*1 coverage risk, can- concluding instead that Moreover, quarrel has no this Court excluded simply because finding Appeals not be defeated Court cause being “maintained” and constitute an additional the truck was risks may cutting multiple torch on the causes the use of the “That injury. pan liquid. negate a fire vehicle caused the loss does have effectuated using certainly question no cause; multiple There is acts con- single here in the manner described the torch injury does not in the infliction of curred an excludable risk under would constitute contributory act.” Par- nullify any single standing does not policy if alone. This P.2d at Cal.Rptr. at tridge, however, mean, simply ignore that we can in factors presence of other causal reasons, foregoing For the placement of the flammable volved—the Appeals reversed of the Court of substance, purported failure Crafton’s reinstated at the the trial court is that of in upon specific warn of the substance remand- The cause will be cost of Allstate. negligence dropping quiry, and the of costs court for collection ed to the trial burning liquid which are kicking the of—all there, proceed- further and for accrued willing insuror was insured risks that the appropriate. ings which the acts accept premium for and are the lawsuit comprise the basis of against O’BRIEN, the insured as brought by REID, C.J., Watts allegations ANDERSON, JJ., in the com evidenced DAUGHTREY complaint appears plaint itself. concur. predicated upon a cause of action
is not policy, excluded which would be
risk negligence. Engeldinger See
but rather Underwriters, 236 Auto. & Cas.
State Further, (Minn.1975). 596, 600-01
N.W.2d might arguably be a
simply because there using the torch
mere connection harm, justify the ultimate causal
finding coverage no when other produc role in played a substantial
factors complained of Watts. Trav
ing the loss
elers, The same harm at 367. cutting resulted had Watts been
could have garage objects Crafton’s any number CUNNINGHAM, L. Jerrold completely unrelated the torch Plaintiff/Appellant, is not vitiated be Coverage truck. Id. it, truck, the area around cause negli purported merely the situs of TIRE & RUBBER The GOODYEAR gence. COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee. an insurer summary, we hold that Tennessee, Supreme Court obligation its excused from not be should at Jackson. policy unless it has homeowner’s under a being com- the loss been determined 10, 1991. in substantial not result plained of did coverage provided from a risk for which reject the premium. We
and collected a coverage there can be
contention that leading the chain of events
when by an excluded begun
ultimate harm
889
testimony
began
Cunningham's
Mr.
day
employment
from the first
hurt
increasingly
get
worse
continued
at the
go
forced to
to first aid
until was
Drs. O.K.
finally
by
was seen
plant
referred
He
and E.C. Thurman.
Robison,
Dr. Thurman
Dr. Lowell
September 1984. Dr.
rheumatologist, on 5
plaintiff had a two or
Robison testified
osteoarthritis,
history
year
known
three
involving
Original
his neck.
tests
motion in
made showed normal
complaints
with
of all
The
the extremes of motion
generalized
diagnosis
since
1981 or
which had been evident
either
develops
a disease that
over a
is
long period
possible
of time.
It was
Cunningham
having more
Mr.
Goodyear
to work for
before went
he had related to the doctor.
Robison
he did not see Mr.
further testified that
December 1984
things
that time
and 6 March 1986. At
two
obvious,
Mr.
were
Hayes, Palmer, Hayes
Pope,
Mark L.
&
not
under treatment or medical
had
been
Dyersburg,
plaintiff/appellant.
for
visit,
second,
supervision since his last
Aeree, Jr., Elam, Glasgow
William B.
&
which had
this conflicted
the orders
Aeree,
City,
defendant/appellee.
for
Union
directed for him.
been
plain-
further found that
trial court
OPINION
general
due to a
ar-
tiff’s condition was
O’BRIEN,
predating
Justice.
thritic condition
Goodyear
Company.
Tire
and Rubber
Plaintiff,
Cunningham, appeals
Jerrold L.
Though
employment may
aggra-
from denial of worker’s
bene-
condition,
there was
preexisting
vated
Chancery
fits in the Obion
Court.
connecting
injury
industrial
or accident
missing the case the chancellor held
triggering
considered the
compensable inju-
plaintiff did
suffer
producing
acceleration of his
incident
by defen-
ry
employed
or accident while
dant,
condition.
Company.
Tire and Rubber
consideration
issue
our
substantive
is
Citing
he held that one
authorities
plaintiff may
recover under
whether
compensation when his work
entitled to
Compensation Statutes
the Worker’s
preexisting
condition mak-
preexisting
purported aggravation
of a
specific injury ing worse. A
thoroughly
condition. We have
arthritic
required before the
accident is
affirm the
this record
now
reviewed
preexisting
compensable.
trial court.
judgment of the
compensation and dismissed the
He denied
judge
pertinent
found in
trial
proceedings.
plaintiff began
originated prior
July
This claim
on 14
defendant
applicable
age
According to
therefore
standard
at that time.
requires findings
diagnosed
set
review
of fact shall be
con-
generalized osteoarthritis,
aside
if there is
to be
no material evidence dition
arthritis,
form
judgment.
is a
the cause of
Alley v. Consol- which
unknown,
Co.,
primari-
is manifest
148 which
idated Coal
699 S.W.2d
(Tenn.1985).
cartilages
disputed
ly
deterioration of the
There is little or no
cartilages
extent
joints to the
lose
in the
have no
evidence
record and we
*3
pad
ability
properly
their
to
cushion or
holding
hesitancy
findings
This kind of
joints.
arthritis
sometime
by
supported
fact made
the chancellor are
to as wear
referred
and tear
be-
by
evidence.
material
fact
people
cause of the
who continue
plaintiff
The record shows that
was em-
joints
subject
to
these
to excessive
ployed by Goodyear
on 14
as the
1984
degree
activity
greater
age
culmination of an
discrimination suit.
they
and tear on
do if
wear
years
He was 56
old. He testified that
joints.
are less strenuous with
hurting
job
on the
day
plaintiff
It is the insistence of the
because he was not
to hard
accustomed
aggravated
his osteoarthritic condition was
reported
labor. He first
to first aid
by
employment
by
his
virtue
this
15th,
and subsequently
on June
compensation.
aggravation he is entitled to
30th,
19th,
July
August
25th and
2nd and
large
has cited a
of cases
number
to
4th, 14th, 15th, 21st
com-
and 27th. His
position. Unfortunately,
his
sustain
plaints,
reported by him,
pain
were
cited,
majority
excep-
of the cases
with few
hand, wrist, right
right hand.
shoulder and
another,
tions,
in one
state
fashion or
complain
any
employer
He did not
employee
disabling injury
with a
when
accident,
specific injury or
nor did he testi-
employment
disease not
suf-
or
related
not com-
fy as to
such event. He did
aggravation
disabling injury
fers an
plain
any problems
knees or
with his
worse,
by making
pain
or disease
proof
feet. The
in the record
does not
an accident as
situation
constitute
is from Dr. Lowell Robison who first saw
compensation
word is used in the
stat-
plaintiff
September
report-
on 5
1984. He
few
in the cases
exceptions
utes. The
cited
Dr.
and treat-
ed to
evaluation
contrary
are
to his con-
totally
history of
gave
ment of his arthritis. He
tention.
involving
known
His work
of a seden-
his neck.
had been
appellant
In this case the
has suffered
prior
with
tary
nature
progressive type
several
from a
essentially
Goodyear and he had been
being progres-
This
of arthritis.
condition
asymptomatic
reported
until then. He
nature,
subject
him to in-
sive
beginning
he devel-
after
creasing
disability whether he
oped pain and limitation of motion with
theory
or not. The
com-
worked
elbows, wrists,
shoulders,
swelling in his
plaint was that the conditions
em-
hands, knees,
Physical
ankles and feet.
aggravated
ployment accelerated or
Predominant
was normal.
examination
It is con-
preexisting arthritic condition.
in his
defuse
findings
were
where
appel-
ceded that the disease from which
periarticular
found
tenderness was
origin in
did
have its
lant suffers
joints.
throughout
peripherial
most of the
occupational
employment, nor
it an
objective joint
was no evidence of
There
ease. Where
nor
swelling
heat on this examination
progression
cause an actual
swelling.
type
disease,
simply pro-
underlying
there
effusive
but
some
not there
have been
there is substantial
Whether or
duces additional
compensable
swelling
authority
uncertain.
that a
is not
tissue
claim
soft
occupa-
not an
motion but
the disease itself was
a normal
when
originated
in conditions
complained
pain at the ex-
disease
tional
outside the
of motion
all of his
tremes
dard,
re-
involving
the chances of
Among
expect
the seminal cases
one would
Co.,
decree on the facts
versing the chancellor’s
Boling Raytheon
issue before us is
However,
inspection
(1969),
to be
indeed.
slim
223 Tenn.
[There was] changes indicating x- striking were but most statement jobs typical joint of the rays, physically revealed disabled to do too hypertrophic narrowing deposi- and some space In a plant). second available at knee in the left osteoarthritis Dr. taken in October tion I some in the hands. also found findings follows: latest his described interpha- periarticular osteoporosis in the knee feet right and the x-rays langeal joints —that’s significant progression revealed finger the hand. bones complete loss with almost point Dr. that from this Robison testified medial as- cartilage space on the on, doing discouraged Cunningham from he general- [right] knee ... pect [a]nd regular that involved work basis the MTP ized involvement of lifting, bending, stooping. He my opinion both feet ... possible it thought be rehabilitate pa- result of this examination that Cunningham through signifi- progressed had tient’s disease type him to “some therapy, to allow do my with him cantly since last encounter assuming sedentary employment, degree dis- and that his of [anatomical] skills educational and intellectual had the approximately ability had overall reached But, pursue type employment.” 90%, inability due to continued, x-rays suggested] “the result disease in as a [walk] weight-bearing and to restrict need[ed] weight-bearing especially weight-bearing with the knees.” addition, Dr. Robison concluded summary, Robison concluded at the one total needed “at least Cunning- deposition of his first time seven replacement, knee and that’s as of generalized ham had “the form the more than that ago, months that he has ease [of osteoarthritis] Again, now.” he testified that at least experienced aggravation disease degree have been exces- of this joints that stressed some *6 weight-bearing sively ... patient’s the result of his condition was feet, knees, hips, ankles and employment Goodyear. [the] at in although experienced symptoms he has deposition, and final taken third as his neck and shoulders and elbows employer, Dr. Robison counsel for well.” again general condition of described perma- if Asked would be entailing degeneration osteoarthritis nent, replied: Dr. Robison patient cartilage, that “as a result the of so develops secondary inflammatory people then general, most with osteoarthri- very worsening pain, gradual joint resulting in tis condition in the time, pro- heat, tenderness, of the condition over swelling, ultimately very very rapid and not gression of He reiterated loss motion.” extensive unless abuse the it takes for one to period time that added). (emphasis develop “highly variable” osteoarthritis and added: kind of He later asked to describe the aggravation of cause “abuse” uncomplicated osteoarthri- In normal and acceleration, rapid or its the condition tis, many, many generally will [it take] “heavy culprit he main identified the However, pres- develop]. years [to lifting defined lifting.” further joint, such ence unusual stress pounds.” or 50 “anything over about 40 injury or an as abuse to develop joint, it can be accelerated and Cunningham’s os- The acceleration months or quickly a matter in past his termination teoarthritis continued few added). (that (emphasis February year from expert appears appeal. at issue on also reiterated Cunningham’s employment dispositive legal question while would not is whether the osteoarthritis, aggravate cause deprived it could de- worker can be velopment theory merely of the condition. an he has suffered would not be com- increase which When Jerrold went to work part pensable under the first of the rule Goodyear May he a 56- Transfer, supra. The record clear- Smith year-old previous employment man whose establishes, however, ly that the Al- largely sedentary had been in nature. complete virtually has the victim of become though injured in a acci- he had been car debilitation, physical as the result of physician dent in time his aggravated by the conditions neck, Cunning- noted some in his Goodyear. In the symptom-free ham had remained Transfer, words of the evidence significantly, meantime. Most was able plaintiff’s employ- demonstrates pass employer’s medical and severity” of his condi- ment “advanced the just prior employ- tests disabling tion it resulted in a so, and that steady ment. Within a month or after condition other than alone. It was lifting carrying weights in excess of the court formula pounds, began experience greatly erroneously apply. below failed to symptoms accelerated of osteoarthritis. By the time he saw Dr. Robison October requires rule us “material evidence” rapidly in the throes of a give factual appropriate deference to ultimately progressing disease that would trial court. conclusions reached and, virtually him unable to walk leave require us to overlook a mistake clearly, totally permanently disabled of law. In this had the trial court seeking gainful employment. from rule, applied the correct the evidence would simply way to conclude that this man compelled completely different con- suffering merely from “an increase clusion. pain.” reverse, and re- I would long provided Tennessee law has permanent mand the case an award employer the risk of must bear disability in the favor. employee’s pre-existing an condition: is that an “The rule then Tennessee employee as he finds
employer takes an disability resulting
him. He is liable for injuries
from sustained
arising and in the course of his out of *7 though
employment even resulting
previous condition with disabili- FARR, Gary Plaintiff-Appellant, greater ty far than otherwise would case.” been the v. Smith, 347, Tenn. Baxter HEAD, Ann Director of the Division Sue 936, (1961), quoted in 942-943 Glove Co. Compensation, Tennessee of Workers 253, Tenn. 442 S.W.2d Hughes, 223 Labor, Injury Department Second (1969). recognizes that a Our law likewise Fund, Defendant-Appellee. “grad compensable worker sustain Tennessee, Supreme Court of expo of continual injury as the result ual” at Jackson. the conditions of See sure to Express v. Bur Motor generally Central (1964), 214 Tenn. 377 S.W.2d ney, therein.
and cases cited law, points of nor
None of these circumstances of
relevance to the