Court Opinion

ID: 9672179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:50:17.697334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:14.737952
License: Public Domain

EDWARD P. HILL, Judge
(dissenting).
One of Dale’s three highly qualified physicians testified Dale has an “occupational dust disease of the lungs, that is to say, silicosis or coal workers’ pneumoconiosis and he had pulmonary emphysema and chronic bronchitis, and we presume his emphysema and bronchitis were secondary to occupational dust disease of the lungs.” Another physician testified Dale suffers from “Stage two pneumoconiosis,” and the third stated that: “I interpret the nodulation to represent a second stage silicosis with mild emphysema, and I think he has a captive right lung,” and that “part, if not all of the emphysema, is due to” Dale’s “silicotic disease.”
*291The physician appointed by the board testified that Dale has “bronchitis and pulmonary emphysema and that further exposure to dust would be hazardous to him.” He was asked and answered the two following questions:
“9. Do you feel that his past exposure over 40 years has contributed to his pulmonary problem which you found him to be suffering from?
“A. It is entirely possible that it would be, yes, sir.
“10. Doctor, in view of his history and in view of your physical findings, what in your opinion is the most likely cause of the pulmonary problem which you found Mr. Dale to be suffering from?
“A. I believe his most likely cause is his exposure to dust in the mines.”
To me this evidence is so overwhelming as to require a finding for Dale by the board, notwithstanding that there was some contradictory evidence for the appellants.
An occupational disease is compensable under KRS 342.095(1), and KRS 342.-316(1) defines a disease as follows:
“* * * [A] disease arising out of and in the course of the employment. * * *.
“A disease shall be deemed to arise out of the employment only if there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease, and which can be seen to have followed as a natural incident to the work as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment and which can be fairly traced to the employment as the proximate cause, and which does not come from a hazard to which workmen would have been equally exposed outside of the employment. The disease shall be incidental to the character of the business and not independent of the relationship of the employer and employe. The disease need not have been foreseen or expected but, after its contraction, it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence.”
Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2d, p. 746, defines a disease thus:
“A condition in which bodily health is seriously attacked, deranged, or impaired; sickness; illness; as, mortality from disease; a particular form or instance of such condition; a malady; an ailment; as, infectious diseases. Pathologically, disease is an alteration of state of the human body or any animal or plant organism, or of some of its organs or parts, interrupting or disturbing the performance of the vital functions, or a particular instance or case of this; any departure from the state of health presenting marked symptoms; also, a specific kind of such alteration; a particular ailment having special symptoms or causes; as Addison’s disease, Bright’s disease, Panama disease, etc. Various forms of disease may be caused by parasites, filtrable viruses, and nutritional, environmental, or inherent deficiencies.” (Emphasis ours.)
Notwithstanding some prior opinions to the contrary, I do not think the legislature intended to require a compensable “disease” to have been the result of “a traumatic injury sustained by employe by accident.” Under the “occupational disease” statute (KRS 342.116), no proof should be required that the diseased employee received a “traumatic injury by accident.” The inception of most diseases is a slow, stealthy, gradual process. My theory in this connection finds further support in KRS 342.316(4), which is quoted:
“In claims for compensation due to the occupational disease of silicosis or any other compensable pneumoconiosis it must be shown that the employe was exposed to the hazards of the disease in his *292employment within this state for at least two years immediately next before his disability or death.”
For these reasons I would affirm the judgment of the trial court, directing an award of full compensation.