Court Opinion

ID: 9608042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:05:05.423295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:43.011729
License: Public Domain

KOONTZ, Judge,
dissenting.
Although medical professionals seem to agree that “carpal tunnel syndrome” (CTS) may be caused by disorders such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, thyroid dysfunction and rheumatoid arthritis, in the present appeals the parties agree that the employees’ CTS arose from cumulative trauma resulting from repetitive motion necessitated by their employment tasks. For purposes of our analysis of the compensability of these claims, no logical distinction may be drawn between Ms. McCutchan repeatedly packing chicken nuggets into trays and Ms. Bowen repeatedly using a staple gun to assemble and wrap automobile parts. The repetitive motion involved in both work-related activities caused CTS. Yet, the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) determined that Ms. McCutchan’s CTS was a compensable occupational disease and Ms. Bowen’s was not.
*75The patent inconsistency in these decisions flowed primarily from the commission’s interpretation of Merillat Industries, Inc. v. Parks, 246 Va. 429, 436 S.E.2d 600 (1993), rev’g 15 Va.App. 44, 421 S.E.2d 867 (1992), where the Supreme Court held that under Code § 65.2-400, “the condition for which compensation is sought as an occupational disease must first qualify as a disease.” Id. at 432, 436 S.E.2d at 601. In Ms. McCutchan’s case, no medical opinion in the record established whether CTS was a “disease.” The commission reached its determination that her CTS was a disease by relying upon various dictionary definitions of disease, prior decisions of the commission holding that CTS is a disease, and our decision in Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. East, 17 Va.App. 499, 438 S.E.2d 769 (1993), issued subsequent to Merillat and citing with approval a medical definition of disease. In contrast, in Ms. Bowen’s case the treating physician labeled CTS as an “injury” and the commission held that no evidence in the record established that it was a disease.
The majority here resolves the inconsistency in the commission’s decisions by holding that both employees established their CTS to be compensable occupational diseases. I applaud that effort to attain consistency. However, because I now believe the commission and this Court have unwittingly invaded the sole province of the legislature to expand the coverage of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) with regard to occupational diseases, I cannot join with the majority opinion in the present cases.
Although the issue presented by the present appeals focuses specifically on CTS, a considerable number of appeals from the commission currently pending before this Court involve employee attempts to establish that the cumulative trauma resulting from the repetitive motion associated with employment tasks caused various conditions, ailments and impairments and that these conditions are either compensable occupational diseases under Code § 65.2^400 or compensable ordinary diseases of life under Code § 65.2-401. Regrettably, from the briefs and oral argument in these cases I must *76conclude that the general issue is the subject of considerable inconsistency, if not total confusion.
In Holly Farms v. Yancey, 228 Va. 337, 321 S.E.2d 298 (1984), Western Electric Co. v. Gilliam, 229 Va. 245, 329 S.E.2d 13 (1985),1 and finally in Merillat, the Supreme Court declined to cite with approval a definitive and comprehensive definition of “disease” applicable to these Code sections. Rather, where the condition arose from cumulative trauma resulting from repetitive motion, even though causally connected to the employment of the employee, the Court has repeatedly rejected any definition of disease that is so broad as to render meaningless the distinction between the statutory categories of injury by accident and occupational disease.2 Such a broad definition would expand the coverage of the Act with regard to occupational diseases, a matter within the sole province of the legislature.
In Piedmont, we attempted to respond to the apparent mandate of Merillat and provide a definition of disease to resolve those cases involving cumulative trauma resulting from repetitive motion. The result has been, as the present cases illustrate, that compensability determinations turn on whether a particular treating physician labels a condition as a “disease” or an “injury,” even though the condition, CTS for example, and the fact that it arises from cumulative trauma *77resulting from repetitive motion remain consistent. Such a result clearly was not intended by the legislature. Upon reconsideration, I believe the definition of disease cited with approval in Piedmont and the other general definitions relied upon by the commission do not adequately address the issue presented by these cases.
Recognizing that the rule of stare decisis is well respected by this Court, I am reluctant to disavow the decision rendered in Piedmont, a decision in which I participated and concurred. Nonetheless, I am equally cognizant that “[t]he rule of stare decisis does not apply where the former decision has misunderstood or misapplied the law or is contrary to reason.” Home Brewing Co. v. City of Richmond, 181 Va. 793, 799, 27 S.E.2d 188, 190 (1943). I cannot in good conscience, in the name of judicial certainty, adhere to the definition of “disease” given in Piedmont as I now believe that this definition is contrary to the mandate of Merillat. In the words of Justice Harlan, “[a] judicious reconsideration of precedent cannot be as threatening to public faith in the judiciary as continued adherence to a rule unjustified in reason, which produces different results for ... situations that cannot be differentiated in policy.” Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 405, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 1790, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970).
In this context, I believe we should adopt a definition of disease contemplated by the statute rather than a purely medical one. Clearly, that definition should include all diseases caused by infectious biological agents where the illness is contracted as a result of exposure uncommon to ordinary life. In addition, it should include specifically enumerated conditions resulting from occupational exposure to poisons, chemicals, fumes, dusts, spores, radiation and other environmental hazards. See IB Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 41.33(a) (1994). However, the Supreme Court has mandated that whatever the scope of that definition may properly be, it does not include conditions of cumulative trauma resulting from repetitive motion arising *78solely from the employee’s physical employment activities.3
In the present appeals, such is clearly the case. Ms. McCutchan’s CTS and Ms. Bowen’s CTS both arose from the repetitive motion necessitated by the physical performance of their employment tasks, and, accordingly, their CTS was not an occupational disease contemplated by the Code as it presently provides. To extend coverage for their conditions is an act not within the province of the commission or the courts. I would reverse the commission in Ms. McCutchan’s case and, for different reasons, affirm the commission in Ms. Bowen’s case.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

. Although admittedly Code § 65.2-400 was amended and Code § 65.2-401 was enacted in 1986, the logic of the Supreme Court decisions with respect to the prior law still holds true.

. The Act provides for compensation for many “diseases” which are actually passive exposure trauma conditions, e.g. pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, and asbestosis. See Code § 65.2-406 (limitations periods for filing claims for these and other conditions); see also Code § 65.2-504 (providing for specific compensation for pneumoconiosis). However, a plurality of the Supreme Court has expressly found that emotional distress resulting from harassment is a gradually incurred injury excluded from coverage under the Act. Middlekauff v. Allstate Insurance Co., 247 Va. 150, 154, 439 S.E.2d 394, 397 (1994). Similarly, with the exception of certain scheduled occupations, there is no presumption that hypertension and respiratory conditions are compensable as occupational diseases. See Code § 65.2-402.

. I concede that the majority of the cases from the Supreme Court that have so held, see, e.g., Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385 S.E.2d 858, 865 (1989), address the issue with respect to whether the condition resulting from a cumulative trauma was a “gradually incurred injury” and thus not an injury resulting from an "identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event.” Id. None of these cases have dealt with CTS specifically. Nonetheless, I believe it would be unwise to permit or require the commission and the courts to make arbitrary distinctions for each individual malady caused by cumulative trauma resulting from repetitive motion.