 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bilyeu v. Sherwin Williams Company6/21/2002
that at that time he diagnosed the plaintiff with occupationally induced asthma. He told the plaintiff that it was in his best interest to refrain from working in the paint store. Dr. Faith performed several tests on the plaintiff, including a methacholine test to determine that he had asthma. Dr. Faith assigned the plaintiff a 25 percent medical impairment rating.
Dr. Haynes, also a Nashville pulmonologist, testified that he examined the plaintiff on January 24, 2001. He reviewed the deposition of Dr. Faith, a copy of Dr. Faith's medical records, and the deposition of the plaintiff. Dr. Haynes testified that the only chemicals in the plaintiff's workplace known to cause asthma are isocyanides, which are found in epoxy paints. Dr. Haynes stated that it was his opinion that the plaintiff does have asthma, but that it is not occupationally induced. He further testified that it is his belief that mixing paints at work may aggravate the plaintiff's condition, but it did not cause his asthma.
Discussion
Although we are required to weigh the evidence in a case in depth to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies, we are required to make such evaluation within the confines of established rules in evaluating the propriety of the trial court.
The appellant appeals the judgment of the trial court based upon five grounds.
The appellant first contends that the plaintiff's claim should have been barred by the statute of limitations. In support of this claim, the appellant contends that the statute began running on May 11, 1998, when the plaintiff first reported his problems to his superiors. The plaintiff's suit was not filed until June 6, 2000.
The statute of limitations in occupational disease cases is governed by Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-6-306(a), which states in part:
"The right to compensation for occupational disease shall be forever barred unless suit therefor is commenced within one (1) year after the beginning of the incapacity for work resulting from an occupational disease..."
Interpreting courts have determined that the beginning of "incapacity for work" occurs when an employee has knowledge, or in the exercise of reasonable caution should have knowledge, that he has an occupational disease and that is has progressed to the point that it injuriously affects his capacity to work to a degree amounting to a compensable injury. Adams v. American Zinc Co., 205 Tenn. 189, 326 S.W.2d 425 (1959).
In this case, the plaintiff certainly had knowledge that he was having breathing problems in May, 1998. The record indicates that there was even suspicion by Dr. Faith that these problems might be work-related. However, the plaintiff was not advised at that time to stop working with paint and he continued working at his job until September of 1999. The record reflects that the plaintiff's problems in 1998 were mild and fluctuating. It was in September of 1999 that the plaintiff's problems worsened to a degree that he again needed medical attention and it was at this point that he was told by Dr. Faith that his condition was definitely work-related and that he should not work around paints anymore. As the court in Adams reasoned, "full knowledge of [an occupational disease], may exist long before a compensable disability develops. It is injury from the disease, rather than the disease, which entitles an employee to compensation." Id.
There was no compensable injury in this case until September of 1999 and as such the statute of limitations did not begin to run until that time.
Next the appellant contends that the trial court erred as the plaintiff did not carry his burden of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|