Court Opinion

ID: 9591564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:05:09.153879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:25.128514
License: Public Domain

Judge Webb
dissenting.
I dissent. I do not believe Rutledge v. Tultex Corp., 308 N.C. 85, 301 S.E. 2d 359 (1983) or Swink v. Cone Mills, 65 N.C. App. 397, 309 S.E. 2d 271 (1983) require that this case be remanded. In Rutledge the Industrial Commission found that exposure at the claimant’s last place of employment did not cause or significantly contribute to the claimant’s chronic obstructive lung disease and denied coverage. Our Supreme Court held that this did not determine the case and ordered a remand to determine whether the claimant’s exposure to cotton dust while working at the defendant’s plant as well as others had significantly contributed to, or had been a significant causative factor in her chronic obstructive lung disease.
In this case the Commission has found as facts that “The cotton dust did not, however, cause or aggravate her basic illness which is chronic bronchitis,” and “The exposure did not, however, cause or materially aggravate her underlying pulmonary disease, which is chronic bronchitis.” I believe the findings of fact are supported by the evidence and they support the Commission’s conclusion that the claimant’s illness is not compensable.