LaCoste v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.

• Decision Date: 16 January 1967
• Docket Number: No. 48239,48239
• Citation: 250 La. 43,193 So.2d 779
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: Murphy LaCOSTE et al. v. J. RAY McDERMOTT & CO., Inc., et al.

Page 779

193 So.2d 779

250 La. 43

Murphy LaCOSTE et al. v.J. RAY McDERMOTT & CO., Inc., et al.

No. 48239.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 16, 1967.

Aycock, Horne, Caldwell & Coleman, John E. Coleman, Jr., Franklin, for applicant.

Robert S. Cooper, Jr., Baton Rouge, for appellees.

McCALEB, Justice.

The question for decision in this matter is whether or not a workman is entitled to recover compensation benefits for total and permanent disability as a result of contraction of an occupational disease, to wit, silicosis, in spite of continued satisfactory performance of all duties of his job with the same employer.

Plaintiff, a sandblaster and painter, seeks recovery of compensation ¹ on the theory that he has become totally and permanently disabled as the result of silicosis contracted during his employment.Defendant and its insurer deny plaintiff is suffering from silicosis and alternatively contend that, in any event, he is not disabled within the meaning of R.S. 23:1031.1 since he has steadfastly continued to perform all duties as a sandblaster and painter for his employer, J.Ray McDermott & Co. Inc., without complaint.

The district judge dismissed plaintiff's suit holding that it was immaterial whether he was suffering from silicosis and contracted the disease during his employment with McDermott for, assuming that such was the case, he has not become disabled as a result thereof.The judge said, in part: 'An employee can no more recover compensation for an occupational disease that is not disabling than he can for an accident that is not disabling.The provisions of our Workmen's Compensation Law do not provide that an employee is entitled to recover compensation based upon his disability while continuing his usual employment at full pay.'

On appeal the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, reversed and awarded compensation to plaintiff for total and permanent disability.The court was of the opinion that R.S. 23:1031.1, which provides for compensation to an employee '* * * who is disabled because of the contraction of an occupational disease as herein defined, * * *' broadly implies that the employee need not be disabled as a matter of fact at the time suit is brought and that it suffices for recovery, and he is to be considered legally disabled, when it is established, as here, that the occupational disease will ultimately disable and perhaps kill him if he continues to perform the duties of his employment.SeeLaCoste v. J. Ray McDermott & Company, La.App., 185 So.2d 553.

On application of defendantsthis court granted a writ of review, 249 La. 482, 187 So.2d 449.

Defendants contend the Court of Appeal erred in holding the employee 'disabled' in view of the fact that he is presently performing all aspects of his occupation as fully as he did prior to the contraction of silicosis, thus erroneously equating contraction of silicosis with disability.Counsel assert that the basic prerequisite for recovery of workmen's compensation benefits (save in two specified cases, i.e., loss of a member and disfigurement) is proof of disability and loss of earning capacity and that the mere fact that a man has contracted one of the occupational diseases listed in the state does not entitle him to benefits in the absence of a showing of factual disability under the clear wording of the statute itself.Although the defendants denied below that plaintiff was suffering from silicosis, it has been conceded here that the medical opinion of Dr. Joseph E. Schenthal(which the Court of Appeal held should prevail) may be accepted.However, defendants point out that there is no evidence whatever that plaintiff has experienced undue pain or discomfort in the performance of his duties since it was diagnosed that he had contracted silicosis and he is not disabled within the meaning of the law.

The Court of Appeal expressed the view that the contraction of silicosis was, in itself, disabling within the meaning of the statute in this instance in view of the testimony of Dr. Schenthal, concluding that continuance by plaintiff of his present work will '* * * either materially impair his health, case serious deterioration of his general physical condition, aggravate his disease, expose him to greater risk or danger than that attending an uninjured workman in the same field or accelerate his demise.'In support of this holding the court cites McCain v. Fohs Oil Company(La.App.), 6 So.2d 197;Veillion v. Knapp & East(La.App.), 158 So.2d 336;Hibbard v. Blane(La.App.), 183 So. 39andJohnson v. Travelers Insurance Co.(La.App.), 99 So.2d 372.

In our view the ruling of the Court of Appeal is clearly erroneous and an examination of the cases cited by the court reveals that none is applicable.²

It has been many times said that a workmen's compensation law is social legislation enacted for the joint benefit of labor and management in order to insure that employees who become disabled as the result of their labors in hazardous industries will be able to secure '* * * during the period of their disability, a weekly income for the upkeep of themselves and their families.'Atchison v. May, 201 La. 1003, 10 So.2d 785.The fundamental principle for the grant of compensation benefits is disability, i.e., factual disability--for without disability, save in certain special cases, no benefits are due.By Act 532 of 1952, as amended by Act 39 of 1958, now R.S. 23:1031.1, certain occupational diseases are listed as compensable under the act.This section provides:

'A.Every employee who is Disabled because of the contraction of an occupational disease as herein defined, * * * shall be entitled to the compensation provided in this Chapter The same as if said employee received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.'(Italics ours).

Thus, according to the language of the statute, the benefits are payable to an employee who is 'disabled'; not one who may at some future date become disabled as the Court of Appeal holds.Indeed, a reading of the act as a whole shows that benefits payable are conditioned upon an existing factual disability and it was neither intended nor authorized by the law that an employee would be entitled to recover these benefits for a supposed total permanent disability resulting from the contraction of an occupational disease while he is earning his full salary in the satisfactory performance of the very duties that he claims he is now disabled to perform.Throughout R.S. 23:1031.1 the words 'disabled' and 'disablement' are used.For example, in paragraph D of the section, which provides a period of peremption, it is stated: 'All claims for Disablement arising from an occupational disease are forever barred unless * * *' the employee files his claim which a specified time.And in paragraph F, which excludes payment of compensation for occupational diseases under certain conditions, it is stated: 'Compensation shall not be payable hereunder to an employee or his dependents on account of Disability or death arising from diseases * * *'.(Italics ours).

In fine, in Louisiana 'disability' has always been interpreted and understood to mean inability to perform the same or similar work the employee was doing when injured.³

The sole reason for the adoption of R.S. 23:1031.1 was to alleviate employees from the almost impossible task of proving 'accident' in occupational diseases, the statute listing certain specific diseases which, upon proof of contraction thereof, will satisfy the requirement of proof of 'accident' so as to be compensable in case of disability therefrom.But we reiterate that it was never envisioned that compensation would be due unless or until disability occurs.Albeit the medical testimony shows that, because of silicosis, plaintiff will impair his health to a greater degree by continuation of his occupation as a sandblaster, the fact remains that p...