Alatex, Inc. v. Couch
| Decision Date | 11 April 1984 |
| Citation | 449 So.2d 1254 |
| Parties | ALATEX, INC., et al. v. Ruby COUCH. Civ. 4086. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
William Anthony Davis, III and J. Bentley Owens, III of Starnes & Atchison, Birmingham, and Albrittons & Givhan, Andalusia, for appellants.
W. Sidney Fuller, Andalusia, for appellee.
This is a workmen's compensation case.
Claimant Ruby Couch, age forty-four, was employed by Alatex, Inc., a textile manufacturer in Andalusia, Alabama, from 1967 to January 22, 1980. She was assigned to the laundry department where her primary responsibility was folding shirts. During the course of her employment with Alatex, she developed breathing problems, which eventually led to her leaving her job. Her breathing difficulties first became apparent sometime in 1970.
Employer, Alatex, first received notice of claimant's respiratory problems on June 8, 1979. It was in 1979 when claimant was examined by Drs. Bradley and Mehta that exposure to the factory environment was first considered a possible cause of claimant's condition. She was instructed to discontinue work at Alatex by Dr. Vyas.
Though employer's insurance carrier sent claimant to New Orleans for medical testing in October 1982, she has received no other compensation or medical assistance from employer or its insurer.
In June 1980 claimant filed suit in the Circuit Court of Covington County against Alatex, claiming entitlement to benefits under Alabama's Workmen's Compensation Act. After trial in September 1983, the trial court entered judgment in favor of claimant, awarding her disability benefits. Finding that claimant's average weekly wage on January 22, 1980, was $123.69, that her weekly compensable rate for total disability was $89.88 1 and that 190 weeks had elapsed since claimant's injury, the court awarded her a total of $17,077.20, and further held that claimant was entitled to recover those weekly payments as long as her permanent disability continues.
Additionally, the court held that employer was liable to claimant for $1,358.72 for medical expenses arising from treatment of her infirmity while employed by Alatex. The trial court denied employer's motion to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial. Employer appeals.
The issue on appeal is whether there is any legal evidence to support the trial court's decision. Employer argues that the evidence of record fails to satisfy claimant's burden to isolate and identify the occupational risk or hazard peculiar to her employer's industry, which proximately caused her respiratory problems within the requirements and meaning of an "occupational disease" under § 25-5-110, Code of Alabama 1975.
The trial court found that claimant, over a period of time, while employed by Alatex, developed industrial asthma, which is an occupational disease resulting from frequent contact with chemicals and materials in employer's factory and which is a hazard exceeding that ordinarily incident to employment in general and is peculiar to the occupation in which claimant was engaged. Moreover, the court found that claimant's asthma had progressed to the extent she could no longer remain employed, and from the medical evidence and the court's observation of claimant's condition at trial, that claimant was totally and permanently injured as a result of industrial asthma, contracted and arising out of and in the course of her employment.
In reviewing workmen's compensation cases, appellate courts do not look to the weight or preponderance of the evidence on a material fact under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Woodward Iron Co. v. Jones, 217 Ala. 361, 116 So. 425 (1928), but rather will look to see if there is any legal evidence or reasonable inference therefrom to support the trial court's findings of fact, and if there is, such findings will not be disturbed on appeal. Dan River Mills, Inc. v. Foshee, 365 So.2d 1232 (Ala.Civ.App.1979).
As in all workmen's compensation cases, the burden rests upon the employee-claimant to establish to the reasonable satisfaction of the trial court that her disease was peculiar to the industry and that it arose out of and in the course of her employment. Dan River Mills, Inc. v. Foshee, supra. The claimant must establish a definite causal connection between her employment and her alleged occupational disease. Slimfold Manufacturing Co. v. Martin, 417 So.2d 199 (Ala.Civ.App.1981), writ quashed, 417 So.2d 203 (Ala.1982).
To fall within the definitional parameters of § 25-5-110, Code of Alabama 1975, which deals with compensation for occupational disease, it must be shown that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Middleton v. Dan River, Inc.
...the disease "in excess" of what employment in general presents. This is the requirement of legal causation. See Alatex, Inc. v. Couch, 449 So.2d 1254, 1257 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). Second, the employee must have a disease that "arose out of and in the course of the employment." This is the requi......
-
Arvinmeritor, Inc. v. Handley
...was exposed to a hazard in a substantially different manner than are persons in employment generally. Id.; see also Alatex, Inc. v. Couch, 449 So.2d 1254 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). The question as to whether an employee has been exposed to an increased and peculiar risk of contracting an occupatio......
-
ArvinMeritor, Inc. v. Handley, No. 2050951 (Ala. Civ. App. 6/27/2008)
...exposed to a hazard in a substantially different manner than are persons in employment generally. Id.; see also Alatex, Inc. v. Couch, 449 So. 2d 1254 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984). The question as to whether an employee has been exposed to an increased and peculiar risk of contracting an occupatio......
-
Mohasco Corp., Dixiana Mill Div. v. Rising
...upon the claimant in an occupational disease case to prove such facts as will entitle the claimant to compensation. Alatex, Inc. v. Couch, 449 So.2d 1254 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); see Kennedy v. Williamsburg County, 242 S.C. 477, 131 S.E.2d 512 (1963). The claimant must show a causal connection b......