around 200 pounds when he felt a pain in his low back. Claimant 
 
        continued to work for approximately two weeks, but when the pain 
 
        persisted he sought medical care from James L. Blessman, M.D. Dr. 
 
        Blessman referred claimant to Robert F. Breedlove, M.D., who 
 
        performed a CT scan and myelogram which showed results within 
 
        normal limits. Claimant was also directed by defendant insurance 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        carrier to undergo an examination by Thomas A. Carlstrom, M.D. 
 
        Claimant attended a pain center. None of claimant's physicians 
 
        recommended surgery.
 
        
 
        Claimant was earning $12.85 per hour, at the time of his injury. 
 
        Claimant also had medical insurance benefits and stock option 
 
        benefits as part of his employment. Claimant testified that 
 
        subsequent to his injury he cannot lift or sit for more than a 
 
        half hour, and cannot stand for extended periods of time. 
 
        Claimant uses a back brace and a cane which were recommended by 
 
        Dr. Blessman.
 
        
 
        Claimant returned to Dahl's in October 1985 to reapply for 
 
        employment. Claimant met with Robert Hand, president of the 
 
        company, and others. Claimant provided a resume of work 
 
        experience, which included the following:
 
        
 
        JOB QUALIFICATIONS: Although I can't go back to my regular duties 
 
        that involve a lot of lifting, I feel that I can still be a great 
 
        asset to the company. I am strongly motivated to perform my job 
 
        to the best of my abilities. Working has always been a top 
 
        priority in my life. I have always been a keen observer of what 
 
        goes on around me and that has given me many insights and methods 
 
        to evaluate and incorporate into my job performance. In 
 
        performing my job I am able to see the whole picture and not just 
 
        one piece of the puzzle. This enables me to work efficiently with 
 
        others and plan my next movement. I think I can help others who 
 
        cannot see the whole picture and work towards the end smoothly.
 
        
 
        With a company of this size, I feel that there should be a place 
 
        for me that would draw on my experience and knowledge and also 
 
        would let me continue to grow with the company. With slight 
 
        modification, my present position of Second Man could still be 
 
        performed. I can still plan what needs to be done for the day in 
 
        the cutting room and take care of the self service counter and 
 
        limit my activities to just knife work.
 
        
 
        Some other jobs within the company I feel I could perform are 
 
        taking care of the service counter and meat case and handling 
 
        customers, doing the ads, Floor Manager, Grocery Manager and with 
 
        light lifting,
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 3
 
        
 
        
 
        I could perform as a Meat Manager.
 
        
 
        A job I would like to create for myself uses my experience and my 
 
        perception of a broad picture in uniting all the Meat Departments 
 
        more efficiently. The duties would involve dealing with salesmen 
 
        on availability of specials and demonstrations and distributing 
 
        among the stores. I would also make the ads and make sure the 
 
        product was available in all the stores. This would help with 
 
        continuity between the stores. I would also like to spend time 
 
        price checking between the Dahl's stores and other companies. I 
 
        would also like to coordinate the man power between the stores 
 
        during times of absence. I would keep job applications on file 
 
        for the managers.
 
        
 
        (Joint Exhibit 4)
 
        
 
        Claimant was told he could not return to work in view of his 
 
        restrictions. Mr. Hand testified that he then understood Mr. 
 
        Young to be requesting a termination of his employment so that he 
 
        could obtain his employee stock option money. Claimant was 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        terminated effective October 5, 1985, "due to physical conditions 
 
        which no longer allow you to perform your present job." Joint 
 
        Exhibit 4, page 1. However, claimant informed Dahl's by letter 
 
        that he did not request termination, and stated, "I would like to 
 
        continue working for Dahl's and I had hoped that upon reading the 
 
        resume Mr. Hand would consider me for one of the positions 
 
        listed. Please let me know if something comes up that Mr. Hand 
 
        feels I can do." Jt. Ex. 4, p. 3. Dahl's then maintained the 
 
        termination "since there was no job available in the meat 
 
        department which you could handle based on your present physical 
 
        condition." Jt. Ex. 4, p. 2.
 
        
 
        On October 21, 1985 Dr. Carlstrom assigned claimant a permanent 
 
        partial impairment rating of six percent of the body as a whole. 
 
        Dr. Carlstrom concluded that claimant's condition was myofascial 
 
        rather than neurological, and imposed a lifting restriction of 50 
 
        pounds and a repetitive lifting restriction of 10 to 15 pounds.
 
        
 
        On November 21, 1985, Harold E. Eklund, M.D., conducted an x-ray 
 
        examination of claimant's back and recommended that he engage 
 
        only-in employment that "requires no lifting, bending, stooping, 
 
        or standing for long period of time on concrete floor." Jt Ex. 1, 
 
        p. 43. In a February 1986 evaluation by the Iowa Division of 
 
        Vocational Rehabilitation Services, claimant stated he was able 
 
        to walk three miles daily and could stand at a wood lathe for 
 
        three hours without discomfort.
 
        
 
        Claimant obtained part-time employment as a security person with 
 
        Younkers, as well as a temporary position with Wards during the 
 
        Christmas season. Claimant's Younkers position became
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 4
 
        
 
        
 
        full time in April or May 1986. Claimant earns $4.50 per hour as 
 
        well as some fringe benefits at his Younkers job.
 
        
 
        On June 17, 1986 Dr. Carlstrom stated: "I did see Dean Young back 
 
        again on the 5th of June. He relates considerable improvement in 
 
        his symptoms, and in my opinion, his impairment rating should be 
 
        cut in half, to 3-4% of the body as a whole."
 
        
 
        Dr. Carlstrom explained his reason for reducing the rating as 
 
        follows:
 
        
 
        Q. I have just one. With regard to the limitations on the 
 
        activities that you have just recounted from June of 1985 had 
 
        there been an improvement in that regard by the time you saw Mr. 
 
        Young in June of 1986?
 
        
 
        A. Yes.
 
        
 
        Q. In what regard?
 
        
 
        A. In what regard?
 
        
 
        Q. Yes.
 
        
 
        A. He was able to just basically move about much more 
 
        comfortably. He no longer had difficulty lying down, no longer 
 
        had difficulty with just walking comfortably around. He had 
 
        significantly increased range of motion of his back on exam.
 
        
 
        (Claimant's Ex. 6, pp. 20-21)
 
        
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        On July 8, 1986, Dr. Carlstrom opined:
 
        
 
        I know what I wrote you in June of 1986 regarding Dean Young's 
 
        impairment. I do not think any significant change should be made 
 
        to the restrictions I placed on him, although he should probably 
 
        be able to at least attempt heavier activity within chosen 
 
        parameters, that is if some work supervisor can evaluate his 
 
        performance at a given level, I would think that no restrictions 
 
        need to be placed of a formal nature, and only those need be 
 
        performed, and any restrictions can be jointly agreed at between 
 
        him and his employer.
 
        
 
        (Jt. Ex. 1, p. 6)
 
        
 
        After receiving this letter from Dr. Carlstrom, Robert Hand, 
 
        president of Dahl's, set up another meeting with claimant, and 
 
        offered claimant his old position as a meat cutter:
 
        
 
        But at the same time he was told when he could -- if he got 
 
        better to come back and see us. And
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL ' S FOODS
 
        Page 5
 
        
 
        
 
        since that point in time, we have had a meeting where we were 
 
        prepared to put him back to work because we were under the 
 
        impression that he could.
 
        
 
        Q. Who gave you that impression?
 
        
 
        A. We had a meeting -- Maryland Casualty Company, and from their 
 
        information from the doctor that he was only three percent 
 
        disabled and that he could perform the duties. And we agreed to 
 
        put him back even in a work-hardening position, you know, if 
 
        necessary, like four hours a day or whatever he felt he could do 
 
        for a couple of three weeks until he got into the swing of 
 
        things. But we felt he could perform the duties he had been 
 
        doing within reason.
 
        
 
        Q. Did Maryland Casualty tell you that it would be in your best 
 
        interests to do that because things would not go well in workers' 
 
        compensation if you didn't?
 
        
 
        A. No, they did not. They just asked me if we would put him back 
 
        to work and he was only three percent; and at that time, that was 
 
        when the wheels were put into motion for the meeting we had on 
 
        July 26th.
 
        
 
        (Cl. Ex. 6, p. 77)
 
        
 
        Kenneth Stroud, Dahl's vice president, stated:
 
        
 
        Q. You mentioned something earlier that I wondered about. You 
 
        said that when you talked to Mr. Hand, he said that it looked 
 
        like Dean was ninety-seven percent able to do the work. What do 
 
        you think he meant by that?
 
        
 
        A. Well, I -- Bob and I had talked before, you know, and we was 
 
        talking about disability and -- And he was quick to inform me 
 
        that everybody -- nobody's a hundred percent, so the first thing 
 
        that went through my mind, I wonder where I would rate in this 
 
        deal.
 
        
 
        But, anyway, I figured that if he was ninety-seven percent, then 
 
        he could do just about anything, because of the fact that nothing 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        would be a hundred percent at various times. So I assumed that he 
 
        could do anything I could go down there and do, you know, if I 
 
        had the knowledge. If I had the knowledge, I figured his body was 
 
        as good as mine when he told me ninety-seven percent.
 
        
 
        (Cl. Ex. 6, p. 27)
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 6
 
        
 
        
 
        According to Robert Hand, claimant declined the employment in the 
 
        meat department because he felt he could not perform the lifting 
 
        duties involved:
 
        
 
        A. This was the point when -- probably have been the latter part 
 
        of July when -- in some conversation or letters with the 
 
        insurance company and after Doctor Carlstrom's letters that it 
 
        was our understanding that he probably could go back to work 
 
        without any really great restrictions.
 
        
 
        Q. Or significant restrictions?
 
        
 
        A. Right. It would be what he would place on himself what he 
 
        could do, and at that point it was decided to offer him the 
 
        opportunity to come back, and an appointment was made and he came 
 
        in. This was the appointment where Mr. Stroud and Mr. Nissen were 
 
        also present.
 
        
 
        Q. Right.
 
        
 
        A. That meeting when Dean came in, it had to be a Saturday 
 
        morning. I remember that.
 
        
 
        Q. How did the conversation go?
 
        
 
        A. I guess we were all -- everybody with the company was under 
 
        the impression that he would be able to go back to work in the 
 
        meat department. In fact, that's why we had the meat manager 
 
        there at that point so he would understand also what the 
 
        conditions would be and Mr. Stroud, who was the supervisor of 
 
        that store, also.
 
        
 
        And in the process of the conversation, Dean made the statement 
 
        that there was no way he could go back to work in the meat 
 
        department, which was kind of dumbfounding to us at that point.
 
        
 
        We were kind of at a loss as to where to go at that point because 
 
        that was our understanding that he would be able to, so when he 
 
        left at that point I said the only thing I could do was to get 
 
        back to the insurance company and see but that was my 
 
        understanding, and that's about where it ended at that point.
 
        
 
        Q. At that time did you indicate to him that if he felt he could 
 
        come back and handle his job as a meat cutter the position was 
 
        open?
 
        
 
        A. Yes.
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 7
 
        
 
        
 
        (Transcript, pp. 73-75)
 
        
 
        Hand also stated that claimant's appearance was a factor in 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        dealing with the public, and that claimant's appearance had been 
 
        questionable in the past. In regards to claimant's personal 
 
        appearance, Hand stated:
 
        
 
        Q. What reservations did you have concerning his personal 
 
        appearance and grooming?
 
        
 
        A. There again I guess it would be comparing it to others, like 
 
        even in the meat department where he worked where they wear white 
 
        coats. It would be the way they wear their tie. It could be, I 
 
        suppose, considered maybe sloppy attire as far as that part where 
 
        his tie might not be tied. A shirt might not be buttoned 
 
        properly or tie tied as the others.
 
        
 
        That's the way we compare them. I mean, when you stand two people 
 
        beside one another.
 
        
 
        Q. Did you feel, though, that the basic requirements that you set 
 
        out for somebody who works in an up-front position were something 
 
        that Mr. Young could fulfill as long as he was advised what the 
 
        requirements were?
 
        
 
        A. I think so, or he would not have been offered it if we hadn't 
 
        felt that he could fulfill given the opportunity.
 
        
 
        (Tr. pp. 80-81)
 
        
 
        Claimant stated his reasons for declining his old job:
 
        
 
        Q. Mr. Young, you are aware that based upon Doctor Carlstrom's 
 
        examination of you and the history that he took from you in June 
 
        of 1986 he released you to return to work as a meat cutter if you 
 
        were willing to give it a try, isn't that correct?
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        A. No and yes, in the respect that the weight limitation was 
 
        still there and to go back strictly as a meat cutter in the 
 
        position I had, he would have not been releasing me for that, to 
 
        perform a function within the meat department.
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        A. To go back to the meat department, relying on my many years of 
 
        knowledge within the meat cutting
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 8
 
        
 
        
 
        business, yes, because when I left when I was injured, in that 
 
        market -- Fridays and Saturdays there is nothing to cutting five 
 
        sides of beef on one day, lifting and cutting it and I -- there 
 
        is no way I could do that, and if that was really -- if that was 
 
        the intention of going back to the job, it was a waste of my time 
 
        going there and Mr. Hand's and everybody else that was there at 
 
        that meeting because I knew I couldn't do that.
 
        
 
        (Transcript, pp. 51-53)
 
        
 
        Claimant owns and operates woodworking tools in his home, and 
 
        stated he has earned approximately $150 from this hobby in the 
 
        past one and one-half years. Margaret Covey, a vocational 
 
        rehabilitation counselor who began working with claimant in 
 
        September of 1986, testified that a state vocational 
 
        rehabilitation process had determined that claimant's woodworking 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        skills would not provide an adequate income. Covey indicated that 
 
        claimant had an aptitude for agriculture, and that claimant 
 
        exhibited good interview skills during an interview for a job 
 
        with Earl May Company that paid $4.00 per hour, but claimant was 
 
        not hired. Covey stated that other employment opportunities for 
 
        claimant included a position with Pioneer Company as a greenhouse 
 
        technician at $6.00 - $8.00 per hour, or as an agriculture 
 
        laboratory assistant for the state earning up to $9.00 per hour.
 
        
 
        On August 8, 1986 Robert Hand stated in his deposition that there 
 
        were no jobs with Dahl's that claimant was capable of performing 
 
        in light of his physical restrictions:
 
        
 
        Like I said, just lifting sometime, someplace. I just can't think 
 
        of a job in a supermarket where there isn't lifting and twisting 
 
        involved.
 
        
 
        Q. Based on what you just told me, I take it it's your opinion 
 
        based on your experience in the supermarket business that due to 
 
        Dean's injuries he is basically unemployable in the supermarket 
 
        business?
 
        
 
        A. I wouldn't say in that -- In our particular case, we don't 
 
        because of our size -- I would think probably there are some 
 
        large companies which have warehouses where there are jobs 
 
        involving -- you know, with the meat buying for the warehouse and 
 
        things like that. There are other jobs there such as that. I'm 
 
        talking about as a meat cutter now on that part.
 
        
 
        Q. Based on what you just told me, I take it that it's your 
 
        opinion from your experience in the grocery
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 9
 
        
 
        
 
        business that due to Dean's back injury, the problems that he has 
 
        with lifting, that he's basically unemployable in the grocery 
 
        business except for some supermarket that might have a big 
 
        warehouse where he could order?
 
        
 
        A. And I suppose there might be some -- I guess you might call 
 
        them meaningless jobs; they aren't meaningless -- you can wash 
 
        windows and things like that. But that pays three and a half, 
 
        four dollars an hour compared to a meat cutter's wages.
 
        
 
        I suppose there's probably jobs that he could do, but they would 
 
        be at a considerably less rate of pay.
 
        
 
        (Cl. Ex. 6, pp. 67-70)
 
        
 
        Kenneth Stroud, corporate vice president for Dahl's, stated:
 
        
 
        Q. Based on your understanding of the problems that Dean 
 
        experiences from his back due to his work injury, do you think 
 
        there's any jobs at Dahl's that he could handle?
 
        
 
        A. I sure couldn't think of anything.
 
        
 
        (Cl. Ex. 6, p. 32)
 
        
 
        Mark Nissen, claimant's former supervisor, testified as follows:
 
        
 
        Q. Do you think that a job could be modified in the meat 
 
        department where a man wouldn't have to do any lifting of over 
 
        fifty pounds and wouldn't have to do any repetitive lifting of 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        items over ten to fifteen pounds?
 
        
 
        A. No.
 
        
 
        Q. Is that true not only at the Dahl's stores but at all grocery 
 
        stores?
 
        
 
        A. Yes.
 
        
 
        Q. You've been around grocery stores, working in them for at 
 
        least seventeen years. Mr. Nissen, would your opinion be the same 
 
        with respect to other jobs in a grocery store like Dahl's; that 
 
        is, that because of those limitations, if Dean feels that he 
 
        can't lift beyond those limitations of fifty pounds maximum or 
 
        repetitive lifting of ten to fifteen pounds, that there would be 
 
        no jobs that Dean could handle?
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 10
 
        
 
        
 
        A. I don't believe there is a job in the grocery business.
 
        
 
        Q. That he could handle?
 
        
 
        A. That he could handle.
 
        
 
        (Cl. Ex. 6, p. 49)
 
        
 
        Subsequent to Dr. Carlstrom's July 8 letter, claimant contacted 
 
        Dr. Carlstrom and requested a letter concerning his restrictions. 
 
        On August 20, 1986, Dr. Carlstrom reiterated: "I note that in 
 
        October of 1985, I suggested a lifting restriction of about 50 
 
        pounds and 15-pound repetitive restriction. I would recommend 
 
        that those be continued in his case."
 
        
 
        Dr. Carlstrom explained the reasons for his letter of August 20, 
 
        1986:
 
        
 
        A. Well, the restrictions that I suggested in the August 1986 
 
        letter were generated by his request and I suppose should be 
 
        considered to be the result of his request and his perception of 
 
        what he was capable of doing. I also think that those 
 
        restrictions are sound from a medical point of view.
 
        
 
        (Jt. Ex. 6, p. 13)
 
        
 
        Less than one week prior to the hearing in October 1986, claimant 
 
        received a letter from Dahl's which offered him a position as a 
 
        full time utility clerk at a beginning wage of $4.25 per hour 
 
        with increases up to $5.00 per hour after 18 months. The letter 
 
        also stated that if claimant was not capable of performing the 
 
        duties of utility clerk, claimant could accept a position as 
 
        part-time cashier at $4.25 per hour with increases up to $6.50 
 
        per hour after 18 months, if claimant's appearance and grooming 
 
        were satisfactory. Claimant was also told he could obtain a 
 
        full-time cashier position when a vacancy occurred.
 
        
 
        Claimant expressed a reluctance to give up his new employment at 
 
        Younkers as a security person, and also stated he declined the 
 
        employment offer because he felt he was not capable of performing 
 
        the duties of the positions, such as sacking groceries, loading 
 
        carts and cars, bending and lifting items such as pet food bags 
 
        and salt bags weighing up to 50 pounds, cases of pop, etc.:
 
        
 
        Q. Do you know what the duties are of a utility clerk?
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        
 
        A. It would be sorting cans and bottles, sorting groceries, 
 
        cashier work and sacking, loading cars. Basically a utility clerk 
 
        -- my understanding of
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 11
 
        
 
        
 
        what a utility clerk was when I was working for the company is 
 
        where ever they needed a utility clerk -- they could put the 
 
        utility clerk, if they need him, in the lunchroom washing dishes. 
 
        He would be there if they needed him. Anyplace that they were 
 
        needed.
 
        
 
        That was -- because that's what the name implied, "utility." It 
 
        could be used anyplace.
 
        
 
        Q. Of the activities of the utility clerk, are there any of those 
 
        activities that you think you cannot do due to your work injury? 
 
        Whether it's loading cars or bottles, just what you can and 
 
        cannot do.
 
        
 
        A. I would say -- I don't know until I get into the actual -- to 
 
        doing it. Jobs like sorting the cans and bottles, if that's a 
 
        long period of bending and stooping -- days that I'm out there 
 
        working at trucks, you have to bend down to cut the seal and 
 
        unlock them and that.
 
        
 
        If I do that a lot of times, I can be hurting pretty good in the 
 
        back because of the bending and -- not doing lifting, just the 
 
        bending down and squatting down and that. That could be something 
 
        I would have problems with, but, as I say, I don't know until I 
 
        try it.
 
        
 
        Q. What about loading cars?
 
        
 
        A. Loading cars if the bags were -- I could have problems there 
 
        because of the twisting. If they was going into the back seat and 
 
        that, there could be problems.
 
        
 
        Q. What kind of -- let me start that question again.
 
        
 
        The items that are sold at a grocery store include salt?
 
        
 
        A. Yes.
 
        
 
        Q. How many pounds of salt do they put in a bag like for your 
 
        walk?
 
        
 
        A. I would say they are 50-, 60-pound bags.
 
        
 
        Q. Including dog food?
 
        
 
        A. Yeah.
 
        
 
        Q. How much are the bags of dog food?
 
        
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 12
 
        
 
        
 
        A. Big bags are 50. Majority from 25 and 10, but they do have 
 
        bags up to 50 pounds.
 
        
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        Q. Big boxes of detergent?
 
        
 
        A. Thirty pounds, I think, the super big ones.
 
        
 
        Q. What was the weight lifting restriction that Doctor Carlstrom 
 
        put on you?
 
        
 
        A. Fifty pounds.
 
        
 
        (Tr., pp. 58-60)
 
        
 
        The parties stipulated that claimant's healing period was from 
 
        April 29, 1985 through June 17, 1986. Claimant did have a prior 
 
        injury that severed some nerves in his right hand approximately 
 
        15 years earlier, resulting in some loss of feeling in his thumb 
 
        and first finger. It was indicated that this injury may have 
 
        affected his dexterity test.
 
        
 
                                 APPLICABLE LAW
 
        
 
        Permanent partial disabilities are classified as either scheduled 
 
        or unscheduled. A specific scheduled disability is evaluated by 
 
        the functional method; 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, 887 (Iowa 1983).
 
        
 
        As a claimant has an impairment to the body as a whole, an 
 
        industrial disability has been sustained. Industrial disability 
 
        was defined in Diederich v. Tri-City Railway Co., 219 Iowa 587, 
 
        593, 258 N.W. 899, 902 (1935) as follows: "It is therefore plain 
 
        that the legislature intended the term 'disability' to mean 
 
        'industrial disability' or loss of earning capacity and not a 
 
        mere 'functional disability' to be computed in the terms of 
 
        percentages of the total physical and mental ability of a normal 
 
        man."
 
        
 
        The opinion of the supreme court in Olson v. Goodyear Service 
 
        Stores, 255 Iowa 1112, 1121, 125 N.W.2d 251, 257 (1963) cited 
 
        with approval a decision of the industrial commissioner for the 
 
        following proposition:
 
        
 
        Disability * * * as defined by the Compensation Act means 
 
        industrial disability, although functional disability is an 
 
        element to be considered . . . In determining industrial 
 
        disability, consideration may be given to the injured employee's 
 
        age, education, qualifications, experience and his inability, 
 
        because
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 13
 
        
 
        
 
        of the injury, to engage in employment for which he is fitted. * 
 
        * * *
 
        
 
        
 
        Functional disability is an element to be considered in 
 
        determining industrial disability which is the reduction of 
 
        earning capacity, but consideration must also be given to the 
 
        injured employee's age, education, qualifications, experience and 
 
        inability to engage in employment for which he is fitted. Olson 
 
        v. Goodyear Service Stores, 255 Iowa 1112, 125 N.W.2d 251 (1963). 
 
        Barton v. Nevada Poultry, 253 Iowa 285, 110 N.W.2d 660 (1961).
 
        
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        A finding of impairment to the body as a whole found by a medical 
 
        evaluator does not equate to industrial disability. This is so as 
 
        impairment and disability are not synonymous. Degree of 
 
        industrial disability can in fact be much different than the 
 
        degree of impairment because in the first instance reference is 
 
        to loss of earning capacity and in the later to anatomical or 
 
        functional abnormality or loss. Although loss of function is to 
 
        be considered and disability can rarely be found without it, it 
 
        is not so that a degree of industrial disability is 
 
        proportionally related to a degree of impairment of bodily 
 
        function.
 
        
 
        Factors to be considered in determining industrial disability 
 
        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. These are matters which 
 
        the finder of fact considers collectively in arriving at the 
 
        determination of the degree of industrial disability.
 
        
 
        There are no weighting guidelines that indicate how each of the 
 
        factors are to be considered. There are no guidelines which give, 
 
        for example, age a weighted value of ten percent of the total 
 
        value, education a value of fifteen percent of total, motivation 
 
        - five percent; work experience - thirty percent, etc. Neither 
 
        does a rating of functional impairment directly correlate to a 
 
        degree of industrial disability to the body as a whole. In other 
 
        words, there are no formulae which can be applied and then added 
 
        up to determine the degree of industrial disability. It therefore 
 
        becomes necessary for the deputy or commissioner to draw upon 
 
        prior experience, general and specialized knowledge to make the 
 
        finding with regard to
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 14
 
        
 
        
 
        degree of industrial disability. See Peterson v. Truck Haven 
 
        Cafe, Inc., (Appeal Decision, February 28, 1985); Christensen v. 
 
        Hagen, Inc., (Appeal Decision, March 26, 1985).
 
        
 
        In Parr v. Nash Finch Co., (Appeal Decision, October 31, 1980) 
 
        the industrial commissioner, after analyzing the decisions of 
 
        McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1980) and 
 
        Blacksmith v. All-American, Inc., 290 N.W.2d 348 (Iowa 1980), 
 
        stated:
 
        
 
        Although the court stated that they were looking for the 
 
        reduction in earning capacity it is undeniable that it was the 
 
        "loss of earnings" caused by the job transfer for reasons related 
 
        to the injury that the court was indicating justified a finding 
 
        of "industrial disability." Therefore, if a worker is placed in 
 
        a position by his employer after an injury to the body as a whole 
 
        and because of the injury which results in an actual reduction in 
 
        earning, it would appear this would justify an award of 
 
        industrial disability. This would appear to be so even if the 
 
        worker's "capacity" to earn has not been diminished.
 
        
 
        For example, a defendant employer's refusal to give any sort of 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        work to a claimant after he suffers his affliction may justify an 
 
        award of disability. McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 N.W.2d 
 
        181 (Iowa 1980).
 
        
 
        Similarly, a claimant's inability to find other suitable work 
 
        after making bona fide efforts to find such work may indicate 
 
        that relief would be granted. McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co, 288 
 
        N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1980)
 
        
 
        A claimant's industrial disability may be diminished by his 
 
        failure to accept offered employment consistent with his 
 
        impairment. Johnson v. Chamberlain Mfg. Corporation, 1 Iowa 
 
        Indus. Comm'r Rep. 166 (Appeal Decision October 31, 1980).
 
        
 
        Apportionment is limited to those situations where a prior injury 
 
        or illness independently produces some ascertainable portion of 
 
        the ultimate industrial disability which exists following the 
 
        employment-related aggravation. Varied Enterprises, Inc. v. 
 
        Sumner, 353 N.W.2d 407 (Iowa 1984).
 
        
 
                                      ANALYSIS
 
        
 
        The sole issue on appeal is the extent of claimant's industrial 
 
        disability. Several factors are involved in a determination of 
 
        industrial disability. Claimant's physical impairment as a result 
 
        of his injury is one such factor. Claimant has a permanent 
 
        physical impairment rating of three to four percent of the body 
 
        as a whole. Claimant has a lifting restriction of 50 pounds, and 
 
        a restriction on repetitive lifting of 15
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 15
 
        
 
        
 
        pounds. Claimant did not undergo any surgery.
 
        
 
        Claimant's experience is in the grocery business. The record 
 
        indicates that this work necessarily involves lifting weights in 
 
        excess of his lifting restrictions. Claimant's supervisors 
 
        testified that claimant would not be able to perform the duties 
 
        of a meat cutter with his restrictions. Claimant is not able to 
 
        perform the duties of the job he held at the time of his injury, 
 
        or any job in the grocery business.
 
        
 
        Claimant's age, education, and motivation to return to work are 
 
        also relevant. Claimant was 47 years old at the time of the 
 
        hearing, and had a high school education. Dr. Carlstrom 
 
        commented that claimant was a "well motivated individual." When 
 
        Dr. Blessman recommended a weight loss to claimant on July 5, 
 
        1985, claimant complied and lost 17 pounds by his next visit on 
 
        August 30th. Claimant is involved with an over-eaters group. 
 
        When claimant underwent a Short Term Evaluation at the Iowa State 
 
        Vocational Rehabilitation Facility, it was noted that his work 
 
        was done "with sincere effort." Margaret Covey also found 
 
        claimant to be motivated to become gainfully employed. Claimant's 
 
        supervisor stated that he felt claimant would be working if he 
 
        could lift. Claimant was able to find substitute employment, and 
 
        in fact was working two part-time jobs even though the hours 
 
        involved were inconvenient. Claimant sought re-employment with 
 
        Dahl's as shown by his resume. Claimant's motivation to return to 
 
        work is good.
 
        
 
        Claimant's intelligence tests showed average intelligence 
 
        although claimant was found to have a slight stress intolerance, 
 
        and has difficulty spelling and writing.
 
        
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        Claimant was earning $12.85 per hour at the time of his injury. 
 
        Subsequent to his injury, claimant has only been able to obtain 
 
        employment paying $4.50 per hour. The vocational rehabilitation 
 
        studies indicate that claimant has the potential to earn between 
 
        $4.00 and $6.00 per hour at the positions identified, with a 
 
        maximum of $9.00 per hour eventually. The employer offered 
 
        claimant two positions just prior to the hearing in this case, 
 
        both of which paid wages in the range of $4.00 to $6.00 per hour. 
 
        Claimant has suffered a loss of earnings as a result of his 
 
        injury.
 
        
 
        It is noted that although two of claimant's supervisors mentioned 
 
        that claimant might be well adapted to a position as a meat buyer 
 
        in a large grocery warehouse, the record indicates that no such 
 
        position exists with Dahl's, and the possibilities of such 
 
        employment with another company was not explored by the 
 
        vocational rehabilitation personnel.
 
        
 
        The employer in this case initially refused to provide work to 
 
        claimant because of the restrictions imposed as a result of his 
 
        injury. Claimant's resume and request for re-employment
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 16
 
        
 
        
 
        was treated as a request for termination and application for 
 
        stock option proceeds. Just prior to the hearing, the employer 
 
        offered claimant two possible positions other than meat cutter, 
 
        in spite of agreement among defendants' witnesses that claimant 
 
        could not perform any job in the grocery business. These 
 
        inconsistencies tend to call into question the credibility of 
 
        some of defendants' witnesses.
 
        
 
        A claimant's refusal to accept work consistent with his medical 
 
        restrictions may justify a reduction of industrial disability. In 
 
        this case, claimant actively sought reinstatement with Dahl's 
 
        after his injury, but was not rehired. His refusal to accept the 
 
        meat cutter's job when it was offered to him later was based on 
 
        his perception of his own physical limitations. That perception 
 
        was later confirmed by Dr. Carlstrom when he reiterated 
 
        claimant's lifting restrictions. Dr. Carlstrom's letter of July 
 
        8, 1986, appears to have been read by the employer as a complete 
 
        lifting of all restrictions, whereas the record shows that the 
 
        restrictions were still medically necessary.
 
        
 
        Claimant also refused the two positions offered immediately prior 
 
        to the hearing. Although part of his refusal appears to have been 
 
        based on antagonism toward Dahl's developed through the course of 
 
        this case, his refusal was also based on his own perceived 
 
        inability to perform the lifting aspects of those jobs. His 
 
        supervisors conceded that virtually every job in the grocery 
 
        business involved some lifting, either heavy or repetitive. By 
 
        the time of the hearing, Dr. Carlstrom had reiterated the lifting 
 
        restrictions.
 
        
 
        Based on these and all other appropriate factors for determining 
 
        industrial disability, claimant is determined to have an 
 
        industrial disability of 45 percent as a result of his injury on 
 
        March 13, 1985.
 
        
 
        Claimant had a prior injury to his hand. The extent of any 
 
        disability as a result of this injury is not ascertainable from 
 
        the record. The prior injury did not affect claimant's ability to 
 
        perform his work as a meat cutter. An apportionment is not 
 
        appropriate.
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        
 
                                 FINDINGS OF FACT
 
        
 
        1. Claimant worked as a meat cutter for Dahl's where his duties 
 
        involved lifting meat weighing up to 100 pounds.
 
        
 
        2. Claimant suffered an injury to his back in the course of and 
 
        arising out of his employment with Dahl's on March 13, 1985.
 
        
 
        3. Claimant underwent a CT scan and myelogram which showed 
 
        results within normal limits.
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 17
 
        
 
        
 
        4. Claimant was given a permanent impairment rating of three to 
 
        four percent of the body as a whole, a lifting restriction of 50 
 
        pounds and a repetitive lifting restriction of 10 to 15 pounds.
 
        
 
        5. Claimant was earning $12.85 per hour at the time of his 
 
        injury.
 
        
 
        6. Claimant sought to return to work at Dahl's in October 1985, 
 
        but was refused employment based on his medical restrictions.
 
        
 
        7. Claimant has obtained full-time employment subsequent to his 
 
        injury which earns $4.50 per hour.
 
        
 
        8. Claimant is not able to perform the duties of a meat cutter 
 
        due to his injury, and cannot perform any other jobs in the 
 
        retail grocery business.
 
        
 
        9. Claimant's healing period was from April 29, 1985 through June 
 
        17, 1986.
 
        
 
        10. At the time of the hearing claimant was 47 years old, 
 
        possessed average intelligence and had a high school education.
 
        
 
        11. Claimant is motivated to return to work.
 
        
 
        12. Claimant has lost earnings as a result of his injury of March 
 
        13, 1985.
 
        
 
        13. Claimant has an industrial disability of 45 percent.
 
        
 
        14. Claimant's rate of compensation was $380.14.
 
        
 
                                 CONCLUSION OF LAW
 
        
 
        Claimant has an industrial disability of 45 percent as a result 
 
        of his injury of March 13, 1985.
 
        
 
        WHEREFORE, the decision of the deputy is affirmed.
 
        
 
                                      ORDER
 
        
 
        THEREFORE, it is ordered:
 
        
 
        That defendants are to pay unto claimant healing period benefits 
 
        from April 29, 1985 until June 17, 1986 at the rate of three 
 
        hundred eighty and 14/100 dollars ($380.14) per week.
 
        
 
        That defendants are to pay unto claimant two hundred twenty-five 
 
        (225) weeks of permanent partial disability benefits at a rate of 
 
        three hundred eighty and 14/100 dollars ($380.14) per week from 
 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        June 18, 1986.
 
        
 
        YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS
 
        Page 18
 
        
 
        
 
        That defendants shall pay accrued weekly benefits in a lump sum.
 
        
 
        That defendants shall pay interest on weekly benefits awarded 
 
        herein as set forth in Iowa Code section 85.30.
 
        
 
        That defendants are to be given credit for benefits previously 
 
        paid.
 
        
 
        That defendants are to pay the costs of the arbitration 
 
        proceeding and claimant shall pay the costs of this appeal 
 
        including the costs of the transcription of the hearing 
 
        proceeding.
 
        
 
        That defendants shall file claim activity reports as required by 
 
        this agency pursuant to Division of Industrial Services Rule 
 
        343-3.1(2).
 
        
 
        
 
        Signed and filed this 26th day of August, 1988.
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
                                       DAVID E. LINQUIST
 
                                    INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER
 
        
 
        
 
 
            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                    BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER
 
         
 
         DEAN YOUNG,
 
         
 
               Claimant,
 
         
 
         vs.                                      File No. 793528
 
         
 
         DAHL'S FOODS,                              A P P E A L
 
         
 
              Employer,                           D E C I S I O N
 
         
 
         and
 
         
 
         MARYLAND CASUALTY,
 
         
 
              Insurance Carrier,
 
              Defendants.
 
         
 
         
 
                              STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
         
 
              Claimant appeals from an arbitration decision awarding 
 
         permanent partial disability benefits.
 
         
 
              The record on appeal consists of the transcript of the 
 
         arbitration proceeding; joint exhibits 1 through 6; claimant's 
 
         exhibit 6 (in 3 parts); and defendants' exhibits A through D. 
 
         Defendants' proposed exhibit E, filed post-hearing, was not 
 
         considered pursuant to the ruling of the deputy industrial 
 
         commissioner dated December 10, 1986.  Both parties filed briefs 
 
         on appeal.
 
         
 
                                      ISSUE
 
         
 
              Claimant states the following issue on appeal:  The extent 
 
         of claimant's industrial disability.
 
         
 
                              REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
 
         
 
              The arbitration decision adequately and accurately reflects 
 
         the pertinent evidence and it will not be totally set forth 
 
         herein.
 
         
 
              Briefly stated, claimant worked as a meat cutter and as 
 
         second man or assistant meat manager at defendant Dahl's food 
 
         store for over 17 years.  Claimants duties included boning, 
 
         cutting, sawing, and grinding of meat products as well as clean 
 
         up and working with customers.  Claimant was required to lift 
 
         various weights of meat up to 100 pounds.
 
         
 
              On March 13, 1985, claimant was dumping a bone barrel 
 
         weighing around 200 pounds when he felt a pain in his low back.  
 
         Claimant continued to work for approximately two weeks, but when 
 
         the pain persisted he sought medical care from James L. Blessman, 
 
         M.D.  Dr. Blessman referred claimant to Robert F. Breedlove, 
 
         M.D., who performed a CT scan and myelogram which showed results 
 
         within normal limits.  Claimant was also directed by defendant 
 
         insurance carrier to undergo an examination by Thomas A. 
 
         Carlstrom, M.D.  Claimant attended a pain center.  None of 
 
         claimant's physicians recommended surgery.
 
         
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE   2
 
         
 
         
 
              Claimant was earning $12.85 per hour, at the time of his 
 
         injury.  Claimant also had medical insurance benefits and stock 
 
         option benefits as part of his employment.  Claimant testified 
 
         that subsequent to his injury he cannot lift or sit for more than 
 
         a half hour, and cannot stand for extended periods of time.  
 
         Claimant uses a back brace and a cane which were recommended by 
 
         Dr. Blessman.
 
         
 
              Claimant returned to Dahl's in October 1985 to reapply for 
 
         employment.  Claimant met with Robert Hand, president of the 
 
         company, and others.  Claimant provided a resume of work 
 
         experience, which included the following:
 
         
 
              JOB QUALIFICATIONS:  Although I can't go back to my 
 
              regular duties that involve a lot of lifting, I feel 
 
              that I can still be a great asset to the company.  I am 
 
              strongly motivated to perform my job to the best of my 
 
              abilities.  Working has always been a top priority in 
 
              my life.  I have always been a keen observer of what 
 
              goes on around me and that has given me many insights 
 
              and methods to evaluate and incorporate into my job 
 
              performance.  In performing my job I am able to see the 
 
              whole picture and not just one piece of the puzzle.  
 
              This enables me to work efficiently with others and 
 
              plan my next movement.  I think I can help others who 
 
              cannot see the whole picture and work towards the end 
 
              smoothly.
 
         
 
                   With a company of this size, I feel that there 
 
              should be a place for me that would draw on my 
 
              experience and knowledge and also would let me continue 
 
              to grow with the company.  With slight modification, my 
 
              present position of Second Man could still be 
 
              performed.  I can still plan what needs to be done for 
 
              the day in the cutting room and take care of the self 
 
              service counter and limit my activities to just knife 
 
              work.
 
         
 
                   Some other jobs within the company I feel I could 
 
              perform are taking care of the service counter and meat 
 
              case and handling customers, doing the ads, Floor 
 
              Manager, Grocery Manager and with light lifting, I 
 
              could perform as a Meat Manager.
 
         
 
                   A job I would like to create for myself uses my 
 
              experience and my perception of a broad picture in 
 
              uniting all the Meat Departments more efficiently.  The 
 
              duties would involve dealing with salesmen on 
 
              availability of specials and demonstrations and 
 
              distributing among the stores.  I would also make the 
 
              ads and make sure the product was available in all the 
 
              stores.  This would help with continuity between the 
 
              stores.  I would also like to spend time price checking 
 
              between the Dahl's stores and other companies.  I would 
 
              also like to coordinate the man power between the 
 
              stores during times of absence.  I would keep job 
 
              applications on file for the managers.
 
         
 
         (Joint Exhibit 4)
 
         
 
              Claimant was told he could not return to work in view of his 
 
         restrictions.  Mr. Hand testified that he then understood Mr. 
 
         Young to be requesting a termination of his employment so that he 
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE   3
 
         
 
         
 
         could obtain his employee stock option money.  Claimant was 
 
         terminated effective October 5, 1985, "due to physical conditions 
 
         which no longer allow you to perform your present job."  Joint 
 
         Exhibit 4, page 1.  However, claimant informed Dahl's by letter 
 
         that he did not request termination, and stated, "I would like to 
 
         continue working for Dahl's and I had hoped that upon reading the 
 
         resume Mr. Hand would consider me for one of the positions 
 
         listed.  Please let me know if something comes up that Mr. Hand 
 
         feels I can do."  Jt. Ex. 4, p. 3.  Dahl's then maintained the 
 
         termination "since there was no job available in the meat 
 
         department which you could handle based on your present physical 
 
         condition." Jt. Ex. 4, p. 2.
 
         
 
              On October 21, 1985 Dr. Carlstrom assigned claimant a 
 
         permanent partial impairment rating of six percent of the body as 
 
         a whole.  Dr. Carlstrom concluded that claimant's condition was 
 
         myofascial rather than neurological, and imposed a lifting 
 
         restriction of 50 pounds and a repetitive lifting restriction of 
 
         10 to 15 pounds.
 
         
 
              On November 21, 1985, Harold E. Eklund, M.D., conducted an 
 
         x-ray examination of claimant's back and recommended that he 
 
         engage only in employment that "requires no lifting, bending, 
 
         stooping, or standing for long period of time on concrete floor." 
 
          Jt  Ex. 1, p. 43.  In a February 1986 evaluation by the Iowa 
 
         Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services, claimant stated 
 
         he was able to walk three miles daily and could stand at a wood 
 
         lathe for three hours without discomfort.
 
         
 
              Claimant obtained part-time employment as a security person 
 
         with Younkers, as well as a temporary position with Wards during 
 
         the Christmas season.  Claimant's Younkers position became full 
 
         time in April or May 1986.  Claimant earns $4.50 per hour as well 
 
         as some fringe benefits at his Younkers job.
 
         
 
              On June 17, 1986 Dr. Carlstrom stated:  "I did see Dean 
 
         Young back again on the 5th of June.  He relates considerable 
 
         improvement in his symptoms, and in my opinion, his impairment 
 
         rating should be cut in half, to 3-4% of the body as a whole."
 
         
 
              Dr. Carlstrom explained his reason for reducing the rating 
 
         as follows:
 
         
 
              Q.  I have just one.  With regard to the limitations on 
 
              the activities that you have just recounted from June 
 
              of 1985 had there been an improvement in that regard by 
 
              the time you saw Mr. Young in June of 1986?
 
         
 
              A.  Yes.
 
         
 
              Q.  In what regard?
 
         
 
              A.  In what regard?
 
         
 
              Q.  Yes.
 
         
 
              A.  He was able to just basically move about much more 
 
              comfortably.  He no longer had difficulty lying down, 
 
              no longer had difficulty with just walking comfortably 
 
              around.  He had significantly increased range of motion 
 
              of his back on exam.
 
         
 
         (Claimant's Ex. 6, pp. 20-21)
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE   4
 
         
 
         
 
         
 
              On July 8, 1986, Dr. Carlstrom opined:
 
         
 
                 I know what I wrote you in June of 1986 regarding 
 
              Dean Young's impairment.  I do not think any 
 
              significant change should be made to the restrictions I 
 
              placed on him, although he should probably be able to 
 
              at least attempt heavier activity within chosen 
 
              parameters, that is if some work supervisor can 
 
              evaluate his performance at a given level, I would 
 
              think that no restrictions need to be placed of a 
 
              formal nature, and only those need be performed, and 
 
              any restrictions can be jointly agreed at between him 
 
              and his employer.
 
         
 
         (Jt. Ex. 1, p. 6)
 
         
 
              After receiving this letter from Dr. Carlstrom, Robert Hand, 
 
         president of Dahl's, set up another meeting with claimant, and 
 
         offered claimant his old position as a meat cutter:
 
         
 
                 But at the same time he was told when he could -- if 
 
              he got better to come back and see us.  And since that 
 
              point in time, we have had a meeting where we were 
 
              prepared to put him back to work because we were under 
 
              the impression that he could.
 
         
 
              Q.  Who gave you that impression?
 
         
 
              A.  We had a meeting -- Maryland Casualty Company, and 
 
              from their information from the doctor that he was only 
 
              three percent disabled and that he could perform the 
 
              duties.  And we agreed to put him back even in a 
 
              work-hardening position, you know, if necessary, like 
 
              four hours a day or whatever he felt he could do for a 
 
              couple of three weeks until he got into the swing of 
 
              things.  But we felt he could perform the duties he had 
 
              been doing within reason.
 
         
 
              Q.  Did Maryland Casualty tell you that it would be in 
 
              your best interests to do that because things would not 
 
              go well in workers' compensation if you didn't?
 
         
 
              A.  No, they did not.  They just asked me if we would 
 
              put him back to work and he was only three percent; and 
 
              at that time, that was when the wheels were put into 
 
              motion for the meeting we had on July 26th.
 
         
 
         (Cl. Ex. 6, p. 77)
 
         
 
              Kenneth Stroud, Dahl's vice president, stated:
 
         
 
              Q.  You mentioned something earlier that I wondered 
 
              about.  You said that when you talked to Mr. Hand, he 
 
              said that it looked like Dean was ninety-seven percent 
 
              able to do the work.  What do you think he meant by 
 
              that?
 
         
 
              A.  Well, I -- Bob and I had talked before, you know, 
 
              and we was talking about disability and -- And he was 
 
              quick to inform me that everybody -- nobody's a hundred 
 
              percent, so the first thing that went through my mind, 
 
              I wonder where I would rate in this deal.
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE   5
 
         
 
         
 
         
 
                 But, anyway, I figured that if he was ninety-seven 
 
              percent, then he could do just about anything, because 
 
              of the fact that nothing would be a hundred percent at 
 
              various times.  So I assumed that he could do anything 
 
              I could go down there and do, you know, if I had the 
 
              knowledge.  If I had the knowledge, I figured his body 
 
              was as good as mine when he told me ninety-seven 
 
              percent.
 
         
 
         (Cl. Ex. 6, p. 27)
 
         
 
              According to Robert Hand, claimant declined the employment 
 
         in the meat department because he felt he could not perform the 
 
         lifting duties involved:
 
         
 
              A.  This was the point when -- probably have been the 
 
              latter part of July when -- in some conversation or 
 
              letters with the insurance company and after Doctor 
 
              Carlstrom's letters that it was our understanding that 
 
              he probably could go back to work without any really 
 
              great restrictions.
 
         
 
              Q.  Or significant restrictions?
 
         
 
              A.  Right.  It would be what he would place on himself 
 
              what he could do, and at that point it was decided to 
 
              offer him the opportunity to come back, and an 
 
              appointment was made and he came in.  This was the 
 
              appointment where Mr. Stroud and Mr. Nissen were also 
 
              present.
 
         
 
              Q.  Right.
 
         
 
              A.  That meeting when Dean came in, it had to be a 
 
              Saturday morning.  I remember that.
 
         
 
              Q.  How did the conversation go?
 
         
 
              A.  I guess we were all -- everybody with the company 
 
              was under the impression that he would be able to go 
 
              back to work in the meat department.  In fact, that's 
 
              why we had the meat manager there at that point so he 
 
              would understand also what the conditions would be and 
 
              Mr. Stroud, who was the supervisor of that store, 
 
              also.
 
         
 
                 And in the process of the conversation, Dean made 
 
              the statement that there was no way he could go back to 
 
              work in the meat department, which was kind of 
 
              dumbfounding to us at that point.
 
         
 
                 We were kind of at a loss as to where to go at that 
 
              point because that was our understanding that he would 
 
              be able to, so when he left at that point I said the 
 
              only thing I could do was to get back to the insurance 
 
              company and see but that was my understanding, and 
 
              thats about where it ended at that point.
 
         
 
              Q.  At that time did you indicate to him that if he 
 
              felt he could come back and handle his job as a meat 
 
              cutter the position was open?
 
         
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE   6
 
         
 
         
 
              A.  Yes.
 
         
 
         (Transcript, pp. 73-75)
 
         
 
              Hand also stated that claimant's appearance was a factor in 
 
         dealing with the public, and that claimant's appearance had been 
 
         questionable in the past.  In regards to claimant's personal 
 
         appearance, Hand stated:
 
         
 
              Q.  What reservations did you have concerning his 
 
              personal appearance and grooming?
 
         
 
              A.  There again I guess it would be comparing it to 
 
              others, like even in the meat department where he 
 
              worked where they wear white coats.  It would be the 
 
              way they wear their tie.  It could be, I suppose, 
 
              considered maybe sloppy attire as far as that part 
 
              where his tie might not be tied.  A shirt might not be 
 
              buttoned properly or tie tied as the others.
 
         
 
                 That's the way we compare them.  I mean, when you 
 
              stand two people beside one another.
 
         
 
              Q.  Did you feel, though, that the basic requirements 
 
              that you set out for somebody who works in an up-front 
 
              position were something that Mr. Young could fulfill as 
 
              long as he was advised what the requirements were?
 
         
 
              A.  I think so, or he would not have been offered it if 
 
              we hadn't felt that he could fulfill given the 
 
              opportunity.
 
         
 
         (Tr. pp. 80-81)
 
         
 
              Claimant stated his reasons for declining his old job:
 
         
 
              Q.  Mr. Young, you are aware that based upon Doctor 
 
              Carlstrom's examination of you and the history that he 
 
              took from you in June of 1986 he released you to return 
 
              to work as a meat cutter if you were willing to give it 
 
              a try, isn't that correct?
 
         
 
                 ....
 
         
 
              A.  No and yes, in the respect that the weight 
 
              limitation was still there and to go back strictly as a 
 
              meat cutter in the position I had, he would have not 
 
              been releasing me for that, to perform a function 
 
              within the meat department.
 
         
 
                 ....
 
         
 
              A .  To go back to the meat department, relying on my 
 
              many years of knowledge within the meat cutting 
 
              business, yes, because when I left when I was injured, 
 
              in that market -- Fridays and Saturdays there is 
 
              nothing to cutting five sides of beef on one day, 
 
              lifting and cutting it and I -- there is no way I could 
 
              do that, and if that was really -- if that was the 
 
              intention of going back to the job, it was a waste of 
 
              my time going there and Mr. Hands and everybody else 
 
              that was there at that meeting because I knew I 
 
              couldn't do that.
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE   7
 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         (Transcript, pp. 51-53)
 
         
 
              Claimant owns and operates woodworking tools in his home, 
 
         and stated he has earned approximately $150 from this hobby in 
 
         the past one and one-half years.  Margaret Covey, a vocational 
 
         rehabilitation counselor who began working with claimant in 
 
         September of 1986, testified that a state vocational 
 
         rehabilitation process had determined that claimant's woodworking 
 
         skills would not provide an adequate income.  Covey indicated 
 
         that claimant had an aptitude for agriculture, and that claimant 
 
         exhibited good interview skills during an interview for a job 
 
         with Earl May Company that paid $4.00 per hour, but claimant was 
 
         not hired.  Covey stated that other employment opportunities for 
 
         claimant included a position with Pioneer Company as a greenhouse 
 
         technician at $6.00 - $8.00 per hour, or as an agriculture 
 
         laboratory assistant for the state earning up to $9.00 per hour.
 
         
 
              On August 8, 1986 Robert Hand stated in his deposition that 
 
         there were no jobs with Dahl's that claimant was capable of 
 
         performing in light of his physical restrictions:
 
         
 
                 Like I said, just lifting sometime, someplace.  I 
 
              just can't think of a job in a supermarket where there 
 
              isn't lifting and twisting involved.
 
         
 
              Q.  Based on what you just told me, I take it it's your 
 
              opinion based on your experience in the supermarket 
 
              business that due to Dean's injuries he is basically 
 
              unemployable in the supermarket business?
 
         
 
              A.  I wouldn't say in that -- In our particular case, 
 
              we don't because of our size --- I would think probably 
 
              there are some large companies which have warehouses 
 
     
 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE   8
 
         
 
         
 
              where there are jobs involving -- you know, with the 
 
              meat buying for the warehouse and things like that.  
 
              There are other jobs there such as that.  I'm talking 
 
              about as a meat cutter now on that part.
 
         
 
                 ....
 
         
 
              Q.  Based on what you just told me, I take it that it's 
 
              your opinion from your experience in the grocery 
 
              business that due to Dean's back injury, the problems 
 
              that he has with lifting, that he's basically 
 
              unemployable in the grocery business except for some 
 
              supermarket that might have a big warehouse where he 
 
              could order?
 
         
 
              A.  And I suppose there might be some -- I guess you 
 
              might call them meaningless jobs; they aren't 
 
              meaningless -- you can wash windows and things like 
 
              that.  But that pays three and a half, four dollars an 
 
              hour compared to a meat cutter's wages.
 
         
 
                 I suppose there's probably jobs that he could do, 
 
              but they would be at a considerably less rate of pay.
 
         
 
         (Cl. Ex. 6, pp. 67-70)
 
         
 
              Kenneth Stroud, corporate vice president for Dahl's, 
 
         stated:
 
         
 
              Q.  Based on your understanding of the problems that 
 
              Dean experiences from his back due to his work injury, 
 
              do you think there's any jobs at Dahl's that he could 
 
              handle?
 
         
 
              A.  I sure couldn't think of anything.
 
         
 
         (Cl. Ex. 6, p. 32)
 
         
 
              Mark Nissen, claimants former supervisor, testified as 
 
         follows:
 
         
 
              Q.  Do you think that a job could be modified in the 
 
              meat department where a man wouldn't have to do any 
 
              lifting of over fifty pounds and wouldn't have to do 
 
              any repetitive lifting of items over ten to fifteen 
 
              pounds?
 
         
 
              A.  No.
 
         
 
              Q.  Is that true not only at the Dahls stores but at 
 
              all grocery stores?
 
         
 
              A.  Yes.
 
         
 
              Q.  You've been around grocery stores, working in them 
 
              for at least seventeen years.  Mr. Nissen, would your 
 
              opinion be the same with respect to other jobs in a 
 
              grocery store like Dahl's; that is, that because of 
 
              those: limitations, if Dean feels that he cant lift 
 
              beyond those limitations of fifty pounds maximum or 
 
              repetitive lifting of ten to fifteen pounds, that there 
 
              would be no jobs that Dean could handle?
 
         
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE   9
 
         
 
         
 
              A.  I don't believe there is a job in the grocery 
 
              business.
 
         
 
              Q.  That he could handle?
 
         
 
              A.  That he could handle.
 
         
 
         (Cl. Ex. 6, p. 49)
 
         
 
              Subsequent to Dr. Carlstrom's July 8 letter, claimant 
 
         contacted Dr. Carlstrom and requested a letter concerning his 
 
         restrictions.  On August 20, 1986, Dr. Carlstrom reiterated:  "I 
 
         note that in October of 1985, I suggested a lifting restriction 
 
         of about 50 pounds and 15-pound repetitive restriction.  I would 
 
         recommend that those be continued in his case."
 
         
 
              Dr. Carlstrom explained the reasons for his letter of August 
 
         20, 1986:
 
         
 
              A.  Well, the restrictions that I suggested in the 
 
              August 1986 letter were generated by his request and I 
 
              suppose should be considered to be the result of his 
 
              request and his perception of what he was capable of 
 
              doing.  I also think that those restrictions are sound 
 
              from a medical point of view.
 
         
 
         (Jt. Ex. 6, p. 13)
 
         
 
              Less than one week prior to the hearing in October 1986, 
 
         claimant received a letter from Dahl's which offered him a 
 
         position as a full time utility clerk at a beginning wage of 
 
         $4.25 per hour with increases up to $5.00 per hour after 18 
 
         months.  The letter also stated that if claimant was not capable 
 
         of performing the duties of utility clerk, claimant could accept 
 
         a position as part-time cashier at $4.25 per hour with increases 
 
         up to $6.50 per hour after 18 months, if claimant's appearance 
 
         and grooming were satisfactory.  Claimant was also told he could 
 
         obtain a full-time cashier position when a vacancy occurred.
 
         
 
              Claimant expressed a reluctance to give up his new 
 
         employment at Younkers as a security person, and also stated he 
 
         declined the employment offer because he felt he was not capable 
 
         of performing the duties of the positions, such as sacking 
 
         groceries, loading carts and cars, bending and lifting items such 
 
         as pet food bags and salt bags weighing up to 50 pounds, cases of 
 
         pop, etc.:
 
         
 
              Q.  Do you know what the duties are of a utility 
 
              clerk?
 
         
 
              A.  It would be sorting cans and bottles, sorting 
 
              groceries, cashier work and sacking, loading cars.  
 
              Basically a utility clerk -- my understanding of what a 
 
              utility clerk was when I was working for the company is 
 
              where ever they needed a utility clerk -- they could 
 
              put the utility clerk, if they need him, in the 
 
              lunchroom washing dishes.  He would be there if they 
 
              needed him.  Anyplace that they were needed.
 
         
 
                 That was -- because that's what the name implied, 
 
              utility."  It could be used anyplace.
 
         
 
              Q.  Of the activities of the utility clerk, are there 
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE  10
 
         
 
         
 
              any of those activities that you think you cannot do 
 
              due to your work injury?  Whether it's loading cars or 
 
              bottles, just what you can and cannot do.
 
         
 
              A.  I would say -- I don't know until I get into the 
 
              actual -- to doing it.  Jobs like sorting the cans and 
 
              bottles, if that's a long period of bending and 
 
              stooping -- days that I'm out there working at trucks, 
 
              you have to bend down to cut the seal and unlock them 
 
              and that.
 
         
 
                 If I do that a lot of times, I can be hurting pretty 
 
              good in the back because of the bending and -- not 
 
              doing lifting, just the bending down and squatting down 
 
              and that.  That could be something I would have 
 
              problems with, but, as I say, I don't know until I try 
 
              it.
 
         
 
              Q.  What about loading cars?
 
         
 
              A.  Loading cars if the bags were -- I could have 
 
              problems there because of the twisting.  If they was 
 
              going into the back seat and that, there could be 
 
              problems.
 
         
 
              Q.  What kind of -- let me start that question again.
 
         
 
                  The items that are sold at a grocery store include 
 
              salt?
 
         
 
              A.  Yes.
 
         
 
              Q.  How many pounds of salt do they put in l bag like 
 
              for your walk?
 
         
 
              A.  I would say they are 50-60-pound bags.
 
         
 
              Q.  Including dog food?
 
         
 
              A.  Yeah.
 
         
 
              Q.  How much are the bags of dog food?
 
         
 
              A.  Big bags are 50.  Majority from 25 and 10, but they 
 
              do have bags up to 50 pounds.
 
         
 
              Q.  Big boxes of detergent?
 
         
 
              A.  Thirty pounds, I think, the super big ones.
 
         
 
              Q.  What was the weight lifting restriction that Doctor 
 
              Carlstrom put on you?
 
         
 
              A.  Fifty pounds.
 
         
 
         (Tr., pp. 58-60)
 
         
 
              The parties stipulated that claimant's healing period was 
 
         from April 29, 1985 through June 17, 1986.  Claimant did have a 
 
         prior injury that severed some nerves in his right hand 
 
         approximately 15 years earlier, resulting in some loss of feeling 
 
         in his thumb and first finger.  It was indicated that this injury 
 
         may have affected his dexterity test.
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE  11
 
         
 
         
 
         
 
                                  APPLICABLE LAW
 
         
 
              Permanent partial disabilities are classified as either 
 
         scheduled or unscheduled.  A specific scheduled disability is 
 
         evaluated by the functional method; 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, 887 (Iowa 1983).
 
         
 
              As a claimant has an impairment to the body as a whole, an 
 
         industrial disability has been sustained.  Industrial disability 
 
         was defined in Diederich v. Tri-City Railway Co., 219 Iowa 587, 
 
         593, 258 N.W. 899, 902 (1935) as follows:  "It is therefore plain 
 
         that the legislature intended the term 'disability' to mean 
 
         'industrial disability' or loss of earning capacity and not a 
 
         mere 'functional disability' to be computed in the terms of 
 
         percentages of the total physical and mental ability of a normal 
 
         man."
 
         
 
              The opinion of the supreme court in Olson v. Goodyear 
 
         Service Stores, 255 Iowa 1112, 1121, 1,25 N.W.2d 251, 257 (1963) 
 
         cited with approval a decision of the industrial commissioner for 
 
         the following proposition:
 
         
 
              Disability * * * as defined by the Compensation Act 
 
              means industrial disability, although functional, 
 
              disability is an element to be considered . . In 
 
              determining industrial disability, consideration may be 
 
              given to the injured employee's age, education, 
 
              qualifications, experience and his inability, because 
 
              of the injury, to engage in employment for which he is 
 
              fitted. * * * *
 
         
 
              Functional disability is an element to be considered in 
 
         determining industrial disability which is the reduction of 
 
         earning capacity, but consideration must also be given to the 
 
         injured employee's age, education, qualifications, experience and 
 
         inability to engage in employment for which he is fitted.  Olson 
 
         v. Goodyear Service Stores, 255 Iowa 1112, 125 N.W.2d 251 (1963).  
 
         Barton v. Nevada Poultry, 253 Iowa 285, 110 N.W.2d 660 (1961).
 
         
 
              A finding of impairment to the body as a whole found by a 
 
         medical evaluator does not equate to industrial disability.  This 
 
         is so as impairment and disability are not synonymous degree of 
 
         industrial disability can in fact be much different than the 
 
         degree of impairment because in the first instance reference is 
 
         to loss of earning capacity and in the later to anatomical or 
 
         functional abnormality or loss.  Although loss of function is to 
 
         be considered and disability can rarely be found without it, it 
 
         is not so that a degree of industrial disability is 
 
         proportionally related to a degree of impairment or bodily 
 
         function.
 
         
 
              Factors to be considered in determining industrial 
 
         disability 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; 
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE  12
 
         
 
         
 
         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.  
 
         These are matters which the finder of fact considers collectively 
 
         in arriving at the determination of the degree of industrial 
 
         disability.
 
         
 
              There are no weighting guidelines that indicate how each of 
 
         the factors are to be considered.  There are no guidelines which 
 
         give, for example, age a weighted value of ten percent of the 
 
         total value, education a value of fifteen percent of total, 
 
         motivation - five percent; work experience - thirty percent, 
 
         etc-.  Neither does a rating of functional impairment directly 
 
         correlate to a degree of industrial disability to the body as a 
 
         whole.  In other words, there are no formulae which can be 
 
         applied and then added up to determine the degree of industrial 
 
         disability.  It therefore becomes necessary for the deputy or 
 
         commissioner to draw upon prior experience, general and 
 
         specialized knowledge to make the finding with regard to degree 
 
         of industrial disability.  See Peterson v. Truck Haven Cafe, 
 
         Inc., (Appeal Decision, February 28, 1985); Christensen v. 
 
         Hagen, Inc., (Appeal Decision, March 26, 1985).
 
         
 
              In Parr v. Nash Finch Co., (Appeal Decision, October 31, 
 
         1980) the industrial commissioner, after analyzing the decisions 
 
         of McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1980) and 
 
         Blacksmith v. All-American, Inc., 290 N.W.2d 348 (Iowa 1980), 
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE  13
 
         
 
         
 
         stated:
 
         
 
              Although the court stated that they were looking for 
 
              the reduction in earning capacity it is undeniable that 
 
              it was the "loss of earnings" caused by the job 
 
              transfer for reasons related to the injury that the 
 
              court was indicating justified a finding of "industrial 
 
              disability."  Therefore, if a worker is placed in a 
 
              position by his employer after an injury to the body as 
 
              a whole and because of the injury which results in an 
 
              actual reduction in earning, it would appear this would 
 
              justify an award of industrial disability.  This would 
 
              appear to be so even if the worker's "capacity" to earn 
 
              has not been diminished.
 
         
 
              For example, a defendant employer's refusal to give any sort 
 
         of work to a claimant after he suffers his affliction may justify 
 
         an award of disability.  McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 
 
         N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1980).
 
         
 
              Similarly, a claimant's inability to find other suitable 
 
         work after making bona fide efforts to find such work may 
 
         indicate that relief would be granted.  McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal 
 
         Co, 288 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1980)
 
         
 
              A claimant's industrial disability may be diminished by his 
 
         failure to accept offered employment consistent with his 
 
         impairment.  Johnson v. Chamberlain Mfg. Corporation, 1 Iowa 
 
         Indus. Comm'r Rep. 166 (Appeal Decision October 31, 1980).
 
         
 
              Apportionment is limited to those situations where a prior 
 
         injury or illness independently produces some ascertainable 
 
         portion of the ultimate industrial disability which exists 
 
         following the employment-related aggravation.  Varied 
 
         Enterprises, Inc. v. Sumner, 353 N.W.2d 407 (Iowa 1984).
 
         
 
                                     ANALYSIS
 
         
 
              The sole issue on appeal is the extent of claimant's 
 
         industrial disability.  Several factors are involved in a 
 
         determination of industrial disability.  Claimant's physical 
 
         impairment as a result of his injury is one such factor.  
 
         Claimant has a permanent physical impairment rating of three to 
 
         four percent of the body as a whole.  Claimant has a lifting 
 
         restriction of 50 pounds, and a restriction on repetitive lifting 
 
         of 15 pounds.  Claimant did not undergo any surgery.
 
         
 
              Claimant's experience is in the grocery business.  The 
 
         record indicates that this work necessarily involves lifting 
 
         weights in excess of his lifting restrictions.  Claimant's 
 
         supervisors testified that claimant would not be able to perform 
 
         the duties of a meat cutter with his restrictions.  Claimant is 
 
         not able to perform the duties of the job he held at the time of 
 
         his injury, or any job in the grocery business.
 
         
 
              Claimant's age, education, and motivation to return to work 
 
         are also relevant.  Claimant was 47 years old at the time of the 
 
         hearing, and had a high school education.  Dr. Carlstrom 
 
         commented that claimant was a "well motivated individual."  When 
 
         Dr. Blessman recommended a weight loss to claimant on July 5, 
 
         1985, claimant complied and lost 17 pounds by his next visit on 
 
         August 30th.  Claimant is involved with an over-eaters group.  
 
         When claimant underwent a Short Term Evaluation at the Iowa State 
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE  14
 
         
 
         
 
         Vocational Rehabilitation Facility, it was noted that his work 
 
         was done "with sincere effort."  Margaret Covey also found 
 
         claimant to be motivated to become gainfully employed.  
 
         Claimant's supervisor stated that he felt claimant would be 
 
         working if he could lift.  Claimant was able to find substitute 
 
         employment, and in fact was working two part-time jobs even 
 
         though the hours involved were inconvenient.  Claimant sought 
 
         re-employment with Dahl's as shown by his resume.  Claimant's 
 
         motivation to return to work is good.
 
         
 
              Claimant's intelligence tests showed average intelligence 
 
         although claimant was found to have a slight stress intolerance, 
 
         and has difficulty spelling and writing.
 
         
 
              Claimant was earning $12.85 per hour at the time of his 
 
         injury.  Subsequent to his injury, claimant has only been able to 
 
         obtain employment paying $4.50 per hour.  The vocational 
 
         rehabilitation studies indicate that claimant has the potential 
 
         to earn between $4.00 and $6.00 per hour at the positions 
 
         identified, with a maximum of $9.00 per hour eventually.  The 
 
         employer offered claimant two positions just prior to the hearing 
 
         in this case, both of which paid wages in the range of $4.00 to 
 
         $6.00 per hour.  Claimant has suffered a loss of earnings as a 
 
         result of his injury.
 
         
 
              It is noted that although two of claimant's supervisors 
 
         mentioned that claimant might be well adapted to a position as a 
 
         meat buyer in a large grocery warehouse, the record indicates 
 
         that no such position exists with Dahl's, and the possibilities 
 
         of such employment with another company was not explored by the 
 
         vocational rehabilitation personnel.
 
         
 
              The employer in this case initially refused to provide work 
 
         to claimant because of the restrictions imposed as a result of 
 
         his injury.  Claimant's resume and request  for re-employment was 
 
         treated as a request for termination and application for stock 
 
         option proceeds.  Just prior to the hearing, the employer offered 
 
         claimant two possible positions other than meat cutter, in spite 
 
         of agreement among defendants' witnesses that claimant could not 
 
         perform any job in the grocery business.  These inconsistencies 
 
         tend to call into question the credibility of some of defendants' 
 
         witnesses.
 
         
 
              A claimant's refusal to accept work consistent with his 
 
         medical restrictions may justify a reduction of industrial 
 
         disability.  In this case, claimant actively sought reinstatement 
 
         with Dahl's after his injury, but was not rehired.  His refusal 
 
         to accept the meat cutter's job when it was offered to him later 
 
         was based on his perception of his own physical limitations.  
 
         That perception was later confirmed by Dr. Carlstrom when he 
 
         reiterated claimant's lifting restrictions.  Dr. Carlstrom's 
 
         letter of July 8, 1986, appears to have been read by the employer 
 
         as a complete lifting of all restrictions, whereas the record 
 
         shows that the restrictions were still medically necessary.
 
         
 
              Claimant also refused the two positions offered immediately 
 
         prior to the hearing.  Although part of his refusal appears to 
 
         have been based on antagonism toward Dahl's developed through the 
 
         course of this case, his refusal was also based on his own 
 
         perceived inability to perform the lifting aspects of those jobs. 
 
          His supervisors conceded that virtually every job in the grocery 
 
         business involved some lifting, either heavy or repetitive.  By 
 
         the time of the hearing, Dr. Carlstrom had reiterated the lifting 
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE  15
 
         
 
         
 
         restrictions.
 
         
 
              Based on these and all other appropriate factors for 
 
         determining industrial disability, claimant is determined to have 
 
         an industrial disability of 45 percent as a result of his injury 
 
         on March 13, 1985.
 
         
 
              Claimant had a prior injury to his hand.  The extent of any 
 
         disability as a result of this injury is not ascertainable from 
 
         the record.  The prior injury did not affect claimant's ability 
 
         to perform his work as a meat cutter.  An apportionment is not 
 
         appropriate.
 
         
 
                                 FINDINGS OF FACT
 
         
 
              1.  Claimant worked as a meat cutter for Dahl's where his 
 
         duties involved lifting meat weighing up to 100 pounds.
 
         
 
              2.  Claimant suffered an injury to his back in the course of 
 
         and arising out of his employment with Dahl's on March 13, 1985.
 
         
 
              3.  Claimant underwent a CT scan and myelogram which showed 
 
         results within normal limits.
 
         
 
              4.  Claimant was given a permanent impairment rating of 
 
         three to four percent of the body as a whole, a lifting 
 
         restriction of 50 pounds and a repetitive lifting restriction of 
 
         10 to 15 pounds.
 
         
 
              5.  Claimant was earning $12.85 per hour at the time of his 
 
         injury.
 
         
 
              6.  Claimant sought to return to work at Dahl's in October 
 
         1985, but was refused employment based on his medical 
 
         restrictions.
 
         
 
              7.  Claimant has obtained full-time employment subsequent to 
 
         his injury which earns $4.50 per hour.
 
         
 
              8.  Claimant is not able to perform the duties of a meat 
 
         cutter due to his injury, and cannot perform any other jobs in 
 
         the retail grocery business.
 
         
 
              9.  Claimant's healing period was from April 29, 1985 
 
         through June 17, 1986.
 
         
 
             10.  At the time of the hearing claimant was 47 years old, 
 
         possessed average intelligence and had a high school education.
 
         
 
             11.  Claimant is motivated to return to work.
 
         
 
             12.  Claimant has lost earnings as a result of his injury of 
 
         March 13, 1985.
 
         
 
             13.  Claimant has an industrial disability of 45 percent.
 
         
 
             14.  Claimant's rate of compensation was $380.14.
 
         
 
                                CONCLUSION OF LAW
 
         
 
              Claimant has an industrial disability of 45 percent as a 
 
         result of his injury of March 13, 1985.
 
         
 

 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHLS FOODS
 
         PAGE  16
 
         
 
         
 
              WHEREFORE, the decision of the deputy is affirmed.
 
         
 
                                      ORDER
 
         
 
              THEREFORE, it is ordered:
 
         
 
              That defendants are to pay unto claimant healing period 
 
         benefits from April 29, 1985 until June 17, 1986 at the rate of 
 
         three hundred eighty and 14/100 dollars ($380.14) per week.
 
         
 
              That defendants are to pay unto claimant two hundred 
 
         twenty-five (225) weeks of permanent partial disability benefits 
 
         at a rate of three hundred eighty and 14/100 dollars ($380.14) 
 
         per week from June 18, 1986.
 
         
 
              That defendants shall pay accrued weekly benefits in a lump 
 
         sum.
 
         
 
              That defendants shall pay interest on weekly benefits 
 
         awarded herein as set forth in Iowa Code section 85.30.
 
         
 
              That defendants are to be given credit for benefits 
 
         previously paid.
 
         
 
              That defendants are to pay the costs of the arbitration 
 
         proceeding and claimant shall pay the costs of this appeal 
 
         including the costs of the transcription of the hearing 
 
         proceeding.
 
         
 
              That defendants shall file claim activity reports as 
 
         required by this agency pursuant to Division of Industrial 
 
         Services Rule 343-3.1(2).
 
         
 
         
 
              Signed and filed this 26th day of August, 1988.
 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         
 
                                               DAVID E. LINQUIST
 
                                               INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER
 
         
 
         
 
         Copies To:
 
         
 
         Mr. Jim Lawyer
 
         Attorney at Law
 
         West Towers Office
 
         1200 35th St., Suite 500
 
         West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
 
         
 
         Mr. Joseph S. Cortese, II
 
         Attorney at Law
 
         1000 Des Moines Bldg.
 
         Des Moines, Iowa 50309
 
         
 
 
            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                1802; 1806
 
                                                Filed August 26, 1988
 
                                                David E. Linquist
 
         
 
                     BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER
 
         
 
         DEAN YOUNG,
 
         
 
              Claimant,
 
         
 
         vs.                                        File No. 793528
 
         
 
         DAHL'S FOODS,                                A P P E A L
 
         
 
              Employer,                             D E C I S I O N
 
         
 
         and
 
         
 
         MARYLAND CASUALTY,
 
         
 
              Insurance Carrier,
 
              Defendants.
 
         
 
         
 
         1802; 1806
 
         
 
              Affirmed deputy's award of 45% industrial disability for 
 
         grocery store meat cutter with back injury resulting in 3-4% body 
 
         as a whole rating of impairment, lifting restriction of 50 pounds 
 
         and repetitive lifting restriction of 10-15 pounds.  Claimant 
 
         showed good motivation to return to work and find alternative 
 
         work, but employer discharged him because of his impairment.  
 
         Employer's 11th hour job offer to claimant one week before 
 
         hearing contradicted testimony by employer's personnel that there 
 
         was no job in the grocery business claimant could perform.  
 
         Although claimant had a prior injury to the tendons of his hand, 
 
         this injury did not appear to cause any disability and no 
 
         apportionment was made.
 
         
 
 
            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                     BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER
 
         _________________________________________________________________
 
         
 
         DEAN YOUNG,
 
         
 
             Claimant,
 
         
 
         VS.
 
                                                 FILE NO.793528
 
         DAHL'S FOODS, INC.,
 
                                              A R B I T R A T I 0 N
 
              Employer,
 
                                                 D E C I S I 0 N
 
         and
 
         
 
         MARYLAND CASUALTY INSURANCE
 
         COMPANY,
 
         
 
              Insurance Carrier,
 
              Defendants
 
         
 
         _________________________________________________________________
 
         
 
                                   INTRODUCTION
 
         
 
              This is a proceeding in arbitration brought by Dean Young 
 
         against Dahl's Foods, Inc., employer, and Maryland Casualty 
 
         Insurance Company.  Claimant alleges that he sustained a 
 
         compensable injury to his back on March 13, 1985 and seeks 
 
         benefits based upon that injury.
 
         
 
                                     ISSUES
 
         
 
              The only issue presented by the parties at the time of 
 
         hearing was determination of claimant's entitlement to 
 
         compensation for permanent disability.  It was stipulated that 
 
         claimant had sustained an injury on March 13, 1985 which arose 
 
         out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant 
 
         employer; that the healing period for the injury extended from 
 
         April 29, 1985 through June 17, 1986; that the correct rate of 
 
         compensation is $380.14 per week; that 75 2/7 weeks of 
 
         compensation at the correct rate had been paid prior to hearing; 
 
         that all requested section 85.27 benefits have been paid by the 
 
         defendants; except charges for a cane in the amount of $16.64, a 
 
         back brace in the amount of $84.00 and tennis shoes in the amount 
 
         of $51.99. It was further stipulated that claimant's disability 
 
         is causally connected to the injury and that it is a disability 
 
         to the body as a whole for which the extent of disability should 
 
         be measured industrially.  Claimant also seeks an award of 
 
         costs.
 
         
 
              The case was heard at the commissioner's office in Des 
 
         Moines, Iowa on October 31, 1986 and was fully submitted upon
 
         
 
         the conclusion of the hearing.  The record in the proceeding 
 
         consists of testimony from Dean Young, Robert Hand, and Margarite 
 
         Covey.  The record also contains joint exhibits 1 through 6 and 
 
         defendants' exhibits A through 
 
         
 
         
 
         YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS, INC.                             
 
         Page   2
 
         
 
                                  SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
 
         
 
              The following is only a brief summary of pertinent evidence.  
 
         All evidence received at the hearing was considered when deciding 
 
         the case even though it may not be specifically referred to in 
 
         this decision.
 
         
 
              Dean Young is a 47 year old married man with three minor 
 
         children.  He has a high school diploma.  Shortly after Young 
 
         graduated from high school, he obtained employment as a stock boy 
 
         at Pigeon's Grocery Store.  In August, 1958, he became a meat 
 
         cutter.  Claimant left his job with Pigeon's to accept a position 
 
         with Dahl's and had been employed as a meat cutter at Dahl's 
 
         continuously for 17 years prior to the injury.  At the time of 
 
         injury claimant was working as the second man or assistant 
 
         manager in the meat department.  His duties included boning, 
 
         cutting, sawing, grinding, cleanup and dealing with customers.  
 
         Young testified that the job required lifting of as much as 100 
 
         pounds in the form of pieces of meat or tubs of meat.  As second 
 
         man he filled in and performed the meat department manager's 
 
         duties whenever the manager was absent.
 
         
 
              Young testified that on March 13, 1985, he was preparing for 
 
         the day's work.  In doing so he dumped a bone barrel which he 
 
         described as three feet high and weighing a couple of hundred 
 
         pounds into a 55 gallon barrel and hurt himself.  He stated that 
 
         he felt pain in his low back while swinging the barrel up in 
 
         order to dump it.  Young testified that he kept working and tried 
 
         to work out of the pain but that it would not go away.  Young 
 
         testified that prior to this injury he had some workers' 
 
         compensation claims for cuts but had never missed any work due to 
 
         an injury to his back.
 
         
 
              Young testified that when he did not recover, he sought care 
 
         from James L. Blessman, M.D., his personal physician, and was 
 
         treated with medication and being released from work.  He stated 
 
         that he was eventually allowed to return to work but that the 
 
         pain did not go away.  He was then referred to Robert F. 
 
         Breedlove, M.D., who arranged to have a CT scan and myelogram 
 
         performed.  Following those procedures, claimant was directed to 
 
         Thomas A. Carlstrom, M.D., by the Maryland Casualty Company.  
 
         Young testified that Dr. Carlstrom examined him but did not 
 
         provide any actual treatment.  He stated that all of the 
 
         treatment that he has received for the injury has been under the 
 
         direction of Dr. Blessman.
 
         
 
              Claimant entered the Mercy Hospital Pain Center in December, 
 
         1985.  He described the program as hard and tiring but helpful.
 
         
 
              Claimant has not undergone surgery and stated that none of 
 
         the physicians have recommended surgery.  He complains of 
 
         constant lower back pain that runs down his hip and into his leg.  
 
         He stated that during the hearing the pain ran as far down his 
 
         leg as his knee and that at times it runs into his foot.  He 
 
         stated that almost everything he does causes pain and that he no 
 
         longer mows his lawn, changes oil in his car and only gets down 
 
         on the floor in order to perform his daily back exercises.  
 
         Claimant stated that activities which increase the discomfort 
 

 
         YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS, INC.                             
 
         Page   3
 
 
 
 
 
         include sitting for more than one-half hour or 45 minutes and 
 
         standing for extended times.  He stated that he is unable to pick 
 
         up his children and that on one occasion at work he carried a 35 
 
         pound box up a flight of stairs and experienced an increase in 
 
         his discomfort for the remainder of the day.  He stated that 
 
         driving causes problems for him due to the extended sitting and 
 
         bumps in the roadway.
 
         
 
              Claimant testified that he uses a back brace and displayed a 
 
         corset type of brace.  He testified that it was recommended by 
 
         Dr. Blessman and that he paid for it from his own funds in the 
 
         amount of $84.00. Claimant testified he has a cane which was also 
 
         recommended by Dr. Blessman in order to enable him to remain 
 
         active when he would otherwise be sedentary.  He testified that 
 
         the cane had cost $16.64. Claimant testified that the Pain Center 
 
         treatment recommended that he enroll in the YMCA.  He testified 
 
         that he did a lot of walking while he was not employed, 
 
         approximately three miles per day, and displayed a pair of tennis 
 
         shoes that the insurance carrier paid for when he went into the 
 
         Pain Center.  He testified that the shoes are worn and hurt his 
 
         feet.  He has replaced them with a new pair which cost $55.99. 
 
         Claimant testified that the insurance company has not paid the 
 
         cost of the back brace, cane or new tennis shoes.
 
         
 
              Young testified that when Dr. Carlstrom released him in 
 
         approximately October he returned to Dahl's where he spoke to 
 
         Mark Nissen, the meat manager, Dave Johnson, the grocery manager 
 
         and Bob Hand, the president of the company.  Claimant testified 
 
         that he was unable to perform all of the activities of a meat 
 
         cutter due to his physical restrictions but that he was looking 
 
         for an opportunity to reenter the job market and felt that there 
 
         were things that he could do for the company and wanted to try 
 
         them.  Claimant stated that Hand's response was negative for so 
 
         long as claimant's physical restrictions remained in effect but 
 
         that a job would be available for him as a meat cutter if the 
 
         restrictions were removed.  Claimant stated that no-other 
 
         positions were offered or suggested.  He stated that he then 
 
         began seeking other work.
 
         
 
              In response to exhibit B, a letter dated July 16, 1986, 
 
         claimant again met with Dahl's management including Nissen, Hand
 
         and Kenneth Stroud.  Claimant testified that they discussed the 
 
         Possibilities of his return to work with the company and that all 
 
         involved felt that he would not be able to work as a meat cutter 
 
         and that there was still no job in the company that he was 
 
         capable of performing.  Claimant testified that within the week 
 
         Preceding the hearing he received exhibit C, a letter which makes 
 
         a conditional offer of jobs with Dahl's.  The positions offered 
 
         included full time utility clerk with a beginning wage of $4.25 
 
         per hour and increases up to $5.00 per hour after 18 months and 
 
         parttime cashier with a beginning wage of $4.25 per hour and 
 
         increases up to $6.50 per hour after 18 months.    The letter 
 
         further states that if claimant's appearance and performance are 
 
         satisfactory that he would be considered for a full time cashier 
 
         position whenever such became vacant and that the potential pay 
 
         for that position would range up to $8.75 per hour after three 
 
         years.  The letter further states that claimant would receive 
 
         full fringe benefits if he became employed on a full time basis.  
 
         Claimant declined the offered positions because he felt that he 
 

 
         YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS, INC.                             
 
         Page   4
 
 
 
 
 
         was unable to perform the physical demands of either position and 
 
         because there appeared to him to be an excessive number of 
 
         conditions in the offer.  Young testified that he was very 
 
         disappointed with the company in the sense that none of these 
 
         positions had been offered or suggested in October of 1985 or the 
 
         summer of 1986.  Claimant was unwilling to jeopardize his current 
 
         employment with Younkers in order to return to Dahl's where the 
 
         chance of continued employment appeared small.
 
         
 
              Claimant testified that shortly after he initially had 
 
         discussed returning to work with Dahl's he obtained employment as 
 
         a parttime security person for Younkers and also as a part-time 
 
         clerk in the hardware department at the Wards Store at Merle Hay 
 
         Mall.  Claimant stated that the position with Wards was temporary 
 
         for the Christmas season only and that he terminated the 
 
         employment in order to enter the Pain Center.  He stated that the 
 
         job paid $3.35 per hour with no fringe benefits.  Claimant 
 
         described the Younkers job as initially involving 18 hours per 
 
         week working nights at the downtown store but that he moved to 
 
         the distribution center and became employed on a full time basis 
 
         April or May, 1986.   He earns $4.50 per hour, receives some 
 
         medical insurance, a discount on purchases and two weeks of 
 
         vacation as fringe benefits.
 
         
 
              Claimant has a wood working hobby and a considerable amount 
 
         of tools at his home.  He testified that he has earned a profit 
 
         from his wood working in the amount of approximately $150 in the 
 
         past one to one and one-half years.  He stated that he is unable 
 
         to make a living through wood working but can supplement his 
 
         income with the hobby.
 
         
 
              Claimant testified that he was evaluated at the State 
 
         Vocational Rehabilitation Facility starting in January, 1986 and
 
         that he has talked with Maggie Covey, a rehabilitation counselor, 
 
         on several occasions.  Claimant acknowledged that Dr. Carlstrom 
 
         has indicated that he should be able to perform the duties of a 
 
         grocery store cashier or a utility clerk, the same positions as 
 
         were offered in exhibit C. He stated that he was unable to 
 
         perform either of those positions because they require sacking 
 
         groceries, loading carts and cars, bending and lifting of items 
 
         such as pet food bags which can weigh as much as 50 pounds.  
 
         Claimant felt that there was little opportunity to obtain a full 
 
         time cashier position because Dahl's has hired very few in recent 
 
         years.  He felt that when full time cashiers left the company 
 
         they were usually replaced by part-time workers.  Claimant 
 
         testified that during the time preceding the hearing, he had 
 
         applied for jobs at a number of grocery stores, including a new 
 
         Dahl's store and was not hired.  Claimant denied that the only 
 
         relief he wanted from Dahl's was for the company to create a new 
 
         management position for him.  Claimant agreed that he would be 
 
         able to perform many of the functions in the meat department but 
 
         that he was not capable of performing all meat department 
 
         activities.
 
         
 
              Robert Hand, President of Foods, Inc., stated that when he 
 
         initially discussed claimant's possible return to work they spoke 
 
         primarily of the meat department.  He stated that claimant later 
 
         sent in a letter setting out things that he thought he could do 
 
         for the company and stated that the letter referred to existing 
 

 
         YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS, INC.                             
 
         Page   5
 
 
 
 
 
         positions and also suggested creating new positions.  The letter 
 
         is in evidence as part 3 of exhibit 4. Hand testified that Dahl's 
 
         has an employee stock option plan but that an employee cannot 
 
         receive the funds from it so long as the employee is still on the 
 
         payroll.  Hand testified that claimant had not requested the 
 
         money but that Hand indicated that he could receive it if the 
 
         employment relationship was terminated.  The relationship was 
 
         terminated and the stock option funds in the amount of 
 
         approximately $61,000.00 were paid to claimant.  He stated that 
 
         the entire amount came from company contributions to the plan.
 
         
 
              Hand testified that his last contact with claimant was in 
 
         July, 1986 and that it was initiated due to a report from Dr. 
 
         Carlstrom which indicated that no formal restrictions were 
 
         necessary.  Hand confirmed that after the discussion with other 
 
         Dahl's managers the claimant informed them that he could not 
 
         return to full duty in the meat department.  Hand stated that 
 
         within the past couple of weeks immediately prior to hearing the 
 
         management group decided that claimant could return to work under 
 
         the conditions expressed in exhibit C.
 
         
 
              Hand stated that appearance and grooming were important in 
 
         dealing with the public and that over the years claimant's had 
 
         not been as good as that of others in the meat department.  He 
 
         stated that in March, 1985, claimant had some opportunity for
 
         advancement but that it was unlikely to happen in the near future 
 
         as he had formerly been considered for a meat department manager 
 
         position but had not been awarded the promotion since it was felt 
 
         that he did not have the ability to handle people.
 
         
 
              Hand testified that there was little turn over in the full 
 
         time cashier positions but that the position as a full time 
 
         position was not being eliminated.  He testified that in 1982, 
 
         1983 and 1984 no new full time cashiers were hired, that one or 
 
         two were hired in 1985 and that three were hired in 1986 except 
 
         for the new store that was opened.  He testified that formerly 60 
 
         percent of the employees in a store were full time and 40 percent 
 
         were part-time but that now only 40 percent are full time.  He 
 
         stated that cashier's positions were always highly filled with 
 
         part-time employees.  He stated that for claimant to obtain a 
 
         full time cashier position he would have to compete with other 
 
         applicants.  Hand stated that he was concerned that claimant may 
 
         have developed a less than favorable attitude toward the 
 
         company.
 
         
 
              Margarite Covey, a vocational rehabilitation counselor, 
 
         testified that she has been involved in claimant's case with a 
 
         goal of enabling him to function at his maximum level.  She 
 
         stated that she tried to assist with stress management and also 
 
         investigated job opportunities.  Covey testified that the state 
 
         vocational rehabilitation process had gone into claimant's wood 
 
         working skills but that she and claimant agreed that wood working 
 
         would not provide an adequate income.  Covey felt that claimant 
 
         had demonstrated an interest in agriculture and that she has 
 
         investigated certain positions.  She stated that she found an 
 
         employment opportunity and that claimant interviewed for a job 
 

 
         YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS, INC.                             
 
         Page  6
 
 
 
 
 
         with the Earl May Company where he exhibited good interviewing 
 
         skills but was not hired for the $4.00 per hour Position.  Covey 
 
         felt that an opportunity for employment existed with the Pioneer 
 
         Company where claimant could work as a greenhouse technician 
 
         earning $6.00 to $8.00 per hour.  She also felt that there was an 
 
         opportunity for claimant to work as a lab assistant for the state 
 
         in the agriculture area where he could earn up to $9.00 per 
 
         hour.
 
         
 
              Joint exhibit 1 contains a collection of medical reports 
 
         from various practitioners and providers.  Claimant commenced his 
 
         medical care with James L. Blessman, M.D., and when he did not 
 
         improve was referred to Robert Breedlove, M.D. A myelogram and CT 
 
         scan were performed with both showing results that were within 
 
         normal limits.  The insurance carrier referred claimant to Thomas 
 
         A. Carlstrom, M.D. (Ex. 1, pages 11 & 12).  Dr. Carlstrom felt 
 
         that claimant's condition was myofascial rather than 
 
         neurological.  On October 21, 1985, Dr. Carlstrom discharged 
 
         claimant with a permanent partial impairment rating of six 
 
         percent of the body as a whole (Ex. 1, pp. 1 & 2).  Dr. Carlstrom 
 
         recommended that claimant needed job rehabilitation to one that, 
 
         required less heavy lifting and imposed an absolute lifting
 
         
 
         
 
         restriction of 50 pounds and a restriction of 10 to 15 pounds for 
 
         repetitive lifting.
 
         
 
              With Dr. Carlstrom's consent (Ex. 1, p. 3) claimant entered
 
              the Mercy Hospital Pain Center and completed the program 
 

 
         YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS, INC.                             
 
         Page   7
 
 
 
 
 
         successfully (Ex. 1, p. 24).  Claimant has been evaluated at the 
 
         Medical Occupational Evaluation Center affiliated with Mercy 
 
         Hospital Medical Center in January, 1986.  It was recommended 
 
         that claimant pursue aptitude and interest testing through 
 
         vocational rehabilitation at the Iowa State Vocational 
 
         Rehabilitation Center.
 
         
 
              In February, 1986, claimant entered the Iowa State 
 
         Vocational Rehabilitation Facility.  He was comprehensively 
 
         tested and evaluated.  The final recommendations from the 
 
         evaluation were that claimant attempt to expand the line of wood 
 
         working items that he produces and also that he continue with his 
 
         night watchman job (Ex. 3, p. 1) .
 
         
 
              In September 1986, claimant was evaluated by Maggie Covey, a 
 
         certified rehabilitation consultant with Constitution Service 
 
         Company.  The recommendations made at that time were that Covey 
 
         maintain contact and counsel claimant with regard to job seeking 
 
         skills and activities in an attempt to move him toward his 
 
         maximum functional attainment (Ex. 3, p. 14).  Covey testified at 
 
         hearing that she recommended that claimant continue his 
 
         employment with Younkers but continue exploration of employment 
 
         possibilities in the agricultural area.  She found claimant to be 
 
         motivated to be gainfully employed (Ex. 6, pp. 9 & 10).  Covey 
 
         agreed that wood working was not a feasible source of full time 
 
         employment for claimant (Ex. 6, p. 12).
 
         
 
              In his deposition taken October 1, 1986, Dr. Carlstrom 
 
         indicated that when he initially examined claimant he observed a 
 
         great deal of paravertebral muscle spasm and limited range of 
 
         motion.  Dr. Carlstrom confirmed the lifting restrictions which 
 
         he had previously imposed but stated that claimant's permanent 
 
         partial impairment is three or four percent of the body as a 
 
         whole rather than six percent.  Dr. Carlstrom felt that the 
 
         .restrictions were sound from a medical point of view (Ex. 6, pp 
 
         12 & 13).  Dr. Carlstrom felt that claimant could not continue to 
 
         work as a meat cutter but that he could function as a cashier or 
 
         in a courtesy counter type of position (Ex. 6, pp. 14 & 16).
 
         
 
              Mark Nissen, claimant's former supervisor at Dahl's, felt 
 
         that claimant would not be able to work as a meat cutter at 
 
         Dahl's and that, to his knowledge, there were no jobs in the 
 
         grocery business that claimant would be physically capable of 
 
         performing (Ex. 6, p. 14 & 49).
 
         
 
              Kenneth Stroud, supervisor and corporate vice president for 
 
         Dahl's testified that of the 1,600 employees that Dahl's employs 
 
         that there were, to his knowledge, no jobs with Dahl's that 
 
         claimant would be physically capable of performing (Ex. 6, pp. 32 
 
         & 33).
 
         
 
              Robert Hand, President of Foods, Inc., and Dahl's, testified 
 
         by way of deposition that the company has never modified jobs for 
 
         injured employees (Ex. 6, pp. 66 & 67).  He stated that there was 
 
         no job with Dahl's that claimant was capable of performing in 
 
         view of his physical restrictions but that possibly a larger 
 
         grocery warehouse might have some opportunity (Ex. 6, p. 70).  He 
 
         indicated that at the time of injury claimant had been earning 
 
         $15.10 per hour (Ex. 6, p. 73).
 

 
         YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS, INC.                             
 
         Page  8
 
         
 
              Exhibit 5 shows claimant to have earned approximately 
 
         $32,000 per year in 1984 and 1983.
 
         
 
                          APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
 
         
 
              Through the prehearing report and statements made by counsel 
 
         at commencement of the hearing the only issues remaining to be 
 
         determined in the case are the extent of permanent disability; a 
 
         limited number of medical expenses; and costs of the proceeding.  
 
         It was stipulated that claimant's condition is compensable under 
 
         Chapter 85 of the Code.
 
         
 
              The opinion of the supreme court in Olson v. Goodyear 
 
         Service Stores, 255 Iowa 1112, 1121, 125 N.W.2d 251, 257 (1963) 
 
         cited with approval a decision of the industrial commissioner for 
 
         the following proposition:
 
         
 
              Disability * * * as defined by the Compensation Act means 
 
         industrial disability, although functional disability is an 
 
         element to be,considered . . .   In determining industrial 
 
         disability, consideration may be given to the injured employee's 
 
         age, education, qualifications, experience and his inability, 
 
         because of the injury, to engage in employment for which he is 
 
         fitted. * * * *
 
         
 
              The, refusal of an employer to reemploy an injured worker is 
 
         strong evidence of a substantial level of disability.  II Larson 
 
         Workman's Compensation Law, section 57.61.
 
         
 
              Claimant is 47 years old and has a high school education.  
 
         His entire work history has involved work in grocery stores.  The 
 
         primary portion of it has been as a meat cutter.  Prior to the 
 
         injury claimant was earning approximately $32,000 per year at an 
 
         hourly rate of slightly over $15.00 per hour.  He enjoyed an 
 
         advantageous fringe benefit package.  Dr. Carlstrom has suggested 
 
         that claimant would be capable of working as a cashier or 
 
         courtesy counter clerk in a grocery store but individuals more 
 
         familiar with the grocery business, namely Robert Hand,
 
         Kenneth Stroud, Mark Nissen and claimant all agree that if the 
 
         physical restrictions imposed by Dr. Carlstrom are followed, 
 
         there is no work that claimant is capable of performing in the 
 
         Dahl's grocery store business, or in any other grocery store 
 
         business.  The only possible grocery related occupation suggested 
 
         by any of the people most familiar with the business involved 
 
         work in a large grocery warehouse or work as a meat inspector or 
 
         buyer.  No evidence whatsoever was introduced which would 
 
         indicate that any of such positions were currently open or ever 
 
         would become open to claimant.
 
         
 
              Claimant has been throughly evaluated from a vocational 
 
         rehabilitation standpoint.  According to Maggie Covey his best 
 
         opportunities for employment seem to rest in the agricultural 
 
         area with either Pioneer or the State of Iowa.  According to her, 
 
         $9.00 per hour would be the maximum earnings that he could 
 
         achieve in those positions.  Many of the jobs in the agricultural 
 
         field available to claimant appear to pay in the range of $4.00 
 
         to $6.00 per hour.  Claimant testified that he currently earns 
 
         $4.50 per hour at the Younkers Warehouse.  His current fringe 
 

 
         YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS, INC.                             
 
         Page  9
 
 
 
 
 
         benefit package is minimal.  Claimant has obviously sustained a 
 
         substantial loss of earning capacity.
 
         
 
              It would appear that claimant is currently somewhat 
 
         underemployed.  Nevertheless, his current position appears 
 
         reasonably stable and secure.  He has demonstrated his ability to 
 
         function gainfully in his current position.  It would normally be 
 
         expected that an individual would strive to obtain the employment 
 
         that was most economically advantageous to him but other factors 
 
         sometimes come into play.  Claimant has a long history of steady 
 
         gainful employment.  Once he became a meat cutter he continued to 
 
         work as a meat cutter.  He changed employers only once during his 
 
         entire working life.  It is understandable that he would not be 
 
         comfortable in a situation where he had to seek other employment.  
 
         It is found, however, that the current employment is not truly 
 
         representative of his actual earning capacity and that for 
 
         purposes of evaluating his industrial disability and earning 
 
         capacity a wage range of $6.00 to $8.00 per hour is considered as 
 
         obtainable if reasonable efforts at obtaining that employment are 
 
         made.  The fact that claimant has no background in agriculture 
 
         weighs heavily against him should he try to compete for the 
 
         higher paying jobs in the agricultural area.  The record shows 
 
         complete consensus for the proposition that claimant's wood 
 
         working activities are not a viable source of full time gainful 
 
         employment.
 
         
 
              One somewhat perplexing part of the case relates to the 
 
         diagnosed medical condition, the impairment rating and the 
 
         physical restrictions which have been imposed.  The three are not 
 
         particularly consistent with what is commonly seen in cases of 
 
         this nature.  A truly definitive diagnosis is not found in the 
 
         record.  There is the general diagnosis of a myofascia
 
         strain as made by Dr. Carlstrom.  A radiographic report indicates 
 
         the existence of degenerative changes and spur formation (Ex. 1, 
 
         p. 42).  There is one indication in the record that Dana L. 
 
         Simon, M.D., felt that claimant was either over reacting or had 
 
         an unusual pain threshold (Ex. 1, p. 22).  There is, however, no 
 
         direct medical evidence in the record from any practitioner which 
 
         states that claimant's complaints are unwarranted or that they 
 
         are not medically supported.  The restrictions and impairment 
 
         rating imposed by Dr. Carlstrom are therefore accepted as 
 
         correct.
 
         
 
              When all the pertinent criteria are considered it is found 
 
         that claimant's disability, when evaluated industrially, is 45 
 
         percent permanent partial disability.
 
         
 
              Claimant seeks to recover section 85.27 benefits for the 
 
         cost of the cane, a back brace, tennis shoes and membership to 
 
         the YMCA.  The cane and back brace were medically indicated 
 
         directly and the cost thereof in the amount of $100.64 is the 
 
         responsibility of the employer and insurance carrier.
 
         
 
              The tennis shoes and membership in the YMCA are not items 
 
         which were directly medically prescribed.  Therefore, employer 
 
         and insurance carrier will not be responsible for the cost.  The 
 
         fact that one pair of tennis shoes was provided does not 
 
         necessarily make the employer responsible for providing claimant 
 

 
                            
 
         YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS, INC.                             
 
         Page  10
 
 
 
 
 
         with tennis shoes throughout the rest of his life.
 
         
 
              With regard to costs the two reports in the amount of $35.00 
 
         are clearly assessable under Rule 343-4.33(6). The deposition 
 
         costs for Nissen, Hand and Stroud in the amount of $206.60  are 
 
         likewise assessable under Rules 343-4.33(l) and 4.33(2).     
 
         There is some disparity regarding whether transcription costs 
 
         should be assessed if the deposition is admitted into evidence 
 
         and the witness also testifies.  Had the witness appeared at 
 
         hearing without having been previously deposed the extent of the 
 
         examination at hearing would likely have been greater.  In the 
 
         event of an appeal the transcription costs have been reduced due 
 
         to the prior transcription of the deposition.  Accordingly, the 
 
         transcription cost for the depositions that were received into 
 
         evidence are determined to be part of the cost of the case under 
 
         Rule 343-4. 33(2).
 
         
 
              The parties stipulated at the time of hearing that 75 2/7 
 
         weeks of compensation has been paid up to the time of hearing.  
 
         According to paragraph four of the prehearing report the 
 
         stipulated healing period runs from April 29, 1985 through June 
 
         17, 1986.  This computes to 59 2/7 weeks.  It was stipulated in 
 
         paragraph five of the prehearing report that commencement of 
 
         payment of permanent partial disability became due on June 18, 
 
         1986.  It was stipulated in paragraph 10 of the prehearing report 
 
         that 75 2/7 weeks of compensation had been paid previously.  
 
         After deducting the healing period the result is 16 weeks 
 
         of permanent partial disability to which defendants are 
 
         entitled to credit.
 
         
 
                                 FINDINGS OF FACT
 
         
 
              1.  Dean Young is currently afflicted with a three to four 
 
         percent disability of the body as a whole due to the condition on 
 
         his back.  Medically imposed restrictions on lifting include a 50 
 
         pound absolute limit and 15 pound repetitive lifting limit.
 
         
 
              2.  The cane and back brace which claimant uses. were 
 
         recommended by an authorized treating physician and the cost 
 
         thereof in the amount of $100.64 is reasonable.
 
         
 
              3.  The deposition costs in the amount of $241.60 are 
 
         reasonable.
 
         
 
              4.  Dean Young is a 47 year old man with a high school 
 
         education.
 
         
 
              5.  Young's entire work history has been in the grocery 
 
         store business with the major part thereof being as a meat 
 
         cutter.
 
         
 
              6.  As a meat cutter Young earned in the range of  $15.00 
 
         per hour.
 
         
 
              7.  Since the injury claimant's earning capacity has been 
 
         reduced to the range of $6.00 to $8.00 per hour.
 
         
 

 
         YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS, INC.                             
 
         Page  11
 
 
 
 
 
              8.  As a result of the injury of March 13, 1985, Dean Young 
 
         has sustained a 45 percent permanent partial disability when the 
 
         same is evaluated industrially.
 
         
 
                                CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
 
         
 
              1.  Claimant is entitled to receive 225 weeks of 
 
         compensation for permanent partial disability.
 
         
 
              2.  The employer is responsible under section 85.27 for 
 
         payment in the amount of $100.64 for the cost of a cane and back 
 
         brace but is not responsible for the cost of tennis shoes and 
 
         YMCA membership.
 
         
 
              3.  Under Rule 343-4.33 the employer is responsible for 
 
         payment of costs in the amount of $241.60.
 
         
 
                                     ORDER
 
         
 
              IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants pay claimant two 
 
         hundred twenty-five (225) weeks of compensation for permanent 
 
         partial disability at the rate of three hundred eighty and 14/100 
 
         dollars ($380.14) per week commencing June 18, 1986 less credit 
 
         for sixteen (16) weeks of benefits previously paid at the time of 
 
         hearing.  Past due amounts are to be paid together with interest 
 
         pursuant to section 85.30 of the Code.
 
         
 
              IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants pay claimant one 
 

 
          YOUNG V. DAHL'S FOODS, INC.                             
 
          Page  12
 
 
 
 
 
         hundred and 64/100 dollars ($100.64) for the cost of the cane and 
 
         back brace under section 85.27.
 
         
 
              IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants pay claimant the cost 
 
         of this action in the amount of two hundred forty-one and 60/100 
 
         dollars ($241.60).
 
         
 
              IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants file claim activity 
 
         reports as requested by this agency.
 
         
 
         
 
         Signed and filed this 27th day of February, 1987.
 
         
 
         
 
         
 
         
 
                                            MICHAEL G. TRIER
 
                                            DEPUTY INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER
 
         
 
         
 
         Copies To:
 
         
 
         Mr. Jim Lawyer
 
         Attorney at Law
 
         2141 Grand Avenue
 
         P. 0. Box 367
 
         Des Moines, Iowa 50302
 
         
 
         Mr. Joseph S. Cortese, II
 
         Attorney at Law
 
         1000 Des Moines Bldg.
 
         Des Moines, Iowa 50309
 
         
 
 
            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 1402.40; 1803
 
                                                 Filed February 27, 1987
 
                                                 MICHAEL G. TRIER
 
         
 
                      BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER
 
         _________________________________________________________________
 
         
 
         DEAN YOUNG,
 
         
 
              Claimant,
 
         
 
         VS.
 
                                                 FILE NO. 793528
 
         DAHL'S  FOODS, INC.,
 
                                              A R B I T R A T I 0 N
 
              Employer,
 
                                                 D E C I S I 0 N
 
         and
 
         
 
         MARYLAND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
 
         
 
              Insurance Carrier,
 
              Defendants.
 
         _________________________________________________________________
 
         
 
         1402.40;  1803
 
         
 
              Forty-seven year old meat cutter suffered a back injury 
 
         which made him unable to continue to work in his trade.  His 
 
         earning potential dropped from an actual $15.00 per hour rate to 
 
         a capacity somewhere in the range of $6.00 to $8.00 per hour.  At 
 
         the time of hearing he was employed earning $4.75 per hour.  
 
         Claimant awarded 45 percent PPD, recovery of certain specified 
 
         medical expenses of a cane and back brace.  A request for payment 
 
         of the cost of tennis shoes with which to exercise and YMCA 
 
         membership was denied.  Claimant was awarded costs including the 
 
         deposition costs of witnesses, for the attendance of the court 
 
         reporter at the deposition and the transcript of the deposition.