Court Opinion

ID: 9672178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:50:17.692934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:14.736028
License: Public Domain

*289STEINFELD, Judge.
This is a claim made by Earl Dale under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for total permanent disability resulting from an alleged occupational pulmonary disease. He contends that payments are due him from his last employer, Inland Steel Company (KRS 342.095) and from the Special Fund (KRS 342.120). KRS 342.095(1) authorizes recovery for an occupational disease and KRS 342.316(1) defines an “‘Occupational Disease’ as * * * (one) arising out of and in the course of the employment.” It excludes “Ordinary diseases of life to which the general public is equally exposed outside of the employment * * * except where such diseases follow as an incident of an occupational disease as defined in this section.”
Earl Dale, 57 years of age, had worked in the coal mines for several employers a total of approximately 40 years. He claims that his “pulmonary occupational disease” began on February 4, 1966. He filed his claim with the board on December 20, 1966. The principal issue is the nature of his illness and the cause thereof. The board had the benefit of testimony from six eminently-qualified physicians after which it ruled that: “Plaintiff is not affected by silicosis or any other form of pneumoconiosis and has no compensable disability as the result of such disease.” Dale appealed to the Floyd Circuit Court which said: “While it may be true that plaintiff is neither suffering from silicosis or soft coal workers pneumoconiosis it is abundantly clear from a consideration of all the substantive evidence of probative value that his pulmonary condition was the direct result of some forty years exposure to the hazards of an occupational pulmonary disease and the Board erred in not making such a finding.” From a judgment directing the board to award the benefits claimed by Dale, Inland Steel Company and the Special Fund appeal. We reverse.
Dale contends that the evidence was overwhelming in his favor and as a matter of law his claim should have been sustained. The medical testimony would have been sufficient to uphold the board had it found in favor of Dale. Roark v. Alva Coal Corp., Ky., 371 S.W.2d 856 (1963). One doctor said: “* * * he had occupational dust disease of the lungs, that is to say, silicosis or coal workers’ pneumoconiosis and he had pulmonary emphysema and chronic bronchitis, and we presume his emphysema and bronchitis were secondary to occupational dust disease of the lungs.” Another physician stated that Dale was suffering from “Stage two pneumoconiosis”. A third said “I interpret the nodulation to represent a second stage silicosis with mild emphysema, and I think he has a captive right lung.” He also said that “part, if not all of the emphysema, is due to” Dale’s “sili-cotic disease”.
The board appointed a physician to examine Dale (KRS 342.315) and ordered that the parties be given the opportunity to take his deposition. He reported “No x-ray evidence of silicosis” and wrote “It is possible that exposure to dust in the mines could have been a contributing factor in his disability”. When giving his deposition he was asked whether Dale was physically able to be employed as an underground coal miner and he answered that he was not. The interrogation continued as follows :
“8. Why, Doctor ?
A. Because he has bronchitis and pulmonary emphysema and that further exposure to dust would be hazardous to him.
9. Do you feel that his past exposure over 40 years has contributed to his pulmonary problem which you found him to be suffering from?
A. It is entirely possible that it could be, yes, sir.
10. Doctor, in view of his history and in view of your physical findings, what in your opinion is the most *290likely cause of the pulmonary problem which you found Mr. Dale to be suffering from ?
A. I believe his most likely cause is his exposure to dust in the mines.”
Inquiry was then made “Is the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease secondary to the chronic bronchitis a disorder that the population generally or at large is exposed to and notwithstanding occupation?” The answer was “yes”. The board could consider this statement as significant. KRS 342.316(1); Berry v. Owensboro Ice Cream & Dairy Products, Ky., 376 S.W.2d 302 (1964).
We now turn to the testimony of other physicians to determine whether upon the whole of the evidence it was unreasonable for the board to disallow the claim. Assuming arguendo that the claimant’s evidence, standing alone, would require a favorable finding, we look to the weight and effect of the countervailing evidence presented by the physicians for the defenese. Cf. Lee v. International Harvester Co., Ky., 373 S.W.2d 418 (1963). One said: “There is no x-ray evidence of pneumoconiosis of any type, no active tuberculosis. There is a mild emphysema in each base.” The second confirmed the absence of x-ray evidence of pneumoconiosis and stated that emphysema was the cause of Dale’s “decreased capacity to do physical work”. He was asked, “Doctor, could you state with a degree of medical certainty if the emphysema which you detected and diagnosed in Earl Dale is or is not the result of his coal mining history?” He answered, “In my opinion it is not.”
The employer contends that the evidence was not so overwhelming as to require, as a matter of law, that the board rule for the claimant and that the circuit court could not substitute its judgment on questions of fact. Cited in support of their positions are Columbus Mining Co. v. Childers, Ky., 265 S.W.2d 443 (1954) and Lee v. International Harvester Co., Ky., 373 S.W.2d 418 (1963).
The court was powerless to disturb the decision of the board unless the evidence of the claimant was “* * * so clear cut and convincing that” the court “could justifiably conclude that the Board acted erroneously as a matter of law * * * Columbus Mining Co. v. Childers, supra. Also see Lewis v. United States Steel Corp., Ky., 398 S.W.2d 490 (1966) and Lee v. International Harvester Co., supra. It appears to us that the weight of the evidence was in favor of Dale, nevertheless, we cannot hold that the board acted erroneously as a matter of law because the testimony of two well qualified physicians was that the ailment was emphysema which was not the result of exposure to dust in the mines. Roark v. Alva Coal Corp., Ky., 371 S.W.2d 856 (1963); Horton v. United States Steel Co., Ky., 384 S.W.2d 73 (1964); Dobbs v. Inland Steel Co., Ky., 402 S.W.2d 88 (1966). The circuit court erred in setting aside the decision of the board. Griffith v. Blair, Ky., 430 S.W.2d 337 (1968).
The judgment is reversed with directions to affirm the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
All concur, except HILL, J., who dissents.