Opinion ID: 1389048
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Repetitive trauma injury as occupational disease

Text: Employer contends that if a repetitive trauma injury is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, it should be compensable only as an occupational disease and not as an injury by accident. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and followed the rationale of other courts that have focused on the commonly understood meaning of the word disease to conclude repetitive trauma is not an occupational disease. See Lutrell v. Ind. Comm'n, 154 Ill.App.3d 943, 107 Ill.Dec. 620, 507 N.E.2d 533 (1987) (injury results from a specific identifiable trauma or physical event whereas disease originates from a source that is neither traumatic nor physical); Duvall v. ICI Americas, Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1122 (Ind.App. 1993) (occupational disease results from exposure to conditions in the workplace; exposure is a passive relationship rather than an event or occurrence); Noble v. Lamoni Prods., 512 N.W.2d 290 (Iowa 1994) (none of the common definitions trace the cause of disease to trauma). Whether a repetitive trauma injury is compensable either as an injury by accident or an occupational disease has not been squarely addressed by this Court. [5] As other courts have recognized, the difficulty in deciding this issue arises from the fact that a repetitive trauma injury has some of the characteristics of both accidental injury and occupational diseaseit is the cumulative effect of repeated and distinct events that ultimately produces the disability. See Berry v. Boeing Military Airplanes, 20 Kan.App.2d 220, 885 P.2d 1261 (1994); Crosby v. American Stores, 207 Neb. 251, 298 N.W.2d 157 (1980). There is a split of authority on this issue with no real majority view. [6] Further, it is not obvious that either approach is more favorable to finding coverage. See Mauldin v. Dyna-Color/Jack Rabbit, 308 S.C. 18, 416 S.E.2d 639 (1992) (Court will liberally construe Act in favor of coverage). Presumably, Employer is advocating the occupational disease approach based on case law from other jurisdictions where repetitive trauma is treated as an occupational disease and courts have found no coverage because the claimant failed to show a required element. For instance, in Fuller v. Motel 6, 136 N.C.App. 727, 526 S.E.2d 480 (2000), the North Carolina Court of Appeals found no coverage for carpal tunnel syndrome where the claimant failed to show it was caused by conditions peculiar to her employment that excluded all ordinary diseases to which the general public is equally exposed. In South Carolina, our statute defines an occupational disease as a disease arising out of and in the course of employment which is due to hazards in excess of those ordinarily incident to employment and is peculiar to the occupation in which the employee is engaged. S.C.Code Ann. § 42-11-10 (1985). Unlike the North Carolina courts, however, we have not construed the definition of occupational disease so rigidly. The statute is satisfied where the claimant is able to show simply that the employment increased the risk of the disease. See Mohasco Corp. v. Rising, 292 S.C. 489, 357 S.E.2d 456 (1987). Under our more liberal approach, it is not clear that proof of a repetitive trauma injury as an occupational disease would be a more onerous burden than proving it as an injury by accident. In any event, the commission found Claimant's repetitive trauma injury was compensable as an injury by accident. We find a repetitive trauma injury meets the definition of injury by accident in that it is an unforeseen injury caused by trauma. We therefore conclude the commission's finding is supported by substantial evidence. See Anderson v. Baptist Med. Center, 343 S.C. 487, 541 S.E.2d 526 (2001) (findings of commission are presumed correct and will be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence). AFFIRMED. TOAL, C.J., WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.