Moore v. J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 August 1980
• Docket Number: No. 7910IC777,7910IC777
• Citation: 269 S.E.2d 159,47 N.C.App. 744
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Iona S. MOORE, Employee, v. J. P. STEVENS & COMPANY, INC., Employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier.

Page 159

269 S.E.2d 159

47 N.C.App. 744

Iona S. MOORE, Employee, v. J. P. STEVENS & COMPANY, INC., Employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier.

No. 7910IC777.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 5, 1980.

Davis, Hassell & Hudson by Charles R. Hassell, Jr., and Robin E. Hudson, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.

Maupin, Taylor & Ellis by Richard M. Lewis, Raleigh, for defendants-appellees.

PARKER, Judge.

Plaintiff bases her claim for disability benefits under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act upon the provisions of G.S. 97-53(13) and G.S. 97-52. G.S. 97-53 lists the diseases and conditions deemed to be "occupational diseases." Subsection (13) includes the following as an "occupational disease":

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.

Under G.S. 97-52, "disablement" of an employee resulting from an "occupational disease" described in G.S. 97-53 is to be "treated as the happening of an injury by accident within the meaning of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act," thus triggering the award of benefits.

In Booker v. Medical Center, 297 N.C. 458, 256 S.E.2d 189 (1979) our Supreme Court discussed at length the elements necessary to prove the existence of the compensable "occupational disease" defined by G.S. 97-53(13). The first two elements, that a disease be "characteristic" of a trade or occupation and that it not be an ordinary disease of life "to which the general public is equally exposed outside of the employment" are expressly required by the language of the statute. The third element was stated by the court in Booker v. Medical Center, supra, as follows:

The final requirement in establishing a compensable claim under subsection (13) is proof of causation. It is this limitation which protects our Workmen's Compensation Act from being converted into a general health and insurance benefit act. Bryan v. Church, 267 N.C. 111, 115, 147 S.E.2d 633, 635 (1966). In Duncan v. Charlotte, 234 N.C. 86, 91, 66 S.E.2d 22, 25 (1951) we held that the addition of G.S. 97-53 to the Act "in nowise relaxed the fundamental principle which requires proof of causal relation between injury and employment. And nonetheless (sic), since the adoption of the amendment, may an award for an occupational disease be sanctioned unless it be shown that the disease was incident to or the result of the particular employment in which the workman was engaged."

297 N.C. at 475, 256 S.E.2d at 200.

The rule of causation in the field of workers' compensation where the right to recover is based on injury by accident has been that the employment need not be the sole causative force to render an injury compensable. If the employee, "by reason of constitutional infirmities is predisposed to sustain injuries while engaged in labor, nevertheless the leniency and humanity of the law permit him to recover compensation if the physical aspects of the employment contribute in some reasonable degree to bring about or intensify the condition which renders him susceptible to such accident and consequent injury." Vause v. Equipment Co., 233 N.C. 88, 92, 63 S.E.2d 173, 176 (1951). A similar rule of causation has been implied in cases where compensation for occupational disease is sought; however, if a disease is produced by some extrinsic or independent agency, it may not be imputed to the occupation or the employment. Duncan v. Charlotte, 234 N.C. 86, 66 S.E.2d 22 (1951).

Plaintiff contends on this appeal that the Commission failed to make proper findings of fact regarding compensability under G.S. 97-53(13) on the grounds that no findings were made with respect to the cause of plaintiff's chronic bronchitis and pulmonary emphysema or to the issue of whether her years of occupational exposure exposed plaintiff to a greater risk of contracting pulmonary disease than the general public.

It is well established that the Industrial Commission must make specific findings of fact as to each material fact upon which the rights of the parties in a case involving a claim for compensation depend. Wood v. Stevens & Co., 297 N.C. 636, 256 S.E.2d 692 (1979); Thomason v. Cab Co., 235 N.C. 602, 70 S.E.2d 706 (1952). If the findings of fact of the Commission are insufficient to enable the court to determine the rights of the parties upon the matters in controversy, the cause must be remanded to the Commission for proper findings of fact. Young v. Whitehall Co., 229 N.C. 360, 49 S.E.2d 797 (1948); Gaines v. Swain & Son, Inc., 33 N.C.App. 575, 235 S.E.2d 856 (1977).

In the present case, were it not for the Commission's Finding of Fact No. 12, we would agree with plaintiff's contention that there were insufficient findings to support the Commission's denial of compensation, principally because a number of the other "findings" are mere recitals of the opinions of the medical experts which, in themselves, could not properly form the basis for conclusions of law as to compensability. See, Gaines v. Swain & Son, Inc., supra. Finding of Fact No. 12 recites:

Plaintiff's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is not due to her exposure to cotton dust and lint in her employment with defendant employer.

Although cast in the form of a negative finding, it does provide a sufficient basis for the conclusion of law that plaintiff's disablement is noncompensable because, as indicated in Booker v. Medical Center, supra, a claimant's right to compensation for an occupational disease under G.S. 97-53(13) and G.S. 97-52 depends upon proper proof of causation, and the burden of proving each and every element of compensability is upon the plaintiff. Richards v. Nationwide Homes, 263 N.C. 295, 139 S.E.2d 645 (1965), Aylor v. Barnes, 242 N.C. 223, 87 S.E.2d 269 (1955). It is true that, where the Commission awards compensation for disablement due to an occupational disease encompassed by G.S. 97-53(13), the opinion and award must contain explicit findings as to the characteristics, symptoms and manifestations of the disease from which the plaintiff suffers, as well as a conclusion of law as to whether the disease falls within the statutory provision. Wood v. Stevens, supra. However, such findings should not be necessary upon the Commission's finding that the disease, whatever its manifestations and whatever its symptoms, was not due to causes or conditions characteristic of the particular employment in which the employee was engaged. The denial of compensation may be predicated upon the failure of the claimant to prove any one of the elements of compensability.

Having determined that Finding of Fact No. 12 is sufficient to support the Commission's denial of plaintiff's claim, we consider whether that finding is supported by competent evidence in the record. If so, it is conclusive and binding upon this Court. Cole v. Guilford County, 259 N.C. 724, 131 S.E.2d 308 (1963); Vause v. Equipment Co., supra. Dr. William Z. Wood, Jr., the pulmonary disease specialist and member of the Industrial Commission's Textile Occupational Disease Panel, testified at length concerning plaintiff's medical condition. Although he stated that plaintiff had been employed in an area of cotton manufacturing in which the incidence of employment-related chronic lung disease is highest, he also testified that plaintiff did not exhibit the usual symptomatic history of symptoms onset and progression classical for this...