Court Opinion

ID: 9847531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:01:34.299876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:19.597237
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the judgment in this case because I cannot say that it is irrational for the legislature of Georgia to follow one rule for occupational diseases and another rule for other compensable injuries. It may be that the legislature determined that full compensation for occupational diseases would be an unbearable burden for certain industries in this state. However, I cannot agree with all that is said in this opinion in support of that conclusion.
In Division 3 the majority opinion cites Hall v. Synalloy Corp., 540 FSupp. 263, 268 (S. D. Ga. 1982), for the proposition that it is less difficult to apportion responsibility for a loss when dealing with an injury than it is for apportioning responsibility for a loss when dealing with an occupational disease. This distinction would seem to support an opposite result from the one reached in the majority opinion. After all, our statute apportions compensation as to occupational diseases but does not apportion compensation as to compensable injuries.
I am authorized to state that Justice Bell joins in this special concurrence.