Keene Corp. v. Bahl (1985)

Our plain-English summary of Keene Corp. v. Bahl (Florida District Court of Appeal, October 17, 1985).

Howard Bahl, a 57-year-old worker, claimed workers' compensation benefits for pleural mesothelioma, an occupational disease caused by asbestos exposure. He had been exposed to asbestos from 1953 through 1972 and worked for Keene Corporation from 1966 through 1972. He developed symptoms in January 1984 and was diagnosed in March 1984. A deputy commissioner awarded benefits, and Keene and its insurer, Hartford Accident & Indemnity, appealed. They argued that his earlier employers' exposure should matter and that a 350-week limit after last exposure barred the claim. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed. It found competent evidence that the illness was an occupational disease and that his exposure at Keene contributed to it. Under the 1971 statute, the last employer where he was injuriously exposed was liable, so earlier exposure was no defense. The court also read the 350-week period as applying only to death claims, not to Bahl's disability claim.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeal, 1st District
• Decided: October 17, 1985
• Citation: 476 So.2d 789
• Docket: No. BE-141
• Stage: Appeal from workers' compensation or benefits
• State: Florida

Outcome. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the deputy commissioner's order awarding workers' compensation benefits to claimant Howard Bahl against Keene Corporation and its carrier Hartford, rejecting their defenses.

What the court held. Under Florida's occupational disease statute, the employer in whose employment the worker was last injuriously exposed is solely liable, and the 350-week limit after last exposure applies only to death claims, not disability claims.

Issues decided: Causation, Employer and Contractor Liability, and Workers' Compensation, Statute of Limitations.

The people and their exposure

• Howard O. Bahl: pleural mesothelioma

The defendants

• Keene Corporation (employer)
• Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (insurer)

Later decisions citing this one

One later decision in our library cites this one:

• Wood v. Harry Harmon Insulation (Florida District Court of Appeal, 1st District, 1987). The appeals court reversed the deputy commissioner's finding that the 1973 exposure at Harry Harmon Insulation was not the last injurious exposure, but affirmed that the widow's death benefits claim was barred by the 350-week limit, remanding for further proceedings.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

476 So.2d 789 (1985)

KEENE CORPORATION and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Appellants,

v.

Howard O. BAHL, Appellee.

No. BE-141.

October 17, 1985.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

[*790] Karen K. Cole, E. Robert Williams and P. Christopher Wrenn of Boyd, Jenerette, Staas, Joos, Williams & Felton, Jacksonville, for appellants.

T. Edward McClamma of Brown, Terrell, Hogan & Ellis, Jacksonville, for appellee.

NIMMONS, Judge.

The employer and carrier appeal from an order awarding compensation benefits to the claimant because of an occupational disease known as "pleural mesothelioma" which resulted from the claimant's exposure to asbestos particles.

This 57 year old claimant worked around and was exposed to asbestos particles from 1953 through 1972. He was

employed by Keene Corporation in 1966 and continued in that firm's employment through 1972. He became symptomatic in January 1984 and was diagnosed in March 1984 as having malignant pleural mesothelioma.

There is competent substantial evidence supporting the deputy commissioner's finding that the claimant's illness was an occupational disease within the meaning of Section 440.151, Florida Statutes[1] and that claimant's exposure to asbestos while employed by Keene from 1966 through 1972 was a contributing factor in causing his illness.

Although the claimant was exposed to asbestos for thirteen years prior to his employment with Keene in 1966, the evidence shows that he was in the employ of Keene when he was last injuriously exposed to asbestos. Exposure during claimant's prior employment is no defense herein.[2]

[*791] The employer/carrier also contends that the limitations period provided for in Section 440.151(1)(a) bars the claimant's claim because the disease did not result within 350 weeks after claimant's last exposure.[3] We reject that contention since a fair reading of the statute indicates that the 350-week period is applicable only to death claims.

AFFIRMED.

ZEHMER, J., and McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr., (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

[1] The version of Section 440.151 which is applicable in this case is that found in Florida Statutes, 1971, inasmuch as that was the law in effect at the time of the claimant's last injurious exposure. See Hyatt v. Armstrong Cork Co., 121 So.2d 793 (Fla. 1960). [2] Section 440.151(5), Florida Statutes (1971) provides in part:

"(5) Where compensation is payable for an occupational disease, the employer in whose employment the employee was last injuriously exposed to the hazards of such disease, and the insurance carrier, if any, on the risk when such employee was last so exposed under such employer, shall alone be liable therefor, without right to contribution from any prior employer or insurance carrier; and the notice of injury and claim for compensation, as hereinafter required, shall be given and made to such employer; provided, however, that in case of disability from any dust disease the only employer and insurance carrier liable shall be the last employer in whose employment the employee was last injuriously exposed to the hazards of the disease for a period of at least sixty days."

[3] Section 440.151(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1971) provides:

"(a) Where the employer and employee are subject to the provisions of the workmen's compensation law, the disablement or death of an employee resulting from an occupational disease as hereinafter defined shall be treated as the happening of an injury by accident, nowithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, and the employee or, in case of death, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation, as provided by this chapter, except as hereinafter otherwise provided; and the practice and procedure prescribed by this

chapter shall apply to all proceedings under this section, except as hereinafter otherwise provided. Provided, however, that in no case shall an employer be liable for compensation under the provisions of this section unless such disease has resulted from the nature of the employment in which the employee was engaged under such employer and was actually contracted while so engaged, meaning by "nature of the employment" that to the occupation in which the employee was so engaged there is attached a particular hazard of such disease that distinguishes it from the usual run of occupations and is in excess of the hazard of such disease in such employment, or, in case of death, unless death follows continuous disability from such disease, commencing within the period above limited, for which compensation has been paid or awarded or timely claim made as provided in this section, and results within three hundred fifty weeks after such last exposure."

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Florida asbestos laws
• Florida asbestos exposure sites