Jimmy H. Spurlock v. Boiler & Heat Exchange Systems, Inc.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann._ 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Plaintiff alleges he suffers from a occupational disease within the definition thereof contained in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-31. The trial judge found the plaintiff failed to show that his lung disease was caused by or arose from his occupation as a welder with the Defendant and dismissed the case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which E. RILEY ANDERSON, J., and ROGER E. THAYER, SP. J., joined. Ronald J. Berke, Chattanooga, Tennessee, attorney for the Appellant, Jimmy H. Spurlock. C. Douglas Dooley, Charles W. Poss and Michael D. Newton, Chattanooga, Tennessee, attorneys for Appellee, Boiler & Heat Exchange Systems, Inc. MEMORANDUM OPINION Facts There is no dispute concerning the fact the Plaintiff is totallydisabled as a result of interstitial pulmonary fibrosis. Further, the evidence shows the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant for ten years before his illness caused him to be unable to work. The Plaintiff worked as a welder for the defendant. He and other employees testified they and the Plaintiff were exposed to a significant amount of metal particles and dust caused by the welding work they did. There is no evidence to dispute this. Charles N. Adams, Jr., a mechanical engineer conducted a study of the work done in the Defendant's plant and found some thirty substances to which the Plaintiff would have been exposed. These included metal particles and other substances. These findings were not disputed. There is little dispute in the medical evidence in this case except the significant and controlling issue of whether the Plaintiff's illness is a result of a hazard of his occupation with the Defendant. Medical Evidence There was extensive medical proof introduced in the record by oral testimony of expert witnesses and various reports from other experts. Additionally, several studies concerning interstitial pulmonary fibrosis was introduced. Amongst this evidence, the most significant evidence was presented by Dr. Suresh Enjeti, a pulmonary specialist, Dr. James D. Snell, Jr., a pulmonary disease specialist, and Dr. William F. McGann Jr., a specialist in internal medicine. Further there were reports from four highly qualified pathologists found in the record. Dr. Enjeti, who testified in person, testified that the Plaintiff's lung disease was caused by the exposure to the metal dust, et al, encountered by the Plaintiff in his work with the Defendant. Dr. Enjuti based his opinion upon medical studies which he had done and which he had studied which indicated the illness suffered by the plaintiff is caused by exposure to metal particles. Dr. Enjeti testified he had the report from the engineer which tested the material said to be found in the work place. He found no metal or dust particles in the Plaintiff's lungs. When asked if he had any objective findings to support his conclusion the Plaintiff's disease was caused by his work for the Defendant, Dr. Enjeti responded: "Beyond the occupational history, no." Dr. James D. Snell, examined the Plaintiff and confirmed the diagnosis of interstitial pulmonary fibrosis. Dr. Snell discussed each of the substances listed by the engineer as being present in the work place. He testified none of these would cause the problem which the Plaintiff has. He found none of these - nor asbestos - present in the Plaintiff's lung biopsy. Dr. Snell was of the opinion the Plaintiff interstitial fibrosis was of unknown origin and did not relate its' beginning to the Plaintiff's work for the Defendant. Dr. McGann gave a video deposition and testified the Plaintiff's condition of uncertain etiology and that it was not caused or aggravated by the work for the Defendant. The four pathologists found no evidence that any of the particles contained in the engineer's report were present in the Plaintiff's lung tissue. -2-