affirming an award of benefits for COPD as an occupational disease, despite the fact that the employee was a smoker, because the appellate court concluded that the trial court must have found that the employee’s workplace exposure to paint fumes was “sufficient in intensity and duration” to cause or aggravate his COPD
How later courts described this case
- affirming an award of benefits for COPD as an occupational disease, despite the fact that the employee was a smoker, because the appellate court concluded that the trial court must have found that the employee’s workplace exposure to paint fumes was “sufficient in intensity and duration” to cause or aggravate his COPD
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur only in the result as to case no. 2020861, because I cannot agree with all of the statements in the main opinion's analysis. Among other things, I am not prepared to accept the reasons for which the main opinion concludes that Dueitt v. Scott Paper Co. , 695 So.2d 40 , 44 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996), is not applicable to the present case. Moreover, as to Part V.C. of the main opinion, I cannot agree with all of the statements in the court's discussion of contributing and aggravating causes and the manner in which it distinguishes from the present case the cases of Ex parte Valdez , 636 So.2d 401 (Ala. 1994), and Chrysler Corp. v. Henley , 400 So.2d 412 (Ala.Civ.App. 1981).
As to case no. 2030212, I respectfully dissent. I believe the main opinion incorrectly applies the last-injurious-exposure rule to the facts of this case. *Page 1212