LYNNE, Chief Judge.
Brought originally in the Circuit Court of Walker County, Alabama, and removed to this court because of diversity of citizenship between the parties and the presence of the requisite amount in controversy-, these four cases were consolidated for purpose of trial because they involved common questions of law and fact.
Each plaintiff, having an occupational history of exposure to dust while performing his duties in an underground coal mine over periods in excess of twenty years, is here seeking to recover of his employer the compensation payable under Article 2A of the Alabama Workmen’s Compensation Act, Code of Alabama 1940, Title 26, Section 313(1) et seq.-1951 Cum.Supp.1
Insisting that he has contracted the disease of occupational pneumonoeoniosis and is presently suffering disability therefrom, each plaintiff contends that such disease arose out of and in the course of his employment and resulted from the nature of such employment.
Vigorously denying that its employee has the disease of which he complains, each defendant employer thereby tenders an issue of obvious complexity and one which must be met at the threshold in litigation of this class. For once the court is reasonably satisfied that such disease has been contracted, it requires little evidence and less imagination to-persuade that as to the industry of mining coal underground there is attached! a particular hazard of such disease that [495]*495distinguishes it from the usual run of occupations and is in excess of the hazards of such disease attending employment in general.
Tried to the court without a jury, hearings were held sporadically from January 7, 1953, through April 23, 1953, to accommodate an array of eminent experts summoned from distant parts' of the country. It became apparent at the outset that the ultimate decision of the issue thus tendered depended upon a choice between two clear-cut, conflicting and irreconcilable medical opinions.
Neither common knowledge nor the experience of mankind is available to resolve the highly technical and professional disagreement which runs as a common thread through the pages of a voluminous record. And juristic empiricism sheds not even a feeble ray of light upon the reality of relatively obscure disease.
Since this court may not abdicate its function and the fact must be found, some consolation is drawn from appreciation of a somewhat similar predicament with which the Supreme Court of the United States was faced in a suit between two states brought originally therein and its procedure of extrication. The opinion, delivered for a unanimous court by Mr. Chief Justice Taft, observes :
“It is difficult for a court to decide issues of fact upon which experts equal in number and standing differ flatly, and when their conclusions rest on estimates upon the correctness of which the court, without technical knowledge, cannot undertake to pass. In such cases, the court looks about for outstanding facts from which the lay mind can safely draw inferences as to the probabilities. The court is also aided by its judgment of the care and accuracy with which the contrasted experts respectively have determined the data upon which they base their conclusions.” North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U.S. 365, 385, 386, 44 S.Ct. 138, 143, 68 L.Ed. 342.
To place the critical factual issue in these cases in proper perspective it is the task of this court to cast the medico-legal problem involved in terms of acceptable criteria for the roentgenologic diagnosis of the disease described by the statute in generic terms as “occupational pneumonoeoniosis.” For the heart of the disagreement between the experts who testified herein is their difference of opinion with respect to diagnostic standards.
Specialists in diseases of the chest and in radiology were marshaled on both sides of the controversy. For the plaintiffs appeared Dr. Louis L. Friedman,2 of Birmingham, Alabama, and Dr. B. [496]*496L. Gordon,3 of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; for the defendants, Drs. Kellie N. Joseph4 and J. A. Meadows,5 of Birmingham, Dr. O. A. Sander,6 of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Dr. Leonard Bristol,7 of Saranac Lake, New York. [497]*497They were in unanimous agreement that essential to diagnosis of the clinically significant- disease of pneumonoconiosis was roentgenographic identification of the disease in an X-ray of the chest.8 Other criteria and their importance, in-[498]*498eluding history of occupational exposure and physical examination by tests for vital capacity and maximum breathing capacity are irrelevant to the purpose of this opinion.
It is not quite to digress to note that, prior to 1947, the predominant view of the medical profession in this country was that coal dust alone did not produce a disease of the lungs but that the disease of anthraco-silicosis, sometimes found in underground coal miners, was caused by inhalation of a high proportion of free silica in association with the coal dust and was manifested in the radiograph by the presence of the classic, silicotic nodule. Indeed many specialists in this sphere of medical activity today contend that the chief offending element in soft coal dust is silica and they insist upon X-ray changes compatible with that opinion. .
However, the results of studies of the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit (South Wales), conducted by Drs. C. M. Fletcher and Jethro Gough, and their associates, of Llandough Hospital, Cardiff, have wrought a change in the prevailing medical opinion in the United States. Parenthetically, this court is impressed by the fact that the South Wales Unit has made the only controlled and unbiased survey of lung diseases in soft coal workers ever undertaken by the profession. It would seem that their findings and conclusions are entitled to great weight in the minds of experts and laymen alike.
The South Wales Unit concluded that coal pneumonoconiosis is due not to the effect of silica in the lung, modified by coal dust, but to coal dust in its own right. Plence, the word “anthraco-silicosis” in describing it is inapt; preferred is a new nomenclature, including the terms, “Coalminers’ Pneumoconiosis”, “Coalworkers’ Pneumoconiosis” and “Pneumonoconiosis of Soft Coal-workers”, used interchangeably. Leading medical authorities in this nation have accepted their demonstration and so does this court.
In an address delivered in Germany in October, 1951, Dr. C. M. Fletcher adverted to the radiographic classification of pneumonoconiosis evolved by his unit, described, with accompanying plates upon which were reproduced illustrative radiographs, in an article entitled “Coalminers’ Pneumoconiosis”, C. M. Fletcher and Jethro Gough, published in British Medical Bulletin, Vol. 7, January 2, 1950. Urging its international adoption, he pointed out that it had been recommended by the International Labor Office, was then being used throughout Great Britain, and had been accepted in some coalfields in France, Belgium, and Holland. The English translation of that address was received in evidence as Defendants’ Exhibit 9, and the following description of the recommended system of classification is extracted therefrom:
“Normal films are indicated by the figure O.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
LYNNE, Chief Judge.
Brought originally in the Circuit Court of Walker County, Alabama, and removed to this court because of diversity of citizenship between the parties and the presence of the requisite amount in controversy-, these four cases were consolidated for purpose of trial because they involved common questions of law and fact.
Each plaintiff, having an occupational history of exposure to dust while performing his duties in an underground coal mine over periods in excess of twenty years, is here seeking to recover of his employer the compensation payable under Article 2A of the Alabama Workmen’s Compensation Act, Code of Alabama 1940, Title 26, Section 313(1) et seq.-1951 Cum.Supp.1
Insisting that he has contracted the disease of occupational pneumonoeoniosis and is presently suffering disability therefrom, each plaintiff contends that such disease arose out of and in the course of his employment and resulted from the nature of such employment.
Vigorously denying that its employee has the disease of which he complains, each defendant employer thereby tenders an issue of obvious complexity and one which must be met at the threshold in litigation of this class. For once the court is reasonably satisfied that such disease has been contracted, it requires little evidence and less imagination to-persuade that as to the industry of mining coal underground there is attached! a particular hazard of such disease that [495]*495distinguishes it from the usual run of occupations and is in excess of the hazards of such disease attending employment in general.
Tried to the court without a jury, hearings were held sporadically from January 7, 1953, through April 23, 1953, to accommodate an array of eminent experts summoned from distant parts' of the country. It became apparent at the outset that the ultimate decision of the issue thus tendered depended upon a choice between two clear-cut, conflicting and irreconcilable medical opinions.
Neither common knowledge nor the experience of mankind is available to resolve the highly technical and professional disagreement which runs as a common thread through the pages of a voluminous record. And juristic empiricism sheds not even a feeble ray of light upon the reality of relatively obscure disease.
Since this court may not abdicate its function and the fact must be found, some consolation is drawn from appreciation of a somewhat similar predicament with which the Supreme Court of the United States was faced in a suit between two states brought originally therein and its procedure of extrication. The opinion, delivered for a unanimous court by Mr. Chief Justice Taft, observes :
“It is difficult for a court to decide issues of fact upon which experts equal in number and standing differ flatly, and when their conclusions rest on estimates upon the correctness of which the court, without technical knowledge, cannot undertake to pass. In such cases, the court looks about for outstanding facts from which the lay mind can safely draw inferences as to the probabilities. The court is also aided by its judgment of the care and accuracy with which the contrasted experts respectively have determined the data upon which they base their conclusions.” North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U.S. 365, 385, 386, 44 S.Ct. 138, 143, 68 L.Ed. 342.
To place the critical factual issue in these cases in proper perspective it is the task of this court to cast the medico-legal problem involved in terms of acceptable criteria for the roentgenologic diagnosis of the disease described by the statute in generic terms as “occupational pneumonoeoniosis.” For the heart of the disagreement between the experts who testified herein is their difference of opinion with respect to diagnostic standards.
Specialists in diseases of the chest and in radiology were marshaled on both sides of the controversy. For the plaintiffs appeared Dr. Louis L. Friedman,2 of Birmingham, Alabama, and Dr. B. [496]*496L. Gordon,3 of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; for the defendants, Drs. Kellie N. Joseph4 and J. A. Meadows,5 of Birmingham, Dr. O. A. Sander,6 of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Dr. Leonard Bristol,7 of Saranac Lake, New York. [497]*497They were in unanimous agreement that essential to diagnosis of the clinically significant- disease of pneumonoconiosis was roentgenographic identification of the disease in an X-ray of the chest.8 Other criteria and their importance, in-[498]*498eluding history of occupational exposure and physical examination by tests for vital capacity and maximum breathing capacity are irrelevant to the purpose of this opinion.
It is not quite to digress to note that, prior to 1947, the predominant view of the medical profession in this country was that coal dust alone did not produce a disease of the lungs but that the disease of anthraco-silicosis, sometimes found in underground coal miners, was caused by inhalation of a high proportion of free silica in association with the coal dust and was manifested in the radiograph by the presence of the classic, silicotic nodule. Indeed many specialists in this sphere of medical activity today contend that the chief offending element in soft coal dust is silica and they insist upon X-ray changes compatible with that opinion. .
However, the results of studies of the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit (South Wales), conducted by Drs. C. M. Fletcher and Jethro Gough, and their associates, of Llandough Hospital, Cardiff, have wrought a change in the prevailing medical opinion in the United States. Parenthetically, this court is impressed by the fact that the South Wales Unit has made the only controlled and unbiased survey of lung diseases in soft coal workers ever undertaken by the profession. It would seem that their findings and conclusions are entitled to great weight in the minds of experts and laymen alike.
The South Wales Unit concluded that coal pneumonoconiosis is due not to the effect of silica in the lung, modified by coal dust, but to coal dust in its own right. Plence, the word “anthraco-silicosis” in describing it is inapt; preferred is a new nomenclature, including the terms, “Coalminers’ Pneumoconiosis”, “Coalworkers’ Pneumoconiosis” and “Pneumonoconiosis of Soft Coal-workers”, used interchangeably. Leading medical authorities in this nation have accepted their demonstration and so does this court.
In an address delivered in Germany in October, 1951, Dr. C. M. Fletcher adverted to the radiographic classification of pneumonoconiosis evolved by his unit, described, with accompanying plates upon which were reproduced illustrative radiographs, in an article entitled “Coalminers’ Pneumoconiosis”, C. M. Fletcher and Jethro Gough, published in British Medical Bulletin, Vol. 7, January 2, 1950. Urging its international adoption, he pointed out that it had been recommended by the International Labor Office, was then being used throughout Great Britain, and had been accepted in some coalfields in France, Belgium, and Holland. The English translation of that address was received in evidence as Defendants’ Exhibit 9, and the following description of the recommended system of classification is extracted therefrom:
“Normal films are indicated by the figure O. Films which suggest early pneumoconiosis by an increase in lung markings, or by some other abnormality which is not absolutely characteristic of pneumoconiosis, may be placed in a Category X. In the case of' films of undoubted pneumoconiosis, there is an major sub-division between films with generalised discrete opacities, called ‘simple pneumoconiosis’ by the English and ‘Ombres Fines’ by the French, and films showing coalescent or massive shadows. The first group of films (simple pneumoconiosis) are classified into three categories of increasing abnormality, defined chiefly on the basis of the profusion of the opacities. Category 1, comprising [499]*499films showing the first appearance of characteristic opacities, often confined to the medial third of the lung; in Category 2 the opacities are widespread, but still sparse at the periphery, and in Category 3 they are profuse throughout both lung fields. The Categories 2 and 3 are further divided, according to the predominant size of opacity, into ‘pinhead’, ‘micronodular’ and ‘nodular’ types (Figs. 3-5). Cases showing coalescent or massive shadows are divided into four categories, A, B, C and D, chiefly according to the size of the shadows, Category D being reserved for cases showing gross thoracic distortion or emphysema.”
Highly persuasive to the court is the testimony of Dr. B. L. Gordon, for the plaintiffs, that he agrees in principle with the foregoing classification9 and the emphatic statements of Drs. Bristol 10 and Sander,11 for the defendants, to the effect that it is currently accepted by an overwhelming majority of members of our own medical profession who specialize in lung diseases.
It is recognized that even though there might be complete agreement upon this classification, there can be no assurance that every observer, though technically skilled, will place films in the same categories. However, an untutored layman should be able to discern nodulation on a film if he is told where to look and for what he is looking.
For these and other cases this court commits itself to the classification printed above and does and will continue to require visualization of at least pinpoint nodules in X-ráys of the chest before finding that a coal miner has contracted “occupational pneumonoeoniosis.”
In rejecting the opinions of reputable specialists who hold that clinically significant pneumonoeoniosis may be diagnosed from a history of exposure to coal dust plus “reticulation” or a “lacy pattern” demonstrable upon the chest roentgenogram, this court is not so naive as to suppose that they will abandon their research or that it will forever remain impossible for them to convince their brethren of the validity of their criteria. So, too, may Dr. Friedman, who now apparently stands alone in his theory that increased linear markings alone, without reference to “reticulation” or the “lacy pattern”, will support a diagnosis of such disease,12 demonstrate its soundness to his fellow workers. But it [500]*500is not too much to require that they should first convert the medical profession before they would convince the courts.
Some thirty chest roentgenograms, including several of each plaintiff, were introduced into evidence and exhibited at length. No witness testified to, the court did not see thereon, the pinpoint nodulation requisite to a diagnosis of the disease in question. It follows that each plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof cast upon him and judgment in each case must be for the defendant.
This court is not required to, and therefore, does not, express any opinion as to the existence or cause of any disability on the part of either plaintiff, apart from the holding that, if disability there is, it was not shown to have been compensable under the statute.