The opinion
Ed. F. McFaddiN, Associate Justice, concurring. The Court is sharply divided in this case. Three Justices support the Commission’s conclusion that an occupational disease was established. Three Justices vote to reverse the Commission’s holding, as they are of the view that no occupational disease was shown. Since I am concurring to affirm the judgment, it is incumbent on me to state my reasons. My view is that no occupational disease was established; but I vote to make the ward to Mrs. Fooks since I am of the opinion that she suffered an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. Thus, Mrs. Fooks recovers, but with a majority of the Court holding that no occupational disease was established. With the foregoing explanation, I come now to the process by which I reach my conclusion.
In Triebsch v. Athletic Mining, 218 Ark. 379 , 237 S. W. 2d 26 , the workman suffered a disability. The Commission denied recovery because it found that no occupational disease had been shown. We agreed that no occupational disease had been established; but we held that the worker should recover because he had suffered a disability arising out of and in the course of his employment; and we said:
“But on the accidental injury phase of the case, the uncontradicted evidence shows that the claimant suffered an accidental injury within the purview of our cases, such as: Herron Lbr. Co. v. Neal, 205 Ark. 1093 , 172 S. W. 2d 252 ; McGregor v. Arrington, 206 Ark. 921 , 175 S. W. 2d 210 ; Harding Glass Co. v. Albertson, 208 Ark. 866 , 187 S. W. 2d 961 ; Sturgis Bros. v. Mays, 208 Ark. 1017 , 188 S. W. 2d 629 ; Murch-Jarvis Co. v. Townsend, 209 Ark. 956 , 193 S. W. 2d 310 ; and Batesville White Lime Co. v. Bell, 212 Ark. 23 , 205 S. W. 2d 31 . . . .
“In Murch-Jarvis Co. v. Townsend, supra, the worker became disabled from inhaling fumes and dust in the course of Ms work in a smelter room. We held such disability to be ‘ an accidental injury within the meaning of our Workmen’s Compensation Law,’ saying: ‘There are numerous cases from other jurisdictions holding that a disease, or an aggravation thereof, resulting from inhalation of dust particles or fumes may constitute an accident, or injury, within the meaning of the particular act involved. ’
“In Batesville White Lime Co. v. Bell, supra, the inhalation of dust particles caused heart trouble. We held such to be an accidental injury, saying: ‘Now there is nothing in the proof in this case to justify a conclusion that the injury to appellee’s heart by breathing the excessive amount of dust was one which appellee might have reasonably expected or anticipated. Certainly it was accidental as far as he was concerned; and there is much authority for a holding that an injury, not necessarily the result of one impact alone, but caused by a continuation of irritation upon some part of the body by foreign substances may properly be said to be accidental.’ ”
Likewise, in the case of Scobey v. Southern Lbr. Co., 218 Ark. 671 , 238 S. W. 2d 640 , the worker suffered a disability by inhaling emery dust which caused him to die of cancer of the lungs. There was no trauma in the sense of a physical blow, but there was a disability arising out of and in the course of the employment; and a recovery was allowed by this Court.
So, in the case at bar, Mrs. Fooks has suffered a disability arising out of and in the course of her employment in that she suffers from ischial bursitis; and she is entitled to recover compensation for such disability arising out of and in the course of her employment. But, as I see the record, there is no evidence of a substantial nature that ischial bursitis is an occupational disease “peculiar to the trade, occupation, process, or employment.” The words just quoted come to us from § 81-1314 of our Statutes, and it is only when those conditions are met by proof that an occupational disease can be said to have been established.
For the reasons herein stated, I concur in the recovery.