{ "id": 8524363, "name": "ROBIE A. SWINK, Employee, Plaintiff v. CONE MILLS, INC., Employer, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Swink v. Cone Mills, Inc.", "decision_date": "1983-12-06", "docket_number": "No. 8210IC408", "first_page": "397", "last_page": "400", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "65 N.C. App. 397" } ], "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": "308 N.C. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4707972 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E. 2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "370" }, { "page": "370" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 296", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567798 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "297" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0296-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 S.E. 2d 822", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "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 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "679" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0670-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 848", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521812 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4707972 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0085-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 392, "char_count": 6733, "ocr_confidence": 0.805, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.603977974343324e-07, "percentile": 0.6843433729147915 }, "sha256": "be81968ee0ba0c2b81ba72161582d96adbc4718617489448ae810395882cb9ce", "simhash": "1:0bf4d7bcfe393618", "word_count": 1044 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:09.312138+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Wells and Johnson concur." ], "parties": [ "ROBIE A. SWINK, Employee, Plaintiff v. CONE MILLS, INC., Employer, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HILL, Judge.\nOn 5 April 1983 this Court filed an opinion in which we affirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission holding the plaintiff had failed to show that his chronic pulmonary disease and disability were a result of his exposure to cotton dust in his employment with the defendant employer, and therefore, plaintiff had failed in his burden of proof that he was disabled as the result of an occupational disease. Swink v. Cone Mills, 61 N.C. App. 475, 300 S.E. 2d 848 (1983). The record relied on by this Court showed that plaintiffs expert witnesses were virtually unanimous in their testimony that plaintiffs cigarette smoking was a major causative factor in his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; that in their opinion plaintiffs disease \u201ccould have\u201d or may have been aggravated by exposure to cotton dust. The \u201cmere possibility of causation\u201d is not sufficient to establish an employee\u2019s disease as an occupational disease under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. Walston v. Burlington Industries, 304 N.C. 670, 679, 285 S.E. 2d 822, 828, as amended in 305 N.C. 296 (1982).\nSubsequent to the filing of the Swink opinion, the Supreme Court rendered an opinion in Rutledge v. Tultex Corp., 308 N.C. 85, 301 S.E. 2d 359 (1983), holding that an employee who suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law that said disease is an occupational disease pursuant to G.S. 97-53(13) if it is shown by competent evidence that occupational exposure to a hazard known to cause the disease, such as cotton dust, \u201csignificantly contributed\u201d to the causation or development of the disease. The Court defined \u201csignificant\u201d as \u201c. . . having or likely to have influence or effect: deserving to be considered: important, weighty, notable.\u201d Id. at 101-102, 301 S.E. 2d at 370, quoting, Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary (1971). The decision further stated:\nSignificant is to be contrasted with negligible, unimportant, present but not worthy of note, miniscule, or of little moment. The factual inquiry, in other words, should be whether the occupational exposure was such a significant factor in the disease\u2019s development that without it the disease would not have developed to such an extent that it caused the physical disability which resulted, in claimant\u2019s incapacity for work.\nId. at 102, 301 S.E. 2d at 370. (Original emphasis.)\nIn addition to the significant contribution test announced in Rutledge, the Supreme Court outlined additional factors to be considered by the Industrial Commission in determining work-relatedness of a particular illness. The Court cited such factors as: (1) the extent of the worker\u2019s exposure to cotton dust during employment (in the case sub judice 38 years of employment during which time the worker\u2019s job included blowing off dust and lint with compressed air and mopping with a dry mop, such procedure producing between a peck and one-half bushel of dust and lint daily); (2) the extent of other non-work-related, but contributory exposures and components (in this case cigarette smoking and a history of tuberculosis); and (3) the manner in which the disease developed with reference to claimant\u2019s work history (as early as 1955 plaintiff began experiencing chest pains, choking, spitting up cotton lint and dust).\nAt no time during the proceedings did plaintiff deny that his long history of cigarette smoking played a significant part in the development of his severe obstructive lung disease. With respect to the percentage of causation or assignment of relevant contribution, there was medical evidence on point in this case. With respect to aggravation or acceleration of an injury or disease brought about by occupational exposure, our Supreme Court has held that a disability caused by and resulting from a disease is compensable when \u201c. . . the disease is an occupational disease, or is aggravated or accelerated by causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to claimant\u2019s employment.\u201d Walston v. Burlington Industries, supra at 680, 285 S.E. 2d at 828, as amended in 305 N.C. 296, 297.\nAs the record reflects, there is uncontroverted testimony from plaintiff and his three medical witnesses that his 38 years of exposure to cotton dust, combined with his history of cigarette smoking and tuberculosis, probably contributed to his chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which has been rated as severe. There was further evidence that a probable connection by way of direct causation and/or aggravation existed between plaintiffs occupational exposure to cotton dust and his disabling chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.\nWe therefore reverse the order of the Commission and remand this case to the Industrial Commission for findings on the question of \u201csignificant contribution\u201d and disposition in accordance with the premises set out herein. The decision rendered by this Court in this cause as set forth in 61 N.C. App. 475, 300 S.E. 2d 848 (1983) is superseded by our holding herein, and we withdraw that opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Wells and Johnson concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HILL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Hassell and Hudson, by Charles R. Hassell, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.", "Hedrick, Feerick, Eatman, Gardner and Kincheloe, by Philip R. Hedrick for defendants appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ROBIE A. SWINK, Employee, Plaintiff v. CONE MILLS, INC., Employer, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants\nNo. 8210IC408\n(Filed 6 December 1983)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 68\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014 occupational disease \u2014 insufficient findings on \u201csignificant contribution\u201d to disease\nIn a workers\u2019 compensation action where plaintiff alleged disability from occupational chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pursuant to Rutledge v. Tultex Corp., 308 N.C. 85 (1983), the case must be remanded to the Industrial Commission for findings on the question of \"significant contribution\u201d to plaintiffs disabling chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.\nOrder dated 10 May 1983 entered by this Court allowing plaintiffs petition to rehear his appeal. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 November 1983.\nPlaintiff filed this claim under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act alleging disability from occupational chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in August of 1978. Plaintiffs claim was denied by the Industrial Commission by Opinion and Award filed 6 February 1981. The denial of plaintiffs claim was affirmed by Opinion and Award by the Full Commission entered 25 November 1981. On appeal to this court a decision was entered affirming the Opinion and Award of the Full Commission and denying plaintiffs claim. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a Petition for Rehearing, which was allowed, and a subsequent order permitted the filing of new briefs.\nHassell and Hudson, by Charles R. Hassell, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nHedrick, Feerick, Eatman, Gardner and Kincheloe, by Philip R. Hedrick for defendants appellees." }, "file_name": "0397-01", "first_page_order": 429, "last_page_order": 432 }