Court Opinion

ID: 9543623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:47:12.665389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:42.942639
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM G. CALLOW, J.
(concurring). I concur in the majority opinion because I conclude that the legislature, in creating sec. 102.66(1), Stats. 1975, intended to recognize this state’s concern for workers suffering occupational diseases, regardless of when those diseases were discovered or when the right to benefits accrued. I believe the statute is fully retroactive. The supplemental benefit fund created by sec. 102.65, Stats., 1975, from which Cowden’s recovery would be made, is funded by moneys paid by employers under the circumstances outlined in secs. 102.49 and 102.59(2), Stats. Because the fund represents a new source against which an employee can claim, the statute does not revive an old cause of action; it creates an entirely new one. I am confident that this is well within the realm of permissible legislative action.
It is important to recognize, however, that the employers themselves cannot be assessed for additional fi*408nancial contributions as a direct result of these claims. If the fund runs low, the legislature will be obliged to fund the account from a source other than the employers’.