Yount v. Henrite Products, Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 July 1988 |
| Citation | 754 S.W.2d 47 |
| Parties | Betty A. YOUNT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HENRITE PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. 754 S.W.2d 47 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Danny M. Hryhorchuk, Morristown, for plaintiff-appellant.
Donald B. Oakley, Morristown, for defendants-appellees.
In this Workers' Compensation case, the Plaintiff, Betty A. Yount, was denied benefits for an occupational disease that resulted from 26 years of exposure to rubber dust and chemical fumes in a plant operated by Defendant, Henrite Products, Inc. The Chancery Court for Hamblen County ruled that the medical evidence showed that Plaintiff did not retain a permanent total disability as a result of her exposure. On appeal, Plaintiff raises three issues: (1) whether the trial court properly evaluated the extent of Plaintiff's disability; (2) whether any material evidence supports the findings of the trial court on permanent and total disability; and (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to award her any benefits for permanent partial and temporary total disability based on the evidence in the record.
Plaintiff was 52 years old at the time of trial and had worked in Defendant's plant for 26 years. Her job was to remove excess rubber from the outside rim of electric motor mounts manufactured by Defendant. This position was known as an outside buffer and consisted of running a rotating, circular wire brush attached to an electric motor. The excess rubber, which was black in color, was removed by the brush. Although the plant had an exhaust ventilation system, this system did not function adequately, causing the particles of buffed rubber to become airborne. This black rubber dust settled on the machinery and the plant floor as well as the clothes, hair, and faces of the employees. It was also inhaled by the employees, including Plaintiff. In addition, at least until 1976, the rubber compound used to coat the motor mounts was mixed at the plant, causing the fumes and the powder from which it was made to permeate the plant. Plaintiff's prolonged exposure gradually caused her to suffer various symptoms until finally on April 7, 1983, she could no longer work; she went to see Dr. John H. Kinser on this date and was immediately admitted by him to the hospital, where she remained until April 16, 1983. She was discharged with a diagnosis of chemical bronchitis, arthritis, sinusitis, and longstanding rheumatoid arthritis. She continued under Dr. Kinser's care until released for work on September 19, 1983. While she continued to display exposure symptoms, she was able to perform her work at Defendant's plant; however, on March 13, 1984, she again experienced an acute episode of chemical bronchitis and was forced to leave work. She has not worked since that time. Throughout this period, Defendant consistently denied that Plaintiff's condition was the result of exposure to the rubber dust and fumes circulating in the plant environment.
On March 12, 1985, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, seeking benefits for permanent total disability and for medical attendance. The Complaint included a prayer for general relief as well. On August 19, 1985, and November 1, 1985, Defendant filed its Answer and an Amendment to Answer, denying that Plaintiff was entitled to any relief. Discovery ensued and on August 29, 1986, a hearing was held in Chancery Court.
At trial, Plaintiff testified that she has a high school education and has no other work experience than her employment for Defendant. When she started working at the plant over 26 years ago, she was in good health. She described the working conditions at the plant that led to her disability. Rubber dust covered her clothes and face daily. Chemical fumes from the rubber compound were also prevalent in the plant. She and other employees complained but nothing was done about ventilation. She stated that she breathed rubber dust everyday and would cough up sputum with particles of the material in it. She is no longer able to breathe easily and is limited in the types of activities she can do. Suffering from shortness of breath upon exertion and sensitivity to wind, dampness, and air conditioning, she is unable to do chores around the farm on which she lives with her sister and can only perform simple domestic chores such as washing the dishes. In addition, she has arthritis in her hands and wrists but she does not find this condition particularly disabling. She testified that she is unable to obtain employment due to her disability. Her condition and inability to work have caused her to experience anxiety and depression.
The first acute episode she experienced was on April 7, 1983. Upon leaving work, she went to see Dr. Kinser, who hospitalized her until April 16, 1983, for treatment. Remaining off from work on the doctor's recommendation, she took medication for her symptoms and by September, 1983, she was able to return to work. Although she experienced problems working, under Dr. Kinser's care she was able to work from September 12, 1983, until March 13, 1984, when she again suffered an acute episode of chemical bronchitis so severe that she had to leave work. After reporting to her foreman, she returned to Dr. Kinser, whom she now must see about once every two weeks. Dr. Kinser is her family doctor and has been treating her regularly for many years. She stated that Defendant refused to treat her claim as a work-related disability. Following this episode in March, 1984, she could no longer expose herself to the contaminants in Defendant's plant and was unable to return to work. She has continued to take a number of medications for her condition under Dr. Kinser's direction. Dr. Kinser referred her to Dr. William K. Rogers for evaluation on April 1, 1985, over a year after she had quit working in the contaminated environment of Defendant's plant. She was on medication and was not having any problems on the day he examined her. Subsequently, Defendant referred her to Dr. Leon J. Bogartz for evaluation on June 16, 1986, more than two years after she had left Defendant's employment. She was medicated and was experiencing no symptoms at the time of this examination.
Ms. Margaret Horsley testified for Plaintiff. She had worked for Defendant in the 1960's, had left, and then had returned to work in the plant in 1976. She knew Plaintiff during both times that she worked for Defendant. She corroborated Plaintiff's description of the poor working conditions of the plant, the contaminated environment, and the inadequate ventilation system. She stated that the employees were blackened with rubber dust by each day's end. Rubber dust got in their clothes, on their faces, in their eyes, noses, and throats. According to Ms. Horsley, Plaintiff's health had deteriorated between the time she worked with her in the 1960's and when she returned to work in 1976. The conditions at the plant had remained unchanged throughout this period. Plaintiff had developed a cough over the years of the witness's absence. She saw Plaintiff's eyes water and become irritated. Plaintiff complained to Defendant that she was having respiratory difficulties.
Mr. Carl Crocker was also called to testify for Plaintiff. He was formerly employed by Defendant to mix the rubber compound used in the plant. He knew Plaintiff while he worked at the plant and corroborated Plaintiff's and Ms. Horsley's descriptions of the plant conditions. When he mixed the chemicals used to compound the rubber, the machinery caused the black powder from which it was made to blow into the air and to circulate throughout the plant. The ventilation system did not work properly but the complaints of the employees concerning conditions at the plant were ignored by Defendant. He stated that Plaintiff, like the other workers, was covered with black rubber dust by the end of the day.
Defendant called Mr. Rusty Moore to testify; he is presently the plant manager. He stated that the plant has a central ventilation system and that Defendant has never been cited for safety violations due to any inadequacy in the system, which is cleaned and maintained regularly. Defendant stopped mixing the rubber compound at the plant in about 1976 and now stored it pre-mixed. The same ventilation system has been in use since he started working as production manager in 1976. He admitted, however, that he has seen employees get rubber dust on them but denied that it has ever caused any problems for the employees.
The depositions of two medical doctors were placed into evidence. Dr. Kinser's deposition was taken on behalf of Plaintiff. He has been her family doctor for over 20 years. The first time he treated her for her present condition was on April 7, 1983, when she came to his office complaining of throat pain, sneezing, chills, hoarseness, nasal congestion, and productive cough. He admitted her to the hospital for treatment the same day; she was discharged on April 16, 1983, with a diagnosis of chemical bronchitis, arthritis, sinusitis, and longstanding rheumatoid arthritis. He has observed Plaintiff cough up sputum containing material having the consistency of the rubber dust that contaminated Defendant's plant. He unequivocally stated that her condition was caused by prolonged exposure to this dust. Following her treatment during the months after this April, 1983, acute episode, Plaintiff became asymptomatic and he allowed her to return to work in September, 1983, subsequent to which another acute episode occurred in March, 1984.
Dr. Kinser testified that she has been sensitized by her chemical bronchitis to the types of noxious substances in Defendant's plant. He recommended that she not work in this environment and wrote to Defendant on December 8, 1983, to this effect. By March, 1984, she again suffered from the same symptoms as she had in April, 1983, which symptoms were all secondary to chemical bronchitis. In March, 1984, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial