Wittenbarger v. Carr Co.

557 S.W.2d 65, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 670
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 3, 1977
StatusPublished

This text of 557 S.W.2d 65 (Wittenbarger v. Carr Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wittenbarger v. Carr Co., 557 S.W.2d 65, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 670 (Tenn. 1977).

Opinion

OPINION

HENRY, Justice.

This case arises under the Workmen’s Compensation law.

Appellant suffers from bronchitis contracted as a result of exposure to paint, MEK and Toluene fumes during the course and scope of, and rising out of, her employment.

She insists (1) that bronchitis, though not a listed occupational disease, is so closely related thereto as to be compensable and (2) that her work-related bronchitis is an injury within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation law.

Under the authority of American Insurance Company v. Ison, 519 S.W.2d 778 (Tenn.1975), the first insistence must be rejected. After the hearing, the Chancellor handed down a memorandum opinion holding, in effect, that the first prong of the Ison test, i. e. identity of pathological effects, was established but that there was nothing in the record to establish that bronchitis was caused by the hazards of employment which are also known to cause one of the named occupational diseases. Therefore, the case was continued for the procurement and presentation of medical evidence designed to establish this portion of the Ison criteria.

Subsequently claimant’s counsel advised that he could obtain “no medical testimony that the disease in question [bronchitis] is caused by the hazards of the employment which also cause one of the named occupational diseases.”

Hence, under Ison, we must affirm the ruling of the Chancellor in this respect.

Claimant insists that work-related bronchitis is an “injury by accident” within the meaning of the law, we disagree. The workmen’s compensation statutes constitute a scheme of benefit payments based upon injury and on disease. Occupational diseases are embraced within the term “injury” and “personal injury.” Sec. 50-902(d), T.C.A. The act contains a detailed list of schedule injuries (Sec. 50-1007) and a list of occupational diseases (Sec. 50-1101).1

Bronchitis is not one of the listed diseases and under the Ison standard it is not closely related thereto. Nor is it an “injury by accident”. See Morrison v. Consol. Coal Co., 162 Tenn. 523, 39 S.W.2d 272 (1931). See also Meade-Fiber Corp. v. Starnes, 147 Tenn. 362, 247 S.W. 989 (1923); Gabbard v. Proctor & Gamble Defense Corp., 184 Tenn. 464, 201 S.W.2d 651 (1947).

The decree of the Chancellor is

Affirmed.

COOPER, C. J., and FONES, BROCK and HARBISON, JJ., concur.

ADDENDUM

Tax costs against appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

American Insurance Company v. Ison
519 S.W.2d 778 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1975)
Morrison v. Tennessee Consolidated Coal Co.
39 S.W.2d 272 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1931)
Gabbard v. Proctor & Gamble Defense Corp.
201 S.W.2d 651 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1947)
Meade-Fiber Corp. v. Starnes
147 Tenn. 362 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
557 S.W.2d 65, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wittenbarger-v-carr-co-tenn-1977.