Court Opinion

ID: 9582105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:22:37.762342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:27.231677
License: Public Domain

Lewis, Chief Justice
(dissenting) :
The majority opinion correctly states the issue to be: Whether there is any evidence to support the Commission’s finding that appellant’s injury aggravated his pre-existing disease or cancer known as liposarcoma.
The circumstances surrounding the injury support the award in this case. In April 1974, a malignant lump was removed from appellant’s left shoulder. He was subsequently given cobalt treatments, after which the doctor concluded that the cancer was in a state of remission. Appellant returned to his job and worked without further recurrence of the cancer until April 1975 when he received an injury to went to the doctor but he was not in his office. He returned. *650his left shoulder. Soreness, redness, and swelling immediately developed where the trauma was received. Appellant to work and about three weeks later a “hard knot” developed on his arm where he had been previously injured. Later, on August 13, 1975, he was examined by doctors at the Veteran’s Administration Hospital, resulting in the amputation of his left arm and shoulder.
In my opinion, the foregoing facts give rise to a reasonable inference that the accidental injury aggravated appellant’s pre-existing condition. The majority opinion states: “There is no medical evidence before us that a single blow to an area has ever caused, or could be expected to cause, liposarcoma to grow or spread.” This statement can be made for the record because the medical testimony is all to the effect that the doctors did not know the cause of cancer.
There is, however, medical testimony in this record as to the “possible” traumatic aggravation of appellant’s cancerous condition. Certainly, there is medical testimony upon which the conclusion could be drawn that the cancer was in a state of remission. Appellant had worked at his job for approximately one year after his initial treatments for his condition, without apparent recurrence. Recurrence occurred immediately after the trauma to the shoulder.
. Application of the principles set forth in Grice v. Dickerson, Inc., 241 S. C. 225, 127 S. E. (2d) 722, to the facts of this case justifies affirmance of the award of the Commission.
Ignorance of medical science as to the cause of cancer should not deprive appellant of the benefit of the reasonable inference, ordinarily indulged, that there was a causal connection between the injury and the immediate aggravation of his disease.
I would reverse the judgment and reinstate the award of the Commission.