Court Opinion

ID: 9598124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:05:52.079179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:40.845513
License: Public Domain

Justice MEYER
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority. By stipulation of counsel, there is no issue on this appeal contesting the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law of the Industrial Commission that plaintiff suffers from an occupational disease. For that reason, no evidence relating to compensability was brought forward in the record — also by agreement of counsel. The defendants did not take exception to or make any cross assignments of error with regard to the Industrial Commission’s finding adopting the consulting physician’s opinion that plaintiff was totally and permanently disabled from byssinosis in 1978. And, as the majority opinion points out, there is no appeal concerning the award of permanent partial disability for the period 1970-1978 pursuant to G.S. § 97-30. While there are other matters which might, and in my opinion should, have been brought forward, this is a limited appeal restricted to (1) the matter of the award of benefits for permanent total disability for life under the provisions of G.S. § 97-29 as it existed in 1978 and (2) the award of lifetime medical benefits. I shall therefore limit my remarks to the matter of the retroactive aspect of the award with regard to those two issues. I believe that the award of lifetime permanent total disability benefits to Mr. Smith amounts to a retroactive application of the substantive law — the 1978 version of G.S. § 97-29. I also believe that, under the facts of this case,' it is error to award the plaintiff medical expenses for life. I am convinced that neither result was intended by our Legislature.
This is not a situation in which a claimant has previously been determined to be partially disabled and has received, or is receiving, benefits at the time benefits are increased by the Legislature or at the time he becomes totally disabled. This claimant was determined to be disabled for the first time in 1978 at *516which time he was found to be totally disabled. It was at this time that his partial permanent disability for the period 1970-1978 was determined. While I question such action, this determination was not brought forward on appeal and is not addressed in the majority opinion.
The limited appeal was apparently taken for the reason that while the claimant did not contest the findings and conclusions of the Full Commission relating to the award of benefits under the provisions of G.S. § 97-30 as it existed on 1 January 1970, he did contest the Opinion and Award of the Full Commission in failing to award permanent partial benefits under the provisions of G.S. § 97-29 as it existed in 1978 and for its failure to award lifetime medical benefits. The Court of Appeals, however, noted that evidence had been adduced in the case that the claimant became permanently and totally disabled in 1978 from byssinosis. The panel thereby concluded that the Full Commission had erred in failing to award benefits for permanent and total disability under the version of G.S. § 97-29 as it existed in 1978. The panel determined that the Full Commission was not restricted to that version of G.S. § 97-29 as it existed in 1970 when he first became disabled by reason of his occupational disease. The panel also concluded that the Commission had erred in failing to award lifetime medical benefits under G.S. § 97-29, again, as it existed in 1978, thereby avoiding a construction of G.S. § 97-59 relating to medical benefits for occupational disease. The panel said that a consideration of benefits that might be awardable under G.S. § 97-59 was not necessary in view of the provisions of G.S. § 97-29, although the claimant was suffering from an occupational disease.
This claimant was born in 1907. He worked in the textile industry from 1929 to 1951, a period of approximately 21 years. From 1951 to 1962, a period of approximately 11 years, the claimant farmed. He was again employed in the textile industry from 1962 until 1968. Thus, it had been approximately 10 years since he was employed in the textile industry when in 1978 he was diagnosed as being permanently totally disabled by reason of byssinosis.
This is a claim for an occupational disease under G.S. § 97-53(13). It should be emphasized that the pertinent Finding of Fact by the Full Commission with regard to the occupational *517disease is couched in the language of the statute as it existed in 1970 and not in the language as it existed in 1978 when the determination was made. This Finding of Fact serves as a foundation for all of the other findings and conclusions and the award. In pertinent part, Finding of Fact No. 1 of the Opinion and Award of the Full Commission provides as follows:
Byssinosis is a disease which is an infection or inflammation of an internal organ of the body due to exposure to cotton dust.
This finding is only consistent with the language of G.S. § 97-53(13) as it existed prior to the amendment effective 1 July 1971. 1971 Sess. Laws, c. 547, s. 1. Prior to 1 July 1971, G.S. § 97-53(13) provided as follows:
The following diseases and conditions only shall be deemed to be occupational diseases within the meaning of this article:
(13) Infection or inflammation of the skin, eyes, or other external contact surfaces or oral or nasal cavaties or any other internal or external organ or organs of the body due to irritating oils, cutting compounds, chemical dust, liquids, fumes, gases or vapors, and any other materials or substances.
Following 1 July 1971, G.S. § 97-53(13) as amended, provided as follows:
The following diseases and conditions only shall be deemed to be occupational diseases within the meaning of this Article:
(13) Any disease, other than hearing loss covered in another subdivision of this section, which is proven to be due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to a particular trade, occupation or employment, but excluding all ordinary diseases of life to which the general public is equally exposed outside of the employment.
The foregoing Finding of Fact No. 1 is entirely adequate to serve as a foundation for an award under the pre-1 July 1971 language of the statute. I would point out, however, that there is *518no finding of fact to support a ruling of compensability under the version of G.S. § 97-53(13) as it appears after the amendment of 1 July 1971. Nowhere is there a determination that the claimant’s disease is "due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to a particular trade, occupation or employment.”
I also point out that from the time of this claimant’s partial permanent disability in January 1970 there has been no new injury by accident and no new disablement as a result of a subsequent aggravating exposure to cotton dust to warrant a different accrual date. It was not even alleged that a subsequent occupational exposure or subsequent injury accelerated or aggravated this claimant’s condition. It is my view that all of this claimant’s benefits should relate back to the original disablement in January 1970. This Court should not put its stamp of approval on an arbitrary finding of a new injury date, ie., the total disability occurring in 1978, based upon the changing condition of the employee.
In Wood v. Stevens & Co., 297 N.C. 636, 644, 256 S.E. 2d 692, 697-98 (1979), this Court said:
Under our Workmen’s Compensation Act, injury resulting from occupational disease is compensable only when it leads to disablement. G.S. 97-52. Until that time, the employee has no cause of action and the employer has no liability. We hold therefore that the current version of G.S. 97-53(13) applies to all claims for disablement in which the disability occurs after the statute’s effective date, 1 July 1971.
This holding is consistent with a statutory scheme for occupational diseases as established by G.S. 97-52. . . . The long-standing rule in both this and other jurisdictions is that the right to compensation in cases of accidental injury is governed by the law in effect at the time of injury. (Citations omitted.) If disablement resulting from an occupational disease is treated as an injury by accident as required by G.S. 97-52, it follows that the employee’s right to compensation in cases of occupational disease should be governed by the law in effect at the time of disablement. (Citations omitted) (Emphasis added.)
Wood stands for the proposition that the first disablement of any kind (occurring in this case in 1970) brings into play the law *519in effect on that date and that all benefits flow and accrue based upon that disablement date.
G.S. § 97-29 as it existed on 1 January 1970 clearly provided that disability benefits would be paid for a maximum of 400 weeks “from the date of the injury.” The 1973 amendment to that statute (1973 Session Laws, c. 1308) which eliminated the 400 weeks’ cap and the maximum benefits’ cap and added lifetime benefits for permanent total disability cases became effective 1 July 1975 and applied only to cases arising on and after 1 July 1975.
I believe that the General Assembly intended the result adopted and incorporated by the Full Commission in its award and that the Court of Appeals and the majority opinion of this Court misinterpret the legislative intent that Mr. Smith’s claim should be governed completely and totally by the law in effect on 1 January 1970, the date of his initial disablement. The long legislative history of G.S. § 97-29 clearly establishes a legislative intent that the amendment be applied prospectively only. With one exception, every amendment to G.S. § 97-29 since its adoption has provided that the amendment “shall apply only to cases originating on and after” the effective date of the amendment. See 1963 Session Laws, c. 604, s. 9; 1967 Session Laws, c. 84, s. 10; 1969 Session Laws, c. 143, s. 9; 1971 Session Laws, c. 281, s. 7; 1973 Session Laws, c. 515, s. 9; 1973 Session Laws, c. 759, s. 8; 1973 Session Laws, c. 1103, s. 2; and 1973 Session Laws, c. 1308, s. 8. The only exception was the first amendment in 1957 which provided that the amendment applied “on and after July 1, 1957, and shall not apply to injuries occurring before said date.” 1957 Session Laws, c. 1217, s. 3.
The wisdom of the Legislature in its intent to apply the amendment now under consideration only prospectively can perhaps be indicated by an example. Assume that a co-worker of this claimant who had worked at the same job and by the claimant’s side during his entire employment history became permanently and totally disabled as of 1 January 1970. Assume also, as found by the Commission, that Mr. Smith was only partially disabled as of that same date. The co-worker would have been relegated to the provisions of G.S. § 97-29 as they existed on 1 January 1970 and would have been limited to 400 weeks of com*520pensation at a maximum compensation rate of $50.00 for his total disability. Mr. Smith, however, being then only partially disabled, has ultimately obtained benefits payable for his lifetime and in a far greater amount than the co-worker who was disabled permanently and totally for a period at least eight years longer than this claimant. Could the co-worker in 1978, or can he now, reopen his claim on the basis of change of condition and have his claim decided pursuant to the provisions of G.S. § 97-29 as it existed in 1978 or as it exists today? Could the thousands of persons who became only partially disabled in 1970 or prior thereto and whose benefits have been exhausted now apply for current benefits because their condition has changed to a permanent disability? What will the impact be on employers whose current workers’ compensation coverage does not extend to these claimants who may have now been separated from their employment for perhaps ten years or more? I fear that the majority opinion will open a Pandora’s box of claims never contemplated by the Legislature.
I vote to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the Award of the Full Commission.