Court Opinion

ID: 9852314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:28:26.101889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:25.440011
License: Public Domain

MARTIN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I must respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the evidence and the Commission’s findings support its conclusions that plaintiff’s employment exposed her to a greater risk of contracting depression and fibromyalgia than the public generally and that her depression and fibromyalgia are compensable occupational diseases.
*202Although the majority correctly cites the definition of an occupational disease, as contained in G.S. § 97-53(13), and our Supreme Court’s interpretation of the statute, as contained in Booker v. Duke Medical Center, 297 N.C. 458, 256 S.E.2d 189 (1979) and further explained in Rutledge v. Tultex Corp., 308 N.C. 85, 301 S.E.2d 359 (1983), I do not believe the majority or the Commission has correctly applied the law to the facts as found by the Commission. Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff’s job-related stress caused her depression and aggravated her fibromyalgia, such facts cannot support the conclusion that plaintiff’s mental and physical conditions were occupational diseases as defined by the statute. The findings indicate merely that plaintiff suffered from depression and fibromyal-gia after being placed in the unfortunate position of working for an abusive supervisor, which can occur with any employee in any industry or profession, or indeed, in similar abusive relationships outside the workplace. Therefore, I do not believe plaintiff’s conditions can be construed as “characteristic of and peculiar to” her particular employment; they are ordinary diseases, to which the general public is equally exposed outside the workplace in everyday life. See Rutledge, 308 N.C. at 93, 301 S.E.2d at 365 (“Only such ordinary diseases of life to which the general public is exposed equally with workers in the particular trade or occupation are excluded.”) In my view, to hold these conditions to be occupational diseases compensable under G.S. § 97-53(13), under the facts of this case, stretches beyond the intent of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Thus, I would reverse the award of compensation.
I concur with the majority with respect to the results reached as to defendant’s remaining assignments of error.