Court Opinion

ID: 9589362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:43:50.556335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:07.220338
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice
(concurring and dissenting):
I agree with the majority opinion as to all issues except its holding that the Industrial Commission did not err in refusing to submit the case to a medical board pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. § 42-11-120 (1976). I think submission to a medical board is mandated by statute in this case and dissent as to that issue.
Section 1-23-380(g) of the Code (Cum. Supp. 1981) provides the scope of review of administrative agency decisions. The Industrial Commission is an agency within the meaning of § 1-23-380. Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S. C. 130, 276 S. E. (2d) 304 (1981).
The Circuit Court and this Court are bound by the findings of the Industrial Commission unless clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the whole record. Mitchem v. Fiske-Carter Construction Co., Smith’s Advance Sheets, S. C., 293 S. E. (2d) 701 (1982); § l-23-380(g)(5) of the Code. However, the Circuit Court and this Court may reverse or modify if the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions *326are in violation of statutory provisions. Section l-23-380(g)(1) of the Code.
In my view, the Commission violated § 42-11-120 of the Code by not submitting the case to a medical board as requested by respondents. Thus, I would remand the case pursuant to § 1-23-380(g)(1) of the Code.
South Carolina case law recognizes that a disease which results from exposure to altitude, climate, or working conditions constitutes an injury by accident where the result is unexpected. Sturkie v. Ballenger Corp., 268 S. C. 536, 235 S. E. (2d) 120 (1977). Additionally, § 42-11-40 of the Code provides that disablement or death of an employee resulting from an occupational disease shall be treated as an injury by accident, and § 42-1-160 of the Code includes occupational disease in its definition of “injury” and “personal injury.”
The decedent suffered a heart attack which respondents claim was caused by stress and exertion placed on his heart by byssinosis. At the time of his death, the decedent was doing no unusually stressful work. He had just returned from lunch and was walking over to turn on a machine when he was stricken by this heart attack. The fact he was stricken while at his place of employment was merely fortuitous. Respondents apparently contend decedent would not have suffered this heart attack but for the strain placed on his heart by byssinosis.
There was a dispute among the medical expert witnesses as to whether the decedent actually suffered from byssinosis.
The primary function of the courts in interpreting statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature. See cases collected in West’s S. C. Digest, Statutes, Key No. 181(1). I do not believe the legislature intended that one who suffers disablement or death from an occupational disease could disregard the provisions of the Occupational Disease Chapter of the Workmen’s Compensation Act by pursuing his claim as one for accidental injury. This, I believe, is what the majority would allow.
Because (1) there was a medical question concerning the existence of byssinosis; (2) the claimants contend decedent’s death by heart attack was caused by byssinosis; and (3) appellant’s requested submission of that question to a medical *327board, referral to a medical board is imperative. § 42-11-120 of the Code. I would remand for that purpose.
Littlejohn, J., concurs.