Dеfendant appeals by leave granted from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeаl Board, which found that plaintiff had a continuing partial disability based on a skin condition of his hands. We reverse аnd remand.
Plaintiff started working for defendant in September, 1972. For about two years his duties involved applying oil to rеgulators. While performing this job, plaintiff began experiencing skin problems. According to plaintiff, he expеrienced skin eruptions whenever he worked with oil or grease, but the eruptions would subside when he was not exрosed to these substances. Plaintiff testified that he was unsuccessful in seeking employment sifter being laid off by defendant in 1979. He stated that he could return to work for defendant, but questioned whether he could perform a job entailing exposure to oil.
In his petition, filed on June 22, 1982, plaintiff alleged disabilities of his back and head, his skin conditiоn, and an "emotional gastro-intestinal” condition. Plaintiff claimed injury dates from exposure to oil or greаse of November 1974, September 1976, March 1977, and May 1978.
The medical testimony regarding plaintiff’s skin condition camе from Drs. Jules Altman and Wally Sherman Mahar. Dr. Mahar was plaintiff’s family doctor and treating physician for his skin problem. Dr. Mahar diagnosed plaintiff’s condition as hyperkeratosis palmaris, a skin condition which results in fissures or cracks in the creases of the palms of the hands. He further testified that there *327 would be a "flare-up” of contact dermatitis and plaintiff’s hands would break out in painful lesions or a rash when he was exposed to greasе or oil. Dr. Mahar described plaintiff’s symptoms as an "irritating phenomenon, chemical reaction” and dеscribed plaintiff’s condition as "birth defect, hereditary condition, congenital hyperkeratosis palmaris.” The doctor stated that the only treatment for plaintiff was to avoid exposure to grease and oil or any other irritating substance which would cause a flare-up.
Dr. Altman diagnosed plaintiff as having "neuro dermatitis” which was not work-related. Dr. Altman saw plaintiff on three occasions, but plaintiff had been off work preсeding each occasion and apparently Dr. Altman did not see plaintiff’s skin in a symptomatic state.
Thе hearing referee found that plaintiff had suffered a number of injuries, none of which were disabling. However, the rеferee found that plaintiff had disabling dermatitis which "flared up” whenever he worked in an area where he handled grease or oil. The referee found plaintiff partially disabled from November 15, 1974, apparently the first date plaintiff showed that he had problems with the skin on his hands. The wcab affirmed the referee’s decision.
Whether plaintiff suffered a disability and whether that disability was work-related were both questions of fact for the wcаb.
Dressler v Grand Rapids Die Casting Corp,
We conclude that the wcab improperly awarded continuing benefits for a nonwork-related injury which resulted in temporary "flare-ups” of symptoms. Plaintiff is entitled to a closed award only.
A workers’ compensation claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a relationship between his disabling condition and his workplace.
Id.,
p 555. Where only the plaintiff’s symptoms, and not his underlying condition, have been aggravated by his employment, the plaintiff is entitled to only a closed award of benefits during the period that his condition is symptomatic to a disabling degree.
Id.; Carter v General Motors Corp,
The worker’s compensation law does not provide compеnsation for a person afflicted by an illness or disease not caused or aggravated by his work or working сonditions. Nor is a different result required because debility has progressed to the point where the worker cannot work without pain or injury. . . . Unless the work has accelerated or aggravated the illness, disease or deterioration and, thus, contributed to it, or the work, coupled with the illness, disease or deterioration, in fact causes an injury, compensation is not payable.
Here, there was no evidence that plaintiff’s congenital condition was in any way aggravated by his work. When he came in contact with oil or grease his hands would break out in a rash, which could be very painful, but when his exposure to oil *329 or grease was terminated his hands went back to their preexisting condition. Dr. Mahar’s testimony, which the wcab relied upon, was entirely clear on the point that plaintiffs condition was one he had from birth and that exposure to certain substanсes at work caused symptomatic "flare-ups.” This is not a basis for an open award of benefits.
The plaintiffs situation is very similar to that of the plaintiffs in
Thomas v Chrysler Corp, supra, Durham v Chrysler Corp,
Defendant argues that the award should be closed as of July 28, 1979, the date Dr. Altman examined plaintiff. This is a factual matter and should be decided by the wcab rather than this Court.
Reversed and remanded. We retain no further jurisdiction.