Ritter v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 36002,HAWKEYE-SECURITY,36002 |
| Parties | Jerry RITTER, Appellant, v.INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation and Hoke's Cafe, Inc., a Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An occupational disease under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a disease which is due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to the employment and which is not an ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed. Section 48-151, R.R.S.1943.
2. An occupational disease need not originate exclusively from the employment, but the employment must result in a hazard which distinguishes it in character from employment generally.
3. A dishwasher who develops a contact dermatitis on his hands as a result of the use of cleansing chemicals in his employment sustains an injury as a result of an occupational disease and is entitled to recover workmen's compensation for the injury.
McGinley, Lane, Mueller & Shanahan, Ogallala, for appellant.
Firmin Q. Feltz, Ogallala, for appellees.
Heard before WHITE, C. J., and CARTER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, BROWER, SMITH, and McCOWN, JJ.
This is a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act brought by Jerry Ritter, the plaintiff, against Hoke's Cafe, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the defendant. The Hawkeye-Security Insurance Company is the workmen's compensation liability insurance carrier for the defendant employer.
The compensation court found that the plaintiff had sustained an injury to his hands as a result of a contact dermatitis arising out of and in the course of his employment and entered an award in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants waived rehearing before the compensation court and appealed directly to the district court.
The District court found that the plaintiff's alleged disease was not characteristic of or peculiar to the plaintiff's occupation, that the general public was subject to the same risks, and dismissed the action. The plaintiff's motion for new trial was overruled and he has appealed.
The record shows that the plaintiff was employed as a cook's helper and dishwasher by the defendant for about 2 years. The plaintiff's duties included washing dishes, glassware, pots, and pans. Dishes were washed by machine using a soap or detergent known as 'Gitz.' The Citz was dipped from a barrel and placed in the dishwashing machine by the plaintiff. Pots and pans were washed by hand using a soap powder known as 'JaDa.' Glassware was washed by hand suing a soap known as 'Besol.' The plaintiff also used a scouring powder known as 'Ajax' and a bleaching agent known as 'Clorox.'
The plaintiff's hands developed a rash while he was employed by the defendant. The operator of the restaurant referred the plaintiff for medical attention and the condition seemed to improve. In July or August 1963, the plaintiff developed a severe rash upon his hands. His fingers became red and scaly. On August 27, 1963, the plaintiff was examined by Dr. L. C. Potts. At that time the plaintiff had a severe dermatitis on both hands. The skin was dry, scaly, and cracked in areas over the entire hand. Where the skin was cracked it was oozing and extremely tender. Dr. Potts recommended that the plaintiff remove himself from the defendant's employment.
The plaintiff terminated his employment with the defendant on August 27, 1963. The condition of his hands responded to treatment and on December 7, 1963, the plaintiff was discharged as being able to return to work. Dr. Potts testified that it was his opinion that the plaintiff's dermatitis was caused by the cleansing agents used by the plaintiff in his employment by the defendant. There is no medical evidence to the contrary in this case.
Dr. Potts also testified that contact dermatitis is a superficial inflammation of the skin caused by a sensitizing or irritating agent. It is a condition that occurs frequently and is common among housewives. Detergents and cleansing chemicals are common causes of the condition. Some persons are more sensitive than others and are more apt to develop a dermatitis.
The evidence in this case establishes that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booker v. Duke Medical Center
...employment in general. Glodenis v. American Brass Co., 118 Conn. 29, 40, 170 A. 146, 150." In Ritter v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co., 178 Neb. 792, 795, 135 N.W.2d 470, 472 (1965) the Nebraska Supreme Court examined a statute almost identical to our own. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-151 (1974).......
-
Risor v. Nebraska Boiler
...supported his claim that his long period of exposure caused his emphysema and secondary conditions. In the other case, Ritter v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co.,11 the employee, a dishwasher, developed contact dermatitis because of his exposure to detergents and cleansing chemicals. The use of th......
-
Berggren v. Grand Island Accessories, Inc., S-95-201
...employer of the injured employee, but, rather, to employers as a whole in a particular occupation. See Ritter v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., 178 Neb. 792, 794, 135 N.W.2d 470, 472 (1965) ("[a]n occupational disease must be a natural incident of a particular occupation and must attach to that......
-
Vencil v. Valmont Industries, Inc.
...occupation or employment. Referring to "occupational disease" in § 48-151(3), this court noted in Ritter v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., 178 Neb. 792, 795, 135 N.W.2d 470, 472 (1965): The requirement of the statute is that the cause and conditions of the disease be characteristic of and pecul......