Court Opinion

ID: 9738071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:41:51.654538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:03.567057
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority opinion. The refusal of the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau to allow benefits in this instance is predicated on the provisions of Section 65-01-02(7)(a), N.D.C.C., quoted in footnote 1 of the majority opinion. I write only to observe that the Bureau’s concern appears to be that if it permits compensation for these claims without irrefutable medical evidence that the work activity was the likely cause of the arthritis, it will be overwhelmed with claims. That position is set forth in the Bureau’s finding that “Degenerative arthritis is common to the general public, and is not occupational in nature,” and is succinctly summarized in the Bureau’s reply brief:
“Many people with arthritic backs and joints have more pain when at work. However, this does not mean that the arthritic disease itself is compensable.”
Although the Bureau’s concern is justified by Section 65-01-02(7)(a)(12), N.D.C.C., in this instance I believe the Bureau has unrealistically construed the medical testimony to achieve its finding that there “is no substantiation that the claimant’s condition is in any way work related.” Because it is common knowledge that arthritis does afflict a substantial part of the population without regard to the nature of their employment, the Bureau’s caution is understandable. However, in this instance the medical testimony, fairly read, could, unless we are to require absolute medical certainty, lead only to the conclusion that the employment and the arthritis were causally connected. If, indeed, the Bureau is inundated with claims for arthritis-connected diseases and if the medical professionals color their testimony in order that the claimants receive compensation, we may see a statutory provision requiring additional proof, such as that contained in Section 65-01-02(7) requiring, if an injury is due to heart attack or stroke, not only that “such heart attack or stroke must be causally related to the worker’s employment, with reasonable medical certainty,” but also that the heart attack or stroke “must have been precipitated by unusual stress.” See the opinion of this court in Stout v. Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 236 N.W.2d 889 (N.D.1975) [if claim otherwise within the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it is compensable even though the cause is routine and not accidental, if the result is not foreseen, intended, or anticipated; heart attack caused by exertion is an accident, not a disease; therefore, it is immaterial that a preexisting disease contributed to the death], and, subsequent to amendment of statute, Nelson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 316 N.W.2d 790 (N.D.1982) [provision requiring heart attack or stroke to have been precipitated by unusual stress is one of few definitions of injury in Act which is directed to a specific ailment and a reading of the legislative history of the amendment leaves no doubt it was enacted as a result of Stout ]. Unless that situation arises, however, the Bureau should view the medical evidence of arthritis and its causal connection to employment in the same manner as it does evidence of disease which is not so widespread in the general populace. I do not believe Section 65-01-02(7)(a) requires any different result.
ERICKSTAD, C.J., concurs.