Arrant v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 May 2015
• Docket Number: Nos. 2013–C–2878,2013–C–2981.,s. 2013–C–2878
• Citation: 169 So.3d 296
• Parties: James Clifford ARRANT, et al. v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al. Marvin Jack Barnett, Jr., et al. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., et al. Kenneth Noel Bain, Sr., et al. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., et al. George Emory Butler, et al. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., et al. W.H. Auttonberry, et al. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., et al. Jimmie Dewayne Baugh, et al. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., et al. Melvin Ellis Bordelon, et al. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., et al.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

169 So.3d 296

James Clifford ARRANT, et al.

v.GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.

Marvin Jack Barnett, Jr., et al.

v.Graphic Packaging International, Inc., et al.

Kenneth Noel Bain, Sr., et al.

v.Graphic Packaging International, Inc., et al.

George Emory Butler, et al.

v.Graphic Packaging International, Inc., et al.

W.H. Auttonberry, et al.

v.Graphic Packaging International, Inc., et al.

Jimmie Dewayne Baugh, et al.

v.Graphic Packaging International, Inc., et al.

Melvin Ellis Bordelon, et al.

v.Graphic Packaging International, Inc., et al.

Nos. 2013–C–2878

2013–C–2981.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 2015.

Opinion

GUIDRY, Justice.^*

The instant case presents a res nova issue in this court of whether gradual noise induced hearing loss caused by occupational exposure to hazardous noise levels is a personal injury by accident or an occupational disease, or both, under the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act (hereinafter, “LWCA”), thereby entitling the defendant employer to immunity from suits in tort under the exclusivity provisions of the LWCA. Interpreting the Act and mindful of the clear legislative purpose behind the workers' compensation scheme—a principle that has been well-explained in our jurisprudence, we find occupational noise-induced hearing loss (hereinafter, “NIHL”) falls squarely within the parameters of the LWCA, either the pre–1990 definition of “accident” or the post–1975 definition of “occupational disease.” As explained below, we conclude the defendants were entitled to immunity from suits in tort under the LWCA. Accordingly, the court of appeal properly reversed the judgment of the district court and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeal dismissing the plaintiffs' tort suits against the defendants.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs in these consolidated actions are current and former employees of the West Monroe facility, which includes a paper mill, box plant, and carton plant. The facility was owned by defendant Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation from 1955 until 1967, when defendant Graphic Packaging International, Inc. assumed control of the facility and continues to exercise that control to this day. The plaintiffs, who are now elderly and many of whom are retired from working at the

facility, claim they have suffered hearing losses, primarily high frequency hearing losses, which they attribute to being exposed to hazardous levels of industrial noise during their employment with the defendant.¹

In 2005, 2007, and 2008, the plaintiffs filed various suits against the defendants for hearing losses allegedly sustained as a result of being “occupationally exposed to hazardous levels of industrial noise.” Specifically, plaintiffs asserted negligence on the part of the defendants for failing to provide a safe place to work, which in turn caused plaintiffs to suffer hearing loss by gradual, but persistent, noise exposure occurring over a substantial period of time while employed by defendants. The defendants filed, inter alia, exceptions of prescription and a motion for summary judgment asserting immunity from tort under the LWCA. The exceptions and motion were denied, and the matter proceeded to trial as a tort suit.

After a lengthy bench trial, the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded damages. The district court in detailed written reasons found that plaintiffs had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the constant exposure to hazardous levels of industrial noise while employed by the defendants was a substantial and significant cause-in-fact of their hearing losses and any other potential cause paled in comparison. The district court further concluded the plaintiffs had suffered permanent and irreversible loss of hearing in varying degrees affecting every aspect of their lives. The court further stated that, although various devices, including hearing aids, may help in a given situation, they would not replace the loss of natural hearing. Although the district court was aware that each individual plaintiff must be awarded damages according to his particular facts and circumstances, the district court found uniformity of the damage awards was mandated by the evidence. Accordingly, and given the plaintiffs' stipulation to the recovery of no more than $50,000 per claim, the district court awarded $50,000 in

damages to each plaintiff, together with legal interest from the date of judicial demand until paid.

The court of appeal reversed the judgment of the district court, having found that noise-induced hearing loss is an “occupational disease” under the LWCA, namely La.Rev.Stat. 23:1031.1, and that defendants were entitled to the tort immunity provided to employers under the Act. Arrant v. Graphic Packaging Intern., Inc., 48,197 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/25/13), 127 So.3d 924. The court of appeal noted that an occupational disease has been defined as the result of a series of events, often imperceptible in nature, which are eventually evidenced in the manifestation of a disability, citing Vargas v. Daniell Battery Mfg. Co., 93–1249 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/20/94), 636 So.2d 1194. The court then found that plaintiffs suffered NIHL which, as shown by the evidence, resulted from the cumulative damage or stress process upon the ear caused by constant exposure to excessively loud noises. Thus, the court found the record evidence sufficient to meet the requirements for finding that gradual hearing loss caused by excessive noise is an “occupational disease” under La.Rev.Stat. 23:1031.1(B). The court reasoned that a causal link between the plaintiffs' hearing loss and their work-related duties had been established by a reasonable probability by the plaintiffs' own testimony and that of their experts. The court further found that NIHL was compensable under the LWCA, rejecting the plaintiffs' contention the LWCA provided no remedy and therefore they were entitled to pursue a remedy in tort. The court reasoned that the compensation to be provided is dependent upon the proof of disability or impairment of function and its relation to the occupational disease. The court explained, “Upon proof of impairment of function, Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation under the LWCA, even if only under La. R.S. 23:1203, which obligates the employer to furnish medical and vocational rehabilitation expenses,

prosthetic devices and other expenses.” Arrant, p. 15, 127 So.3d at 933. The court of appeal ultimately reversed the judgment of the district court in favor of plaintiffs, finding that plaintiffs' sole remedy was in workers' compensation.

The plaintiffs sought writs, asserting the court of appeal erred in finding that NIHL was a compensable “occupational disease” within the meaning of the LWCA. The defendants also sought writs, asserting inter alia that the court of appeal erred in not finding that NIHL also qualifies as an “accident by personal injury” within the meaning of the LWCA and that the district court erred in overruling the defendants' exceptions of prescription. Because these issues appear to be res nova in this court, and a split amongst the circuit courts arguably exists as to whether NIHL is a covered “accident” and/or “occupational disease” within the meaning of the LWCA, we granted both writ applications. Arrant v. Graphic Packaging Intern., Inc., 13–2878, 13–2981 (La.4/17/14), 138 So.3d 613, 614.

LAW and DISCUSSION

These consolidated cases require us to determine whether the NIHL is a covered “personal injury by accident” and/or an “occupational disease” within the meaning of the LWCA in its various configurations over the years. Thus, we are called upon to interpret the applicable versions of the Act itself. The guidelines for doing so have been well-established.

The starting point for interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself. Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 08–1163 (La.5/22/09), 16 So.3d 1065 ; Touchard v. Williams, 617 So.2d 885 (La.1993). When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law is applied as written, and no further interpretation may be made in search of legislative intent. La. Civ.Code art. 9. However, when the language of a law is

susceptible to different meanings, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the law, and the meaning of ambiguous words must be sought by examining the context in which they occur and the text of the law as a whole. La. Civ.Code art. 10. The latter principle was explained in Fruge v. Muffoletto, 242 La. 569, 137 So.2d 336 (1962) :

In construing a statute, the primary object is to ascertain and, if possible, give effect to the intention and purpose of the legislature as expressed in the statute. Since the meaning is to be determined from a general consideration of the act as a whole, all parts, provisions or sections must be read together; each must be considered with respect to, or in the light of, all the other provisions, and construed in harmony with the whole. The intent as deduced from the whole will prevail over that of a particular part considered separately. Meaning should be given, if possible, to each and every section, and the construction placed on one portion should not be such as to obliterate another; so, in determining the meaning of a word, phrase or clause, the entire statute is to be considered.

Fruge, 137 So.2d at 339 ; see also Rando, supra, pp. 8–9, 16 So.3d at 1075 ; O'Regan v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc., 98–1602 (La.3/17/00), 758 So.2d 124. Ultimately, the words of a law must be given their generally prevailing meaning and words of art and technical terms must be given their technical meaning when the law involves a technical matter. La. Civ.Code art. 11.

When courts interpret provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, the basic history and policy of the compensation movement must be taken into account. Rando, supra, pp. 8–9, 16 So.3d...