Opinion ID: 1626805
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: is there substantial evidence to support the commission's findings?

Text: ¶ 12. This Court's scope of review in workers compensation appeals is limited to a determination of whether substantial evidence exists to support the findings of the Workers Compensation Commission. Hardin's Bakeries v. Dependent of Harrell, 566 So.2d 1261, 1264 (Miss.1990). ¶ 13. Sharpe argues that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that his exposure to chemicals at Choctaw resulted in an injury as contemplated by the Workers' Compensation Act. The work connection test arises from Miss.Code Ann. § 71-3-7 (1972). The worker's employment, however, need not have been the sole source of the injury. The claim is compensable if the injury or death is in part work connected. Injury or death arises out of and in the course of employment even when the employment merely aggravates, accelerates or contributes to the injury. Chapman v. Hanson Scale Co., 495 So.2d 1357, 1360 (Miss.1986) (citations omitted); see Vardaman S. Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation § 164 (3d ed.1982). It is well settled that where a claimant's employment contributes to his condition, the injury is compensable. Hedge v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 641 So.2d 9, 14 (Miss. 1994) (citing Jenkins v. Ogletree Farm Supply, 291 So.2d 560, 563 (Miss.1974)). As did the Commission, the circuit court, and the Court of Appeals, we evaluate the circumstances of Sharpe's work environment and the opinion of each of the four experts involved in this case. Sharpe began working at Choctaw in October of 1988 as a personnel supervisor. The record indicates that when he joined Choctaw he was in excellent health, never having experienced any respiratory ailments. In 1992, Sharpe began to experience shortness of breath and other lung problems when his job duties expanded to require him to spend the majority of his workday in the manufacturing plant and to supervise daily disposal of waste toxic chemicals. Sharpe's testimony, corroborated by the employer representative, Angel Lynn Huddleston, reveals that Sharpe's duties required him to work regularly in poorly ventilated areas of the plant where toxic chemicals were used extensively and to supervise frequently plant cleanup which consisted of open air burning of these chemicals in drums behind the plant. One of the principal chemicals that was burned on the premises was III Trichloroethane. Burning this chemical caused Sharpe to experience headaches, coughing, and other flu-like symptoms. The OSHA Material Safety Data Sheets on III Trichloroethane, which were admitted in evidence, report that the substance decomposes into phosgene (mustard gas) when burned at a sufficiently high temperature. ¶ 14. Dr. Frederick T. Duggan, a board-certified pulmonologist and internal medicine specialist, is Sharpe's chief treating physician. Dr. Duggan first examined Sharpe in 1992 after complaints of shortness of breath, and at that time, Dr. Duggan diagnosed Sharpe with a reversible airways disease. In 1995, Dr. Duggan again performed pulmonary studies following a fainting episode at work. Those studies revealed obstructive ventilatory impairment and decrease in respiratory muscle strength. After further testing, Dr. Duggan contributed Sharpe's respiratory problems to his work environment and placed Sharpe on medical leave from work for approximately three to four months, during which his condition improved. However, Sharpe eventually experienced a setback. Choctaw argues that Sharpe's set back proves his exposure to chemicals at Choctaw could not have contributed to his respiratory problems. However, Dr. Duggan explained the impairment was a progressive condition that became permanent, causing Sharpe's ultimate physical condition. ¶ 15. Dr. William C. Pinkston, a boardcertified pulmonologist who testified for Choctaw, stated that the pulmonary function studies he performed showed normal lungs. However, Dr. Pinkston did not think that Sharpe was faking, and acknowledged Sharpe may have been experiencing shortness of breath and fatigue. Dr. Pinkston opined that Sharpe's shortness of breath was not related to chemical exposure at work, but could not give any other reason for Sharpe's debilitating health. ¶ 16. Dr. Arthur Hume, a pharmacologist and toxicologist who testified for Choctaw, stated that certain chemicals in the plant, particularly hyrdroquinone and cyanoacrylate, could cause and aggravate a pulmonary condition. But Dr. Hume was of the opinion that Sharpe's physical condition could not have resulted from his work environment, stating that the ambient air concentration of those chemicals was not sufficient to affect Sharpe. Significantly, Dr. Hume admitted that he neither measured nor was aware of the precise ambient air concentration of chemicals in the plant at the time of Sharpe's employment. Therefore, Dr. Hume's opinion, based upon only a subjective presumption of low air chemical concentration, is suspect. ¶ 17. Because of a lack of consensus among the experts, the administrative law judge selected Dr. Brian Forrester, a specialist in occupational medicine, to perform an independent medical evaluation of Sharpe. No additional pulmonary function studies or other diagnostic testing was performed by Dr. Forrester. Based on a review of records compiled by Dr. Pinkston and Dr. Duggan and information on the particular chemicals used at Choctaw, Dr. Forrester concluded that Sharpe suffered from a form of adult-onset asthma, the exact cause of which he could not identify. He further concluded that Sharpe's lung condition was temporarily aggravated but that the chemical exposure was no longer operating as a factor in his present condition. Dr. Forrester did, however, order Sharpe to refrain from working around chemicals that were used at Choctaw. ¶ 18. It is well established that the provisions of Mississippi's Workers' Compensation Statute are to be construed liberally in favor the claimant and in favor of paying benefits for a compensable injury. Emerson Elec. Co. v. McLarty, 487 So.2d 228, 230 (Miss.1986) (collecting citations). Applying this liberal standard, it is readily apparent that Sharpe's physical condition is causally linked to his exposure of chemicals at Choctaw. Reviewing Sharpe's work history and the statements of each expert, it is undisputed that Sharpe (1) suffered no pulmonary problems prior to his employment at Choctaw; (2) has demonstrated the presence of a lung ailment and/or shortness of breath; (3) has been exposed to substances at Choctaw which cause pulmonary distress; and (4) has been advised by every expert to avoid exposure to chemical irritants for fear of aggravation of his condition. ¶ 19. The worst case scenario for Sharpe is that the connection between his work environment and debilitating health is somewhat attenuated or doubtful. And as this Court has stated, [d]oubtful cases should be resolved in favor of compensation, so as to fulfill the beneficial purposes of the statute. Miller Transps., Inc. v. Guthrie, 554 So.2d 917, 918 (Miss.1989). With workers' compensation cases, this Court is rightly committed to insuring that injured employees are justly and appropriately compensated for debilitating injuries caused, contributed, or aggravated in the course of service to the employer. See Marshall Durbin Cos. v. Warren, 633 So.2d 1006, 1010 (Miss.1994); General Elec. Co. v. McKinnon, 507 So.2d 363, 367 (Miss.1987).