Whittington v. Ramsey Construction & Fabrication , 229 Mont. 115 ( 1987 )


Menu:
  •                                 No. 87-117
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    1987
    JAMES 0 WHITTINGTON,
    .
    Claimant and Appellant,
    -vs-
    RAMSEY CONSTRUCTION AND FABRICATION,
    Employer,
    and
    STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,
    Defendant and Respondent.
    APPEAL FROM:      The Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable Timothy
    Reardon, Judge presiding.
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Lynaugh, Fitzgerald, HFngle   &   Eiselein; Michael G.
    Eiselein, Billings, Montana
    For Respondent :
    -
    Crowley Law Firm; William J. Mattix, Billings, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs:     Aug. 27, 1987
    Decided: govember 5, 1987
    Filed :     N O V 5 - 1982
    *,&
    Clerk
    I
    Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the
    Court.
    The family of James 0 Whittington continues his appeal
    .
    of the Workerst Compensation Court's decision not to award
    compensation benefits under § 39-71-119, MCA, for the injury
    Mr. Whittington said he suffered when he inhaled welding
    fumes and smoke while working for Ramsey Construction. Mr.
    Whittington was awarded Occupational Disease benefits.     We
    affirm.
    It should be noted that Mr. Whittington died of cardiac
    standstill on January 23, 1987 before this case was decided
    by the Workerst Compensation Court. His family continues in
    the claim for compensation benefits.
    The claimant was a 52-year-old man who had worked as a
    welder for some 28 years when he undertook a four-day welding
    assignment at the Exxon Refinery in Billings, Montana, in
    September 1982 for Ramsey, a Plan 3 employer. He was not a
    permanent employee of Ramsey; he got the job as a welder on
    call through his local union. The claimant had a history of
    pulmonary difficulties. Three weeks before he undertook the
    welding job for Ramsey, Whittington saw Dr. Terrance J.
    Fagan, a Billings pulmonary specialist. Dr. Fagan noted that
    Whittington had been a two-pack-a-day cigarette smoker and on
    at least three occasions in the past twenty years had
    suffered breathing difficulties while either welding or
    cutting metal. These incidents included zinc oxide poisoning
    induced by his cutting of galvanized metal in Wyoming in
    1964. The second incident occurred in Utah in 1972 after he
    had spent thirty to forty minutes welding inside an
    eighteen-inch pipe with no ventilation. In 1976, Whittington
    suffered smoke inhalation while he was air arcing and welding
    on stainless steel in Illinois.      He received a workers'
    compensation award of $22,500, less $4,500 for attorneys1
    fees and $18 for medical reports, for reduced lung capacity
    from the Illinois Industrial Commission for this last
    incident.
    Dr. Fagan conducted an FEV 1, a test measuring the
    volume of air exhaled, on September 3, 1982.      Whittington
    registered .7 while a healthy person of his age would have
    registered about 3.4. Whittington's lung capacity was about
    20% of normal.   Dr. Fagan diagnosed Whittington as having a
    "severe" case of airways obstructive disease.      This meant
    that Whittington had a decreased lung capacity because his
    airways were scarred or abnormal; this condition could result
    from asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, or any combination of the
    three. Dr. Fagan said this condition made it inadvisable for
    Whittington to work as a welder, and referred him to Dr.
    Bruce Anderson, an allergist. Approximately one week before
    the welding job for Ramsey, Whittington saw Dr. Anderson. He
    told Dr. Anderson that he had begun wheezing while working as
    a welder in Illinois in 1976. He further related that while
    all welding made him wheeze, the problem was particularly
    acute when he worked with stainless steel because its fumes
    contained a higher percentage of chromium and nickel.     Dr.
    Anderson determined that Whittington was not allergic to the
    fumes; but he felt Whittington had developed asthma.
    Whittington claimed he learned that he would be working
    with stainless steel only after he entered the job site on
    September 20, 1982. He contended that he was welding inside
    a furnace that did not afford adequate ventilation for the
    fumes and the smoke. He testified that because of this, he
    suffered from shortness of breath and coughing.          Both
    Whittington and his wife, Laura, testified that when
    Whittington drove home following that shift, he remained in
    his vehicle for fifteen minutes or so after he had parked it
    because he was experiencing "an awful hard time" breathing,
    but that he refused immediate medical attention. Whittington
    claimed he did not get immediate medical care because he
    already had a doctor's appointment scheduled for later that
    day.    He claimed that at the appointment, Dr. Anderson
    prescribed a Proventil inhaler, which would allow him to
    breath easier while working. At his deposition, Dr. Anderson
    stated that he saw Whittington only once, on September 14,
    and that he has no record of seeing Whittington after
    Whittington began the job at the Exxon Refinery or of
    prescribing an inhaler.
    Whittington worked four ten-hour shifts beginning at
    6:00 p.m. and ending at 4:00 a.m. the following morning.
    These shifts started the evenings of September 18, 20, 21,
    and 22, 1982, according to Ramsey's payroll records.
    Whittington testified that his welding produced about "as
    much [smoke] as a barbecue would put out. "      However, he
    claimed that he was forced to lean directly over his welding
    rod because the nature of the scaffolding and the ventilation
    was poor. He testified that the foreman on the job was Gary
    Wiech, whom he said he knew, and that it was Wiech he
    confronted when he discovered that he was welding on
    stainless steel.   Further, he said FJiech instructed him to
    redo the welds and refused to reassign him away from the
    stainless steel. Whittington also denied that he had ever
    been a heavy tobacco smoker. He said he had smoked one year
    as a teenager and then off and on since 1969, figuring that
    he smoked perhaps thirty cigarettes per week.              He
    acknowledged that he was smoking in 1982 and that even at the
    time of the hearing he still would smoke occasionally if
    anybody offered him a cigarette.
    Ramsey employees also testified by deposition. Terry
    Mammenga, Ramseyls cost accountant and payroll supervisor,
    stated that Whittington had worked for Ramsey on two other
    occasions that summer at another refinery. He also testified
    that Gary Wiech, whom Whittington claimed was foreman at the
    Exxon job, was never assigned to Exxon and indeed had
    supervised Whittington on the two occasions he worked at the
    other   refinery.     Mammenga   stated that no Workers'
    Compensation claim had been filed through his office. Hank
    Cantrill testified that he had been Ramseyls night shift
    supervisor and that he remembered Whittington because he had
    caught Whittington smoking while working inside the furnace,
    which he said was a serious infraction of work rules at a
    refinery. He also said that work crews had cut holes in the
    walls of the furnace to provide ventilation and that there
    was no need for a welder to bend directly over his welding
    rod.
    Whittington sought Workers1 Compensation benefits on
    the theory that his exposure to nickel and chromium fumes
    from welding stainless steel constituted an injury that
    aggravated his pulmonary obstructive disease to the point
    that he could not take part in anything more strenuous than
    walking a limited distance in his yard, playing cards,
    reading, or watching television. He was forced to resort to
    oxygen often since overexertion easily winded him.
    Whittington filed his claim for benefits on July 29,
    1983.    The Workers' Compensation Division determined the
    claim to be in the nature of one for Occupational Disease
    benefits. An Occupational Disease Medical Panel composed of
    Dr. Fagan, Dr. John W. Strizich of Helena, and Dr. Thomas
    Schimke, then of Missoula, reported its findings on September
    It is agreed that Mr. Whittington is
    totally disabled and suffering from
    severe obstructive lung disease.   [we]
    feel that the basic fundamental problem
    producing his obstructive lung disease is
    a long history of substantial cigarette
    smoking.
    However, it is felt by all of us that his
    welding of stainless steel probably
    contributed    significantly    to    the
    progression   of  his   underlying   lung
    disease.
    It is agreed by all of us that his
    occupation contributed 40 percent to his
    current disability.
    On November     14, 1984, the Division determined
    Whittington was entitled to 40 percent total disability
    benefits and awarded him $105.20 per week (40 percent of the
    $263 per week applicable in September 1982 when Whittingtonls
    job ended).    Whittington's benefits were reduced to $77.90
    per week when Social Security offset was figured. On May 1,
    1985,   Whittington    filed   his   petition    for   Workers'
    Compensation benefits.
    The Workers1 Compensation hearings officer, Robert J.
    Campbell,   considered    medical   testimony   introduced by
    deposition along with the live testimony of Whittington and
    his wife.   Dr. Fagan, the Billings internist who originally
    saw Whittington, testified that Whittington's exposure to the
    welding fumes may have caused him a temporary irritation, but
    he testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that
    Whittington would have recovered from any effects of those
    fumes within the month. He stated that welding fumes, even
    those from stainless steel, are not associated with permanent
    pulmonary disease and said Whittingtonls condition was
    attributable to his smoking:
    Q. [By Mr. Mattix] What was the effect
    of smoking? What would be the effect of
    smoking    in   a   gentleman   with    Mr.
    FJhittington's condition?
    A. Well, I considered this disease to be
    largely smoking induced.       So, to be
    consistent, one would have to say that
    continued smoking would lead to continued
    worsening,   and   the   literature does
    support the fact that patients with
    airways obstructive disease who continue
    to smoke will decline at a faster rate
    than if they would quit.
    Q.  What was your estimate of [welding's]
    role in Mr. Whittington's case [in 1 9 8 2 ] ?
    A. Well, at that time I thought it
    probably played some role, but certainly
    not the major role.       And the only
    important feature really was that he not
    do any more of it because it was such an
    obvious irritant.
    Q.  What is your opinion now?     How has it
    changed?
    A. I think probably that I would say
    that the vast majority of his problem is
    smoking related, and if there was an
    effect from welding per set it is an
    irritant and probably not as the cause of
    permanent change, and that I have not
    seen anything to make me change that
    position at this point.
    Q. When you say that opinion, Doctor,
    are you stating it with a reasonable
    degree of medical certainty?
    A.   Yes, I think so.
    The allergist, Dr. Anderson, agreed somewhat when he
    testified that Whittington's sensitivity to the stainless
    steel fumes caused his winded condition, but could not
    testify to a medical certainty that such fumes would cause
    irreversible pulmonary problems. He also could not state as
    a medical certainty that the September 1982 exposure to the
    fumes aggravated the preexisting condition into one of
    constant discomfort.
    Dr. Schimke, a specialist in pulmonary disease,
    diagnosed irreversible chronic airway disease, which he said
    was most likely caused by a history of cigarette smoking.
    At Dr. Schimke's deposition, this exchange occurred:
    Q. [By Mr. Mattix]    Was there anything
    other than the welding and the work
    experience that Mr. Whittington related
    to you?   Is there anything else in his
    history that you found significant with
    regard to the particular medical problem
    that you were examining him with regard
    to?
    A. He was a two pack per day smoker for
    many years during his adult life, but he
    reported that he had stopped smoking
    during the past few years when his
    bronchitis was so bothersome.
    Q.   Why is that significant?
    A. It is common to see patients who are
    two pack per day smokers to have some
    symptoms of such as Mr. Whittington
    complained of by the age of 53, and
    therefore, that historical item leads me
    to suspect that it was at least, in part,
    responsible for his complaints.
    Q.  All right, do you have an opinion,
    then, as to the cause or causes of Mr.
    Whittington's     chronic   obstructive
    pulmonary   disease, again, within    a
    reasonable degree of medical certainty?
    A.   Yes.
    Q.   And what is that opinion?
    A. The most likely cause of his advanced
    chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is
    cigarette smoking. A contributing cause
    may be the industrial smoke exposure that
    he sustained during a 20-year period of
    welding.
    Q. You say may be, that may be a
    contributing cause.    Are you able to
    state that it is a contributing cause to
    a reasonable degree of medical certainty?
    A.   No.
    Q.   And why is that, Doctor?
    A. In evaluating this case for the
    Workers' Compensation Division, I have
    reviewed the medical literature in an
    attempt to find substantiation for lung
    disease of this severity based on welding
    fume exposure, and in my search, I found
    articles which suggested a possible minor
    aggravation of the bronchitis or lung
    disease, but I found nothing that would
    indicate to me that welding fume exposure
    could be the sole or a significant cause
    of his present condition.
    Dr. Schimke testified the condition was a progressive one and
    said the exposure to these fumes was only a minor
    irritant--and only one in a series of such irritants.
    The hearings examiner denied Workers' Compensation
    benefits.   He stated that no such benefits were appropriate
    since Whittington had not sustained an injury as defined by
    5 39-71-119 (1), MCA, which, before its amendment on July 1,
    1987, required the claimant to prove he had suffered a
    "tangible happening of a traumatic nature from an unexpected
    cause ...    " He concluded:
    None of the three medical specialists in
    this case would testify to a reasonable
    degree of medical certainty that the
    incident of inhaling fumes from stainless
    steel welding on September 21, 1982,
    accentuated the claimant's preexisting
    COPD    [chronic obstructive    pulmonary
    disease] or had anything more than a
    temporary effect on his lungs. Avoiding
    all types of irritants to the lungs was
    advised, but no medical evidence has been
    submitted that the incident triggered a
    progressively   [sic] worsening of his
    condition. Likewise, no medical evidence
    was introduced that without this incident
    he may have been able to continue to work
    under   those conditions or     that it
    resulted in any permanent damage.     The
    evidence presented does not support the
    claimant's contention that an "injury"
    resulted in disability under the Workers'
    Compensation Act.
    The Workers' Compensation Court accepted the hearings
    examiner's findings of fact and conclusions of law on March
    On review of the Workers' Compensation Court decision,
    this Court must determine if there is substantial credible
    evidence to support the decision.   Courser v. Darby School
    District No. 1 (Mont. 1984), 
    692 P.2d 417
    , 419, 41 St.Rep.
    2283, 2285.   In this review we have carefully examined the
    record and have read the testimony by Whittington and his
    wife as well as the depositions of the various physicians and
    Ramsey employees.
    The Whittington estate argues that one who has received
    an   award   of   Occupational  Disease   benefits   is   not
    automatically precluded from receiving Workers' Compensation
    benefits.   Ridenour v. Equity Supply Co. (19831, 
    204 Mont. 473
    , 
    665 P.2d 783
    . However, in Ridenour, this Court said an
    employee has no right to elect his benefits unless he fits
    the definition of both occupational disease and injury.
    Ridenour, 665 P.2d at 786. Section 39-72-408, MCA, says that
    an occupational disease arises from employment if:
    (1) there is a direct causal connection
    between the conditions under which the
    work is performed and the occupational
    disease;
    (2)  the disease can be seen to have
    followed as a natural incident of the
    work as a result of the exposure
    occasioned  by   the  nature  of  the
    employment;
    (3) the disease can be fairly traced to
    the employment as the proximate cause;
    Section 39-71-119, MCA, defines an injury as:
    (1) a tangible happening of a traumatic
    nature from an unexpected cause or
    unusual   strain resulting in      either
    external or internal physical harm and
    such physical condition as a result
    therefrom and excluding disease not
    traceable to injury, except as provided
    in subsection (2) of this section;
    (2) cardiovascular    or   pulmonary   or
    respiratory diseases contracted by a paid
    firefighter employed by a municipality
    . . . which   diseases are    caused   by
    overexertion in times of stress or danger
    in   the   course   of   his   employment
    ...   Nothing herein shall be construed
    to exclude any other working person who
    suffers a cardiovascular, pulmonary, or
    respiratory disease while in the course
    and scope of his employment.
    (3)   death resulting from injury.
    In Ridenour, the claimant was injured by a massive
    inhalation of grain dust while he was making repairs at the
    top of a grain bin. He had not known an unloading operation
    was in process beneath him when he left one area to go to
    another to receive the proper tools. He breathed in such a
    quantity of this grain dust that he was rushed immediately to
    a doctor.     Like Whittington, the claimant in Ridenour
    suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, had a
    history of cigarette smoking, and eventually was forced to
    retire.   Unlike Whittington, he was able to convince the
    Workers' Compensation Court that a tangible happening of an
    unexpected cause occurred on a specific date, December 18,
    1978, and caused him harm.       Ridenour met this Court's
    distinction between occupational disease and industrial
    injury.   "The two crucial points of distinction are time
    definiteness and unexpectedness."    Wise v. Perkins (1983),
    
    202 Mont. 157
    , 166, 
    656 P.2d 816
    , 820. If the claimant fails
    to show time definiteness and unexpectedness, there is no
    injury under 5 39-71-19 ( 1 , MCA.      Phillips v. Spectrum
    Enterprises (Mont. 19861, 
    730 P.2d 1131
    , 1134, 43 St-Rep.
    2288, 2291.
    Our distinction between occupational disease and injury
    is consistent with that developed by Professor Arthur Larson:
    What set occupational disease apart from
    accidental injuries was both the fact
    that they could not honestly be said to
    be unexpected, since they were recognized
    as inherent hazard of continued exposure
    to    conditions   of    the   particular
    employment, and the fact that they were
    gradual rather than sudden in onset.
    Thus, what would      ordinarily be    an
    occupational disease might be converted
    to an accident by an unusual and sudden
    dosage of the same kind of dust or fumes
    that, absorbed gradually over a long
    period, would produce typical industrial
    disease.
    Larson, Workmen' s Compensation Law, Vol. 1B 5 41.31, (1987).
    The fact that Whittington, like the claimant
    Ridenour, had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoked,
    and breathed fumes and dust at work does not mean he suffered
    an injury that would qualify him for Workers' Compensation
    benefits.   He failed to identify an unexpected tangible
    happening that occurred on one specific date.     He claimed
    that the amount of smoke a.nd fumes from the welding job was
    unusual and unexpected. However, the Workers' Compensation
    Court made no such finding of fact. We uphold that court's
    findings when they are based on sufficient credible evidence.
    Coles v. 7-11 Stores (Mont. 1985), ?0
    4 P.2d 1048
    , 1050, 42
    St.Rep. 1238, 1240.     Thus, we will not determine if the
    evidence is sufficient to support a contrary finding. Davis
    v. Jones (Mont. 1985), 
    701 P.2d 351
    , 353, 42 St.Rep. 840,
    843.
    Whittington argued that he did not expect to work on
    stainless steel. Yet one physician already had told him he
    should do no more welding of any kind because of his
    pulmonary condition.     And Whittington had told another
    physician that all welding made him cough and wheeze, but
    that stainless steel only made it more acute. He also cannot
    specify a time definite.      In his petition he said the
    incident occurred on September 20 and said this was his first
    work shift. Yet Ramsey employment records indicate September
    18 was his first shift.
    In fact, Whittington's own testimony indicated that he
    had been welding for more than 28 years, had smoked a good
    deal of his life, and had experienced similar reactions on at
    least three occasions in his work history.            Because
    Whittington could have expected to have an adverse reaction
    to welding and because the reaction appears to have been
    developing over years of welding, Whittington could neither
    establish this illness as unexpected nor could he assign a
    definite date to its onset. This malady was an occupational
    disease rather than an injury. It is difficult to establish
    a bright-line barrier between long-term disease and instant
    injury. A carpal tunnel syndrome that arose over the course
    of two months was held to constitute an injury since it arose
    from a chain of physical incidents, i.e. stacking of lumber.
    Hoehne v. Granite Lumber Co. (1980), 
    189 Mont. 221
    , 225, 
    615 P.2d 863
    , 865.    But when a claimant had worked inside a
    copper refinery for 22 years and had been exposed to sulfuric
    acid, arsenic, asbestos and other compounds in his work
    environment, this Court held that his chronic obstructive
    lung disease and related physical and mental problems were
    diseases, not injuries.     McMahon v. Anaconda Co. (Mont.
    1984), 
    678 P.2d 661
    , 663, 41 St.Rep. 480, 482.
    In Greger v. United Presstech, Inc. (1979), 
    180 Mont. 348
    , 
    590 P.2d 1121
    , we held that a concrete worker who
    suffers allergic reactions to chromium and nickel compounds
    in concrete has suffered an occupational djsease but not an
    injury.
    We find that the prevailing and most
    convincing view is that such allergies
    are   to    be  considered     occupational
    disease.    This is especially important
    [because] the purpose - - occupational
    of the
    disease - - - compensate workers who
    act is to
    contract a disease - -
    or have inert diseases
    . ..  when there is no "injury" -        as
    defined in section 92-418 - -
    RCM 1947, now
    5 39-71-119,MCA. ( E m p h a s i s added.)
    Greger, 590 P.2d at 1124.
    In Phillips, we held    that an employee who   claimed
    respiratory illness because he splashed solvent in his face
    would be denied Workerst Compensation benefits because he had
    been exposed to various chemicals as a welder and his
    bronchitis was due to continued exposure to chemicals rather
    than the specific instance the claimant cited!.    Since the
    claimant had had breathing difficulty before his alleged
    injury and had been hospitalized at times for that bronchial
    condition, "it is not unexpected he should suffer recurring
    attacks of bronchitis," and the claimant's exposure did not
    constitute an injury. Phillips, 730 P.2d at 1134. By the
    same reasoning Whittingtonts illness was not an injury. He
    had suffered with breathing difficulties for years and had
    suffered harsh bronchial attacks when he welded. It was not
    unexpected that he should suffer breathing problems when he
    chose to weld again in September 1982 even though one doctor
    had advised him against any more welding and Whittington had
    told another doctor that his welding caused him breathing
    trouble.
    Section 39-71-119(2) was interpreted in Schieno v. City
    of Billings (Mont. 1984), 
    683 P.2d 953
    , 41 St.Rep. 1157, to
    require that a firefighter who claimed his 26 years of
    exposure to smoke, toxic gases and fumes contributed to, or
    aggravated, his coronary heart disease must prove it is
    "medically probable" that the occupation caused the disease.
    In Schieno, the medical testimony was that the claimant's
    smoking, high blood pressure and family history of heart
    disease would have been sufficient to cause heart disease.
    Since he failed to prove by a medical probability that his
    heart disease was caused by his employment, he was denied
    permanent total disability. Schieno, 683 P.2d at 955.
    In the present case, Whittington failed to prove that
    his disease was caused by his occupation.      The physicians
    testified that Whittington's distress was more than likely
    caused by his history of cigarette smoking.       Because the
    doctors did not tie the cause of his disease to his work by a
    medical probability he did not qualify for compensation under
    $
    $ 39-71-119 (2), MCA.
    The Workers' Compensation Court decision is supported
    by sufficient credible evidence. The claimant's welding job
    was neither the instantaneous, unexpected happening that
    disabled the worker nor was it the cause of his disease. As
    such, Montana law provides him and his family benefits under
    the Occupational Disease Act, S 39-73-101 et seq., MCA. His
    request for Workers' Compensation benefits under   §   39-71-119,
    MCA, was properly denied.
    Affirmed.
    We concur:
    Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., dissenting:
    I dissent.   The majority is incorrect when they say that
    Ridenour is not controlling in this case.        Although the
    majority correctly distinguishes between occupational disease
    and injury, it fails to realize that this is indeed a case
    where "an occupational disease [has been] converted to an
    accident by an unusual and sudden dosage of" welding dust.
    Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Vol. lB, S 41.31.      The
    majority states that Whittington failed to identify an
    unexpected tangible happening that occurred on a specific
    date. In so stating, the majority ignores key testimony from
    both the claimant and his wife that the claimant experienced
    severe difficulty breathing immediately after several shifts
    of working on welding stainless steel. The majority ignored
    claimant's testimony that he became nearly housebound
    immediately after the attack. This is not a case when the
    claimant has gradually had to give up his activities due to
    increasing severity of his pulmonary disease. This is a case
    where the exposure to several days of toxic fumes resulted in
    such pulmonary distress as to limit the claimant to the
    confines of his house and yard.
    The majority contends that the claimant was not able to
    fix his injury to a definite time.      Yet it is clear that
    Whittington's   difficulties    began   directly   after   his
    September, 1982, welding shifts. The majority quotes
    Professor Larson as stating that:
    What set occupational disease apart from
    accidental injuries was both the fact
    that they could not honestly be said to
    be unexpected, since they were recognized
    as inherent hazard of continued exposure
    to    conditions    of   the    particular
    employment, and the fact that they were
    gradual rather than sudden in onset.
    Thus, what would ordinarily be an
    occupational disease might be converted
    to an accident by an unusual and sudden
    dosage of the same kind of dust or fumes
    that, absorbed gradually over a long
    period, would produce typical industrial
    disease.
    Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Vol 1B § 41.31, (1987).
    Professor Larson has also stated:
    As to suddenness of cause: the tendency has been
    to recognize episodes or exposures of several
    hours' or even several days' duration, since for
    all practical purposes, including those mentioned
    at the outset of this section, identification of
    the time of accident within a matter of a few days
    is sufficiently precise.. ..
    Put negatively, this is merely to say that injury,
    to be accidental, need not be instaneous.
    Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Vol. lB, S 39.20.
    Professor Larson also states this about the time
    definiteness of the result of an accident.
    [I]n various situations an otherwise-gradual kind
    of deterioration may culminate in an obvious and
    sudden collapse and structural change whose
    incidence can fix the date of accident clearly.
    Larson, Vol. 1B at § 39.30.
    As an example, Professor Larson mentions that years of
    inhaling welding fumes that results in a sudden inability to
    breath satisfies the definition of accident. -Id.
    Whittington's pre-existing disease does not preclude
    Workers' Compensation for an aggravation or acceleration of
    the disease by an industrial injury or accid.ent. Ridenour,
    665 P.2d at 787-88.     This case squarely fits within the
    Ridenour analysis and claimant should not have been forced to
    accept a lower   compensation   award under   the Occupational
    /
    Disease Act.