Court Opinion

ID: 9576507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:25:19.630459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:12.190928
License: Public Domain

Chief Judge HEDRICK
dissenting.
I do not believe that there is competent evidence in the record to support the Industrial Commission’s findings and conclusions that plaintiffs lung condition was significantly contributed to and aggravated by his exposure to battery acid fumes and that he was last injuriously exposed to the hazards of occupational lung disease while employed by defendant. The only evidence in the present case concerning the relationship between plaintiffs exposure to battery acid fumes and his lung disease is the testimony of Dr. Saltzman. He testified that:
[M]ost acid fume exposures produce reversible, short-term injury and the effects subside when the exposure terminates. Presumably there must be some point at which exposure to acid fumes is intense enough and long enough that permanent changes can occur. Whether or not that is the case in this individual is not defined.
Dr. Saltzman further testified that the exposure to the fumes “could ... or might” have aggravated plaintiffs lung disease. The record is devoid of evidence that plaintiffs exposure to fumes in fact contributed to this disease to any extent. Therefore, I dissent from the opinion of the majority and vote to reverse.