Court Opinion

ID: 9762425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:23:22.277842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:34.264934
License: Public Domain

PARRISH, Judge,
concurring.
I concur. I do so with some reluctance and mindful of the standard of appellate review pursuant to which this court considers an appeal from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Com*909mission), viz., that a determination by the Commission is not to be disturbed on appeal unless it “is not supported by substantial evidence or is clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” Malcom v. La-Z-Boy Midwest Chair Co., 618 S.W.2d 725, 726 (Mo.App.1981). However, the findings upon which the Commission relies in order to deny benefits in this case appear to me to be inconsistent.
I am unable to discern any rational basis for the ultimate finding of the Commission — that the claim was not compensable due to insufficient proof that decedent was exposed to an occupational disease in the course of his employment with respondent. Given that the Commission found (1) that decedent had silicosis and (2) that the silicosis condition contributed to cause his death (albeit that evidence by way of the expert opinion of at least one physician was to the contrary); and given the fact that silicosis is an occupational disease that can only be contracted in an industrial environment, I am of the opinion that the Commission’s determination that evidence was not sufficient to show exposure of the decedent to the hazard which produced silicosis while decedent was employed by respondent is clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
Recognizing that the Commission is not compelled to accept competent substantial evidence as true, the Commission cannot, nevertheless, arbitrarily cast aside “competent, substantial, and undisputed testimony of witnesses who are not shown by the record to have been impeached.” Scott v. Wheelock Bros., Inc., 357 Mo. 480, 209 S.W.2d 149, 151 (1948). It appears to me that the Commission did arbitrarily cast aside such evidence as to the issue of decedent’s exposure, while employed by respondent, to the hazard that produces silicosis.
Respondent was the last employer of decedent. The employment was shown to be in an environment in which the hazard of silicosis exists. Decedent was not exposed to that hazard after he left respondent’s employ. Considering the mandate of § 287.063, RSMo 1986, and the other findings by the Commission, the Commission's denial of benefits on the basis stated in its findings is, in my opinion, clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence presented regarding decedent’s exposure to the hazard of silicosis during his employment with respondent,