Court Opinion

ID: 9581245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:12:54.943528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:48.242131
License: Public Domain

ORDER ON REHEARING
Goolsby, Judge:
The claimants Mable Hayes Rising and Margaret Louise Page petitioned this court for a rehearing. A rehearing was conducted on the grounds asserted in the petition that questioned our holding that the Industrial Commission made no findings concerning whether each claimant proved or failed to prove her lung disease was “caused by a hazard recognized as peculiar to a particular trade, process, occupation, or employment.”
The claimants maintain that the Industrial Commission implicitly made these findings when it found in each case that “the employment conditions which precipitated the employee’s occupational disease ... were due to hazards greater than those ordinarily incident to normal employment and peculiar to her occupational environmental exposures.” We disagree.
*142As we mentioned in Part I of our opinion, a claimant must prove six elements in order to establish that he or she is entitled to receive worker’s compensation benefits for having contracted an occupational disease. Mere proof of the third element (“the disease must be due to hazards in excess of those hazards that are ordinarily incident to employment”) and of the fourth element (“the disease must be peculiar to the occupation in which the claimant was engaged”), contrary to the claimant’s argument, does not necessarily establish the fifth element (“the hazard causing the disease must be one recognized as peculiar to a particular trade, process, occupation, or employment”).
Accordingly, we adhere to our earlier opinion. The stay of remittitur heretofore granted is revoked.
Howell, J., concurs.
Shaw, J., dissents.