Court Opinion

ID: 9613178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:14:51.615254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:26.167830
License: Public Domain

Judge WELLS
dissenting.
It seems clear to me that in its findings of fact the Commission has not properly resolved the issue of plaintiffs disability raised by the medical evidence. While Dr. Harris did testify that plaintiff had symptoms of asthma which were treatable, he also testified that asthma and byssinosis were practically indistinguishable and that plaintiff probably had byssinosis. While much of Dr. Harris’ testimony was equivocal, he made one telling unequivocal statement totally ignored by the Commission: “In my opinion, Ms. Carroll is not employable in the cotton textile industry, which was her previous employment. I strongly urge her not to seek such employment.”
Dr. Owens’ testimony clearly established that plaintiff suffered from work-related chronic obstructive lung disease which rendered her disabled to work. This evidence was altogether ignored.
The Commission’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proof that her pulmonary condition is due to her contracting an occupational disease is simply not supported by the evidence and the Commission has obviously boot-strapped that conclusion by failing to properly find the facts.
In my opinion, this case should be remanded for appropriate findings of fact on the question of whether plaintiff has occupationally related disabling chronic obstructive lung disease.