Court Opinion

ID: 9581244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:12:54.937411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:48.207666
License: Public Domain

Shaw, Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent in two parts. First, this court’s reviewing authority is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act 1-23-310 et seq. of the S. C. Code of Laws (1976 as *140amended). Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S. C. 130, 276 S. E. (2d) 304 (1981). This court may reverse or modify decisions of the Industrial Commission only if the findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantive evidence on the whole record. § 1-23-380(g)(5) S. C. Code of Laws. Substantive evidence is evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that , the administrative agency reached, or must have reached, in order to justify the action. Law v. Richland County School District, 270 S. C. 492, 243 S. E. (2d) 192 (1978). I would affirm on this scope of review of the record.
Second, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the General Assembly to draft legislation to fit every industry in this state regarding worker’s compensation. It is written to fit the general industrial community and is subject to interpretation on a case by case basis.
Appellant placed great emphasis on whether an inside industrial pollutant was organic or inorganic. It claims if a pollutant is inorganic but causes a permanent lung disorder it is not compensable.
Section 42-11-10 states:
The words “occupational disease” mean a disease arising out of and in the course of employment which is due to hazards in excess of those ordinarily incident to employment and is peculiar to the occupation in which the employee is engaged. A disease shall be deemed an occupational disease only if caused by a hazard recognized as peculiar to a particular trade, process, occupation or employment as a direct result of continuous exposure to the normal working conditions thereof. No disease shall be deemed an occupational disease when: (5) It is any disease of the cardiac, pulmonary or circulatory system not resulting directly from abnormal external gaseous pressure exerted upon the body or the natural entrance into the body through the skin or natural orifices thereof of foreign organic or inorganic matter under circumstances peculiar to the employment and the processes utilized therein; (emphasis added).
*141We have byssinosis, asbestosis, silicosis which are recognized labels of lung disorders. Just because these ladies don’t have one of the above labelled diseases doesn’t mean their lungs weren’t damaged. Evidence was substantial that they worked in a lint laden atmosphere for over 26 years each. Dr. Ira Barth, a plant physician testified Mrs. Rising’s lung disease resulted from her continuous mill work. Dr. Emmett Flynn, a surgeon, testified Mrs. Rising’s lung disease most probably was caused by her work environment and smoking. All the medical evidence indicated both ladies suffered similarly.
It is the established law of this state that any reasonable doubt as to the construction of a workmen’s compensation law must be resolved in favor of the claimants, its provisions reconciled if possible, its purposes effectuated and its presumptions and penalties directed toward the end of providing coverage rather than noncoverage. DeBerry v. Coker Freight Lines, 234 S. C. 304, 108 S. E. (2d) 114 (1959).
It is the duty of appellate courts to interpret the statutory law and develop the common law as it should be to meet the needs of a continually changing society. I would affirm.