Reynolds Metals Co. v. Stults

Citations: 532 So. 2d 1035; 1988 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 281; 1988 WL 90704Docket: Civ. 6371

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; August 31, 1988; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Reynolds Metals Company employed John B. Stults as an ironworker for nearly thirty years. After retiring due to disability on February 8, 1985, Stults filed for workmen's compensation benefits on January 22, 1986, claiming he suffered from asbestosis due to asbestos exposure during his employment. Following a trial, the court found Stults had a forty-five percent permanent partial disability and ruled that his asbestosis was work-related, affirming Stults had been exposed to asbestos for a significant portion of his employment.

Reynolds appealed, arguing that Stults did not fulfill the necessary requirements to recover benefits for occupational pneumoconiosis under Alabama law. Specifically, they contended he failed to prove his asbestosis arose from the nature of his employment, as outlined in section 25-5-141 of the Alabama Code. This section requires proof of (1) a particular hazard of occupational pneumoconiosis, (2) that the hazard distinguishes the employment from typical occupations, and (3) that the hazard exceeds general occupational risks.

The court upheld the trial court's judgment, noting Stults provided sufficient evidence of asbestos exposure, corroborated by Reynolds's maintenance supervisor and a pulmonary specialist who confirmed Stults's lung disease was related to asbestos exposure. The court emphasized that while expert testimony is beneficial, it is not mandatory for a claim's success. The precedent set in previous cases indicated that proof of significant exposure to hazardous materials can satisfy the legal requirements for establishing a work-related injury.

Proof of the employee's regular exposure to asbestos, along with medical testimony linking asbestos inhalation to pneumoconiosis, satisfies the requirement under section 25-5-141 to establish that Stults's asbestosis resulted from his employment. The trial court's ruling that Stults’s condition arose from his work is upheld. Reynolds argues that Stults's claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations in section 25-5-147, which states that claims must be filed within one year of the injury date, defined as the last exposure to the disease hazards within five years prior. Stults filed his claim on January 22, 1986, and must have last been exposed to asbestos on or after January 22, 1985, to avoid barring his claim. Stults testified he worked with asbestos until February 8, 1985, while Reynolds claims that all asbestos was removed from their plant in 1975 or 1976. The trial court found Stults had been exposed to asbestos for a majority of his employment, but did not specifically address whether this included the critical period from January 22 to February 8, 1985. Reynolds contends the court rejected Stults’s testimony regarding ongoing exposure and misapplied the statute of limitations. Stults argues that the court must have included this critical period in its finding. The court's implicit acknowledgment of ongoing exposure during this timeframe, considering Reynolds raised the statute of limitations as a defense, supports affirming the trial court's decision. Finally, Reynolds claims the court erred by not applying section 25-5-58, which limits employer liability when a preexisting condition exacerbates a disability. Evidence presented showed Stults had significant preexisting health issues, including heart disease and COPD, which are relevant under section 25-5-58 and section 25-5-152.

Reynolds contends that Stults's preexisting conditions rendered him totally disabled, irrespective of his current asbestosis. According to Section 25-5-58, workmen's compensation benefits are not restricted to individuals in perfect health prior to the injury. A preexisting condition does not diminish compensation if a job-related injury, combined with that condition, leads to disability. Stults continued to work for Reynolds in a lighter capacity after undergoing bypass surgery and hip replacement, indicating no preexisting condition for compensation purposes. A physician testified that Stults had a sixty-five percent impairment due to reduced pulmonary function, partly attributable to asbestosis, supporting the trial court's finding of a forty-five percent loss of earning capacity due to asbestosis. Stults was declared totally disabled by the Social Security Administration, indicating a complete loss of earning capacity. The court found that only forty-five percent of Stults's loss was related to asbestosis, not holding Reynolds liable for his total disability but rather for that portion attributable to the injury absent prior conditions. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as the findings are supported by legal evidence, and Reynolds's arguments do not warrant reversal.