{ "id": 8525760, "name": "ETHEL K. CLARK, Employee v. AMERICAN & EFIRD MILLS, Employer and AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier", "name_abbreviation": "Clark v. American & Efird Mills", "decision_date": "1984-02-21", "docket_number": "No. 8210IC1283", "first_page": "624", "last_page": "629", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "66 N.C. App. 624" } ], "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": "300 S.E. 2d 848", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521812 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 S.E. 2d 271", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 N.C. App. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524363 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/65/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E. 2d 365", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 S.E. 2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "369-70" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 S.E. 2d 101", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565283 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0044-01" ] }, { "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" ] }, { "cite": "309 S.E. 2d 271", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "65 N.C. App. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524363 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/65/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E. 2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "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" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 563, "char_count": 12071, "ocr_confidence": 0.818, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.798449774592141e-07, "percentile": 0.7160766901854123 }, "sha256": "07aa2cd76a6efa6f00d4d211f8f4b12040beb8468d9eae09e1459d49c14d6236", "simhash": "1:9391deda34b03606", "word_count": 1879 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:19.573584+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge Phillips concurs.", "Judge Webb dissents." ], "parties": [ "ETHEL K. CLARK, Employee v. AMERICAN & EFIRD MILLS, Employer and AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nOur review of the order of the Industrial Commission is limited to determining (1) whether the Commission\u2019s findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence, and (2) whether those findings justify the legal conclusions and decision of the Commission. Hansel v. Sherman Textiles, 304 N.C. 44, 283 S.E. 2d 101 (1981). The question presented is whether the findings of fact regarding plaintiffs chronic bronchitis justify the Commission\u2019s conclusion that she did not have an occupational disease within the meaning of the law. G.S. 97-53 provides, in part, as follows:\nThe following diseases and conditions only shall be deemed to be occupational diseases within the meaning of this Article:\n(13) Any disease, other than hearing loss covered in another subdivision of this section, which is proven to be due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to a particular trade, occupation or employment, but excluding all ordinary diseases of life to which the general public is equally exposed outside of the employment.\nRegarding this provision, our Supreme Court, in Rutledge v. Tultex, 308 N.C. 85, 301 S.E. 2d 359 (1983), recently held:\n[CJhronic obstructive lung disease may be an occupational disease provided the occupation in question exposed the worker to a greater risk of contracting this disease than members of the public generally, and provided the worker\u2019s exposure to cotton dust significantly contributed to, or was a significant causal factor in, the disease\u2019s development. This is so even if other non-work-related factors also make significant contributions, or were significant causal factors.\nId. at 101, 301 S.E. 2d at 369-70.\nAccording to Rutledge, chronic obstructive lung disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a condition composed of several elements or components. Id. at 94-95, 301 S.E. 2d 365-66, citing Bouhuys, Schoenberg, Beck and Schilling, Epidemiology of Chronic Lung Disease in a Cotton Mill Community, Service Volume Five of Traumatic Medicine and Surgery for the Attorney 607, reprinted from Lung-An International Journal on Lungs, Airways, and Breathing, 154(3): 167-86 (1977). In the present case, the Industrial Commission found as a fact that plaintiff had chronic bronchitis which is, by definition, a chronic lung disease. By the effects that it has on a person, chronic bronchitis, which is not necessarily a work-related disease, is indistinguishable from byssinosis, which is peculiarly if not exclusively related to the work environment in textile mills. Id.\nWe understand Rutledge to say that a claimant under the workers\u2019 compensation law is not required to establish work-related byssinosis as a causal element of his or her COPD in order to prove the existence of an occupational disease within the meaning of G.S. 97-53(13). Rather, he or she needs only to establish the existence of COPD and to establish that exposure to cotton dust in the work environment \u201csignificantly contributed to, or was a significant causal factor in\u201d the development of the disease. Rutledge v. Tultex, supra at 101, 301 S.E. 2d at 369-70.\nIn the present case, plaintiff has established the existence of COPD with chronic bronchitis as the only element thereof. In order to conclude that plaintiff did not have an occupational disease within the meaning of G.S. 97-53(13) consistent with Rutledge v. Tultex, the Commission would have had to make findings, supported by competent record evidence, that plaintiffs exposure to cotton dust was neither a significant contribution to nor a significant causal factor in the development of her disease.\nIn the recent case of Swink v. Cone Mills, 65 N.C. App. 397, 309 S.E. 2d 271 (1983), factually similar to the present case, this Court relied on the Rutledge opinion in remanding the cause to the Industrial Commission for findings on the question of \u201csignificant contribution.\u201d That opinion superseded an earlier opinion in the same case affirming the order of the Industrial Commission denying workers\u2019 compensation to the claimant. Swink v. Cone Mills, 61 N.C. App. 475, 300 S.E. 2d 848, superseded and withdrawn, 65 N.C. App. 397, 309 S.E. 2d 271 (1983). In its opinion and rehearing, the court in Swink noted that \u201cthe Supreme Court [in Rutledge] outlined additional factors to be considered by the Industrial Commission in determining work-relatedness of a particular illness.\u201d Id., 309 S.E. 2d at 272. The factors cited were: \u201c(1) [T]he extent of the worker\u2019s exposure to cotton dust . . .; (2) the extent of other non-work-related, but contributory exposures and components . . .; and (3) the manner in which the disease developed with reference to claimant\u2019s work history.\u201d Id.\nThe findings of fact made by the Commission in this case do not adequately address the factors outlined in the Rutledge and Swink opinions. Both supra. Specifically, (1) there are no findings on the question of \u201csignificant contribution;\u201d (2) other than noting that claimant was a non-smoker, there is no indication that the Commission considered the extent of other non-work-related but contributory exposures and components; and (3) the findings regarding the manner in which claimant\u2019s disease developed are not sufficiently related to her work history. If the necessary findings cannot be fairly made from the record evidence, an additional evidentiary proceeding would be required.\nWe reverse the order of the Industrial Commission and remand the cause for disposition in accordance with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudge Phillips concurs.\nJudge Webb dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Judge." }, { "text": "Judge Webb\ndissenting.\nI dissent. I do not believe Rutledge v. Tultex Corp., 308 N.C. 85, 301 S.E. 2d 359 (1983) or Swink v. Cone Mills, 65 N.C. App. 397, 309 S.E. 2d 271 (1983) require that this case be remanded. In Rutledge the Industrial Commission found that exposure at the claimant\u2019s last place of employment did not cause or significantly contribute to the claimant\u2019s chronic obstructive lung disease and denied coverage. Our Supreme Court held that this did not determine the case and ordered a remand to determine whether the claimant\u2019s exposure to cotton dust while working at the defendant\u2019s plant as well as others had significantly contributed to, or had been a significant causative factor in her chronic obstructive lung disease.\nIn this case the Commission has found as facts that \u201cThe cotton dust did not, however, cause or aggravate her basic illness which is chronic bronchitis,\u201d and \u201cThe exposure did not, however, cause or materially aggravate her underlying pulmonary disease, which is chronic bronchitis.\u201d I believe the findings of fact are supported by the evidence and they support the Commission\u2019s conclusion that the claimant\u2019s illness is not compensable.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Judge Webb" } ], "attorneys": [ "Hassell, Hudson and Lore, by Charles R. Hassell, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.", "Hedrick, Feerick, Eatman, Gardner and Kincheloe, by Hatcher Kincheloe, for defendant appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ETHEL K. CLARK, Employee v. AMERICAN & EFIRD MILLS, Employer and AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier\nNo. 8210IC1283\n(Filed 21 February 1984)\nMaster and Servant 8 68\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014 occupational disease \u2014 insufficient finding on \u201csignificant contribution\u201d to disease\nIn a workers\u2019 compensation case in which plaintiff established the existence of COPD with chronic bronchitis as the only element thereof, in order to conclude that plaintiff did not have an occupational disease within the meaning of G.S. 97-53(13), consistent with Rutledge v. Tultex, 308 N.C. 85 (1983), the Commission would have had to make findings, supported by competent record evidence, that plaintiffs exposure to cotton dust was neither a significant contribution to nor a significant causal factor in the development of her disease.\nJudge Webb dissenting.\nAppeal by plaintiff from an opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Opinion and award filed 9 August 1982. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 October 1983.\nOn 8 June 1978, plaintiff filed a claim for workers\u2019 compensation benefits. Plaintiff alleged that she had worked in defendant\u2019s textile mill in Albemarle, North Carolina for thirty-three years. Plaintiff further alleged that her exposure to cotton dust in the mill during that time had resulted in an occupational disease that led to her early retirement at age sixty-two. Plaintiff was referred by the Industrial Commission to a pulmonary specialist, Dr. Kelling, who diagnosed plaintiff as having byssinosis and chronic bronchitis but could not say that plaintiff was disabled. Defendant denied plaintiffs claim for benefits. At defendant\u2019s request, plaintiff was examined by a Dr. Harris, who diagnosed her as having chronic respiratory problems, specifically chronic bronchitis, that were not related to cotton dust exposure.\nThe matter was heard before a deputy commissioner for the Industrial Commission on 7 March 1979 and on 27 November 1979. The deposition of Dr. Harris was taken on 29 April 1980 and made part of the evidence. On 27 January 1982, an opinion and award was entered which contained the following pertinent findings of fact.\n1. Claimant was born on 26 February 1914. She has an eighth grade education. She went to work for defendant employer during 1943 in the winding room.\n2. Claimant\u2019s initial job involved running threads off bobbins onto cones. She retired on 26 February 1976. During this period of employment claimant worked in the winding room. It was adjacent to the spinning room. The machinery she operated during this period of employment included winders, packers, twisters, auto-combers and warpers.\n3. Defendant employer processed cotton. The winding room where claimant worked was quite dusty, especially while the machinery was being blown off. Copious amounts of lint accumulated on claimant during the workday.\n4. Claimant noticed the onset of a severe cough during January 1969. The cough had been occurring to a lesser extent for approximately one year. She was hospitalized for treatment of the cough by Dr. Thomas F. Kelly during February 1969. She was suffering from acute tracheobron-chitis. Claimant was unable to work for approximately six months following the February 1969 hospitalization.\n5. Dr. Kelly provided treatment throughout the winter and spring of 1969 for claimant\u2019s pulmonary condition. Chest x-ray on 28 March 1969 was negative. Treatment was rendered during March 1969 for infection superimposed on the original cough.\n6. Claimant has never smoked tobacco products.\n7. Claimant retired when she reached age sixty-two because she could no longer work in the dust and lint. She is a reactor to many types of dust and lint.\n8. Respirable material in the winding room where claimant worked aggravated her cough. The cotton dust did not, however, cause or aggravate her basic illness which is chronic bronchitis.\n9. Claimant has good preservation of pulmonary function. Her only restrictions are those of a healthy pulmonary environment. She should not be exposed to dust, smoke, fog, fumes or any other respirable pulmonary irritant.\n10. Claimant experienced long-term exposure from 1943 through 26 February 1976 to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to the cotton textile industry known to result in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The exposure did not, however, cause or materially aggravate her underlying pulmonary disease, which is chronic bronchitis.\nBased on the above findings, the deputy commissioner made the following conclusion of law:\nClaimant\u2019s pulmonary disease, chronic bronchitis, was not caused or materially aggravated by long-term exposure while in defendant\u2019s employ to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to the cotton textile industry known to result in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.\nPlaintiffs claim for workers\u2019 compensation was denied. Plaintiff appealed this denial to the Full Industrial Commission, which affirmed the Opinion and Award of the deputy commissioner on 9 August 1982. Plaintiff appealed from the order of the Full Commission.\nHassell, Hudson and Lore, by Charles R. Hassell, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nHedrick, Feerick, Eatman, Gardner and Kincheloe, by Hatcher Kincheloe, for defendant appellees." }, "file_name": "0624-01", "first_page_order": 656, "last_page_order": 661 }