Williams v. Crompton Highland Mills, Inc.

CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtCARLEY; DEEN, P.J., and SOGNIER
CitationWilliams v. Crompton Highland Mills, Inc., 379 S.E.2d 622, 190 Ga.App. 621 (Ga. App. 1989)
Decision Date07 March 1989
Docket NumberNo. 77856,77856
PartiesWILLIAMS v. CROMPTON HIGHLAND MILLS, INC. et al.

Conrad & Abernathy, H. Clifton Conrad, Jr., Canton, for appellant.

Cameron D. Simpson, James T. McDonald, Jr., Atlanta, for appellees.

CARLEY, Chief Judge.

During his 35 years of employment with appellee-employer, appellant-claimant was exposed to cotton dust. In February of 1970, he was forced to resign because of lung problems and he remained unemployed for an 11-month period. In January of 1971, he was hired by a construction company. He worked until 1974, when he was again forced to resign due to his lung condition. Thereafter, appellant remained unemployed for approximately a three-year period, after which he began a series of jobs.

When he was diagnosed as having byssinosis in 1977, appellant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied appellant's claim based, at least in part, upon the then-existing statute of limitations. Appellant appealed to the Full Board. The Full Board, after a de novo review, adopted the ALJ's findings and conclusions only "insofar as [they] determine[d] that [appellant's] claim is barred under the statute of limitation[s]." Appellant did not appeal to the superior court.

In 1983, however, appellant filed another claim for workers' compensation benefits based upon his byssinosis. After conducting a hearing, the ALJ found that appellant's renewed claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. As authority for this holding, the ALJ relied upon former OCGA § 34-9-281(d), which provided, in relevant part, that, "with respect to cases of disability diagnosed as byssinosis prior to July 1, 1983, such claims shall be filed prior to July 1, 1984." The ALJ further found that appellant's "work record ... shows that he suffered disablement because of his work-related disease causing temporary total and temporary partial economic disability because of his work-related disease...." Appellees-employer/insurer appealed to the Full Board. The Full Board, substituting its own findings and conclusions for those of the ALJ, held that appellant had not suffered a compensable "disablement" because, within one year of being forced to leave his employment in February of 1970, he had begun a three-year period of employment with the construction company and had earned more than $20 per week. As the result of its ruling on the issue of compensability, the Full Board found it unnecessary to make findings and conclusions as to the statute of limitations issue.

Appellant appealed to the superior court. The superior court affirmed, concluding that only permanent disability from an occupational disease would be compensable. The instant appeal is the result of this court's grant of appellant's application for a discretionary appeal from the superior court's order.

1. Relying upon the "right for any reason" rule, appellees urge an affirmance of the superior court's order on the ground that, regardless of compensability, the statute of limitations has run on appellant's claim.

"By its express language [former] OCGA § 34-9-281(d) is applicable to all cases of disability diagnosed as byssinosis prior to July 1, 1983. There can be no doubt the legislature intended the section be given retroactive operation." Canton Textile Mills v. Lathem, 253 Ga. 102, 104(1), 317 S.E.2d 189 (1984). The only distinction between the present case and Canton Textile Mills, supra, is that appellant was not only diagnosed as having byssinosis prior to July 1, 1983, he also filed a claim and was denied benefits prior to July 1, 1983. It is undisputed, however, that appellant's prior claim was not denied on the merits but solely on the basis of the then-existing statute of limitations. Accordingly, appellees assert, in effect, that they have a vested right in that former statute of limitations.

In Bussey v. Bishop, 169 Ga. 251, 150 S.E. 78 (1929), our Supreme Court did hold that, once the statute of limitations for seeking workers' compensation benefits has run, it becomes a vested right which is as valuable to the employer/insurer as the employee's right to file his claim. However, the holding in Bussey v. Bishop, supra, was specifically overruled in Canton Textile Mills v. Lathem, supra 253 Ga. at 105, 317 S.E.2d 189: "[T]he legislature may revive a workers' compensation claim which would have been barred by a previous limitation period by enacting a new statute of limitation, without violating our constitutional prohibition against retroactive laws.... Our decision in this case is consistent with this court's general policy of construing the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act liberally in order to afford the injured claimant a remedy. [Cit.]"

Accordingly, we construe the Supreme Court's decision in Canton Textile Mills, supra, as controlling authority for the proposition that appellees have no vested right in the former statute of limitations defense regardless of whether the viability of that former defense was or was not previously adjudicated. Appellant timely filed his claim for benefits prior to July 1, 1983 in compliance with former OCGA § 34-9-281 and his claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

2. Former OCGA § 34-9-281(b)(3) provided, in relevant part, that "an employer shall be liable for compensation ... only where.... Disablement ... results within three years, in the case of byssinosis, ... after the last injurious exposure to the hazard of such disease in such employment...." (Emphasis supplied.) "Disablement" was further defined as "the event of an employee becoming actually incapacitated because of occupational disease from performing his work in the last occupation in which he was injuriously exposed to the hazards of [byssinosis] or from performing any work in any other occupation for remuneration. Remuneration for work performed in any other occupation, as herein used, shall mean remuneration which equals or exceeds 33 1/3 percent of the average weekly wages of the employee at the time of last injurious exposure, ... or $20.00 per week, whichever is less. " 'Disability' means the state of being so totally incapacitated." Former OCGA § 34-9-280(2).

The Full Board seemingly has interpreted former OCGA § 34-9-281(b)(3) as a bar to an employee's recovery of any benefits if, at any time during the three-year period following his last injurious exposure, he ceases to suffer a "disablement" from byssinosis. This is an erroneous interpretation of the former statute. The purpose of former OCGA § 34-9-281(b)(3) was not to require a three-year period of continuous "disablement" as a prerequisite to compensability for byssinosis. The purpose of that provision was merely to limit compensability to such cases as those wherein "disablement" from byssinosis manifested itself within the requisite three-year period. "[S]ome industrial diseases develop slowly; a point for commencing compensation must be determined in such cases as of a given date, just as the compensable point in other [workers'] compensation cases is determined by the date of accident, and accordingly, 'disablement,' which is the equivalent of 'accident' means the earliest time the disease can be identified when the employee actually becomes physically unable to work.... Disability results when, as a result of the occupational disease, the claimant cannot earn as much as $20 per week or one third of [his or] her former wages. The event which determines disability is the event of becoming thus incapacitated as a result of the disease, and this is disablement, the starting point of the disability and of the compensable period." (Emphasis supplied.) Yates v. U.S. Rubber Co., 100 Ga.App. 583, 587(2), 112 S.E.2d 182 (1959).

...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • Murph v. Maynard Fixturecraft, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 26, 2001
    ...the case should be remanded to the board for further findings." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. Crompton Highland Mills, 190 Ga.App. 621, 625(3), 379 S.E.2d 622 (1989). See OCGA § 34-9-105(c)(5). We therefore reverse the judgment as to Maynard with direction to remand the c......
  • Smith v. Mr. Sweeper Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 2001
    ...existed in 1985 and that her difficulties with chronic headaches dated back to 1988. 5. See Williams v. Crompton Highland Mills, 190 Ga.App. 621, 625(3), 379 S.E.2d 622 (1989). 6. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. King, 127 Ga.App. 566, 567(1), 194 S.E.2d 282 7. Berry College v. Storey, 199 Ga.App. 298,......
  • Davis v. La.-Pac. Corp.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 27, 2018
    ...S.E.2d 455 (1993) (citation and punctuation omitted).4 OCGA § 34-9-280 et seq.5 OCGA § 34-9-288 ; see Williams v. Crompton Highland Mills , 190 Ga. App. 621, 624 (2), 379 S.E.2d 622 (1989).6 OCGA § 34-9-281 (a) (emphasis supplied).7 See Bell v. Gilder Timber Co. , 337 Ga. App. 47, 49, 785 S......
  • Clinical Arts Home Care Services v. Smith
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 8, 1995
    ...and applicable legal principles, the case should be remanded to the board for further findings." Williams v. Crompton Highland Mills, 190 Ga.App. 621, 624-625, 379 S.E.2d 622 (1989) (punctuation and citations omitted); Clark v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 131 Ga.App. 809, 810-811, 207 S.E.2d 222 ...