{ "id": 8527587, "name": "HERMAN A. WILKINS, Employee, Plaintiff v. J. P. STEVENS & COMPANY, Employer; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier; and/or BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, Employer; AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier; Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Wilkins v. J. P. Stevens & Co.", "decision_date": "1990-12-04", "docket_number": "No. 9010IC79", "first_page": "742", "last_page": "745", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "100 N.C. App. 742" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "360 S.E.2d 696", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "700" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 N.C. App. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358120 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "216" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/87/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "282 S.E.2d 458", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "470" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565243 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "18" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 296", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567798 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0296-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 S.E.2d 822", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "828" }, { "page": "828" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 670", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570404 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "680" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0670-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 424, "char_count": 7943, "ocr_confidence": 0.719, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.3181068408277913e-07, "percentile": 0.7894410060200421 }, "sha256": "8ecae3e8b41fd1337b8e4b392e20a9c1e7e05fcbd5889f998745efe92200b1a2", "simhash": "1:274245aa2219b32e", "word_count": 1247 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:37:10.855162+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges ORR and DUNCAN concur.", "Judge DUNCAN concurred in this opinion prior to 29 November 1990." ], "parties": [ "HERMAN A. WILKINS, Employee, Plaintiff v. J. P. STEVENS & COMPANY, Employer; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier; and/or BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, Employer; AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier; Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "COZORT, Judge.\nPlaintiff filed a claim with the North Carolina Industrial Commission alleging he had an occupational lung disease resulting from cotton dust exposure in the textile industry. After a hearing, the Deputy Commissioner found that plaintiff\u2019s \u201coccupational exposure to cotton dust during his employment with defendants was not a significant contributing factor in the development of his lung disease.\u201d On appeal to the Full Commission, the Full Commission adopted the Opinion and Award of the Hearing Commissioner and added the following: \u201cWhen the record is read as a whole, the conclusion is inescapable that plaintiff\u2019s problems were neither caused nor significantly contributed to by his occupation.\u201d On appeal to this Court, plaintiff contends the Commission erred by failing to determine whether plaintiff\u2019s exposure to cotton dust \u201caggravated\u201d his lung disease, in addition to finding whether the exposure caused or significantly contributed to plaintiff\u2019s disease. We hold that the Commission is not required to make a separate finding regarding \u201caggravation\u201d of the plaintiff\u2019s disease, and we affirm.\nPlaintiff worked for Burlington Industries from 28 December 1955 to 22 March 1986 and for J. P. Stevens from 23 March 1986 to 29 May 1986. (In an Order by the Commission not contested by plaintiff, J. P. Stevens and its insurance carrier were dismissed from the case.) Plaintiff did not work after 29 May 1986, because the mill in which he worked closed and his job was phased out. Plaintiff worked in the textile mill at a variety of jobs, some of which exposed him to cotton dust. Plaintiff also smoked about a pack of cigarettes a day for 27 years.\nBeginning in 1971, plaintiff was given a yearly respiratory questionnaire. The questionnaire focused on symptoms typical of lung disease: coughing, tightness in the chest, and tobacco smoking. In 1975, plaintiff complained of having a morning cough and coughing up phlegm when he had a cold. In other years, plaintiff answered that he did not experience a morning cough or cough up phlegm. In his answers to the 1972, 1974, and 1975 respiratory questionnaires, plaintiff reported an occasional tightness in his chest. On all the questionnaires, plaintiff revealed that he had smoked about 20 cigarettes a day. At his hearing before the Industrial Commission, plaintiff testified that he had untruthfully answered some of the health questions on the questionnaires.\nIn her Opinion and Award denying compensation, Deputy Commissioner Morgan Chapman made the following crucial findings of fact:\n5. Plaintiff alleges that he began having breathing problems in 1965 with chest congestion developing by 1967 and then Monday morning symptoms. Although he has clearly developed breathing problems, his testimony regarding the onset of his problems was not altogether credible, especially in view of the medical reports stipulated into evidence. He apparently first noted shortness of breath with exertion approximately 11 to 16 years ago. His condition has worsened since then, and, when he was evaluated by Dr. Saltzman in October 1987, he was found to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease of moderate degree.\n6. Besides his obstructive lung disease, plaintiff has also had problems with diabetes and back problems. He has had to take insulin for many years and still has had some difficulty keeping his diabetes under control. He has also experienced some occasional disability due to his back condition.\n7. Plaintiff has contracted chronic obstructive pulmonary disease which is a general term for conditions such as emphysema, asthma and chronic bronchitis in which the flow of air into and out of the body is impeded so that the individual must work hard to breathe. He was placed at an increased risk of developing this condition by reason of his occupational exposure to cotton dust as compared to the general public not so employed. However, his occupational exposure to cotton dust during his employment with defendants was not a significant contributing factor in the development of his lung disease.\n8. Plaintiff\u2019s chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is not an occupational disease which is due to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to his employment in the cotton textile industry and which is not an ordinary disease of life to which the general public is equally exposed.\nOn appeal to this Court, plaintiff contends that it was error for the Commission to base its decision on findings relating only to whether the exposure to cotton dust was a causative factor in the plaintiffs disease without making a finding of whether plaintiff\u2019s exposure to the cotton dust was an aggravating factor in the development of his disease. In making this argument, plaintiff relies principally on Walston v. Burlington Industries, 304 N.C. 670, 285 S.E.2d 822, amended, 305 N.C. 296, 285 S.E.2d 822 (1982). Plaintiff\u2019s argument focuses on the following statement made by the Supreme Court:\nDisability caused by and resulting from a disease is compen-sable when, and only when, the disease is an occupational disease, or is aggravated or accelerated by causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to claimant\u2019s employment.\nId. at 297, 285 S.E.2d at 828.\nPlaintiff argues essentially that whether the cotton dust was an \u201caggravating factor\u201d is an additional inquiry which the Commission should make. We disagree. We do not read Walston to stand for the proposition that there is a difference between (1) a plaintiffs exposure to cotton dust \u201csignificantly contributing to\u201d his condition; and (2) plaintiff\u2019s condition being \u201caggravated\u201d by his exposure to cotton dust. Rather, we find the terms to be interchangeable. See Morrison v. Burlington Industries, 304 N.C. 1, 18, 282 S.E.2d 458, 470 (1981); Walston, 304 N.C. at 680, 285 S.E.2d at 828; and Pitman v. Feldspar Corp., 87 N.C. App. 208, 216, 360 S.E.2d 696, 700 (1987). Thus, when the Industrial Commission has determined that plaintiff\u2019s exposure to cotton dust did not significantly contribute to his disease, it is tantamount to a finding that his disease was not aggravated by his exposure to cotton dust. It is not necessary for the Commission to make two separate findings.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s assignment of error is without merit, and the Opinion and Award of the Industrial Commission is\nAffirmed.\nJudges ORR and DUNCAN concur.\nJudge DUNCAN concurred in this opinion prior to 29 November 1990.", "type": "majority", "author": "COZORT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Taft, Taft & Haigler, by Robin E. Hudson, for plaintiff appellant.", "Smith Helms Mulliss & Moore, by Jeri L. Whitfield, for Burlington Industries and American Motorists Insurance Company, defendant appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "HERMAN A. WILKINS, Employee, Plaintiff v. J. P. STEVENS & COMPANY, Employer; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier; and/or BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, Employer; AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier; Defendants\nNo. 9010IC79\n(Filed 4 December 1990)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 94 (NCI3d)\u2014 chronic obstructive lung disease-cotton dust exposure \u2014 separate finding on aggravation not required\nAn opinion and award of the Industrial Commission finding that plaintiffs occupational exposure to cotton dust was not a significant contributing factor in the development of his lung disease was affirmed despite the Commission\u2019s failure to make a separate finding regarding aggravation of the plaintiff\u2019s disease. When the Industrial Commission determines that plaintiff\u2019s exposure to cotton dust did not significantly contribute to his disease, it is tantamount to a finding that his disease was not aggravated by his exposure to cotton dust and it is not necessary for the Commission to make two separate findings.\nAm Jur 2d, Workmen\u2019s Compensation \u00a7\u00a7 303, 333.\nJudge DUNCAN concurred in this opinion prior to 29 November 1990.\nAppeal by plaintiff from the Opinion and Award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed 21 September 1989. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 August 1990.\nTaft, Taft & Haigler, by Robin E. Hudson, for plaintiff appellant.\nSmith Helms Mulliss & Moore, by Jeri L. Whitfield, for Burlington Industries and American Motorists Insurance Company, defendant appellees." }, "file_name": "0742-01", "first_page_order": 774, "last_page_order": 777 }