## Facts

- Margaret Rutledge worked in textile mills beginning in 1953 and worked for Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn from October 1976 to January 1979.
- She had a tenth-grade education and smoked about one pack of cigarettes per day from age fifteen until 1979.
- She worked in multiple mills that had substantial cotton dust and lint; the Tultex facility had less dust than earlier mills but still involved exposure.
- Rutledge developed a cough around 1969–1970 associated with being at work, and her shortness of breath worsened during her employment at Tultex.
- She was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with elements of emphysema and chronic bronchitis and was medically restricted to sedentary work in a clean environment due to sensitivity to cotton dust and irritants.
- A deputy commissioner denied workers’ compensation for occupational disease; the Full Commission adopted the denial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Industrial Commission applied an incorrect legal standard in denying an occupational disease claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-53(13).
2. Whether the record contained evidence from which the Commission, applying the correct standard, could find a compensable occupational disease.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina held the Industrial Commission applied the wrong legal standard under § 97-53(13).
- The Court held there was evidence from which the Commission could find, under the correct standard, that Rutledge had a compensable occupational disease.
- The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, vacated the Commission’s opinion and award, and remanded for reconsideration under the proper standard.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-53(13), a claimant must show (1) a disease characteristic of and peculiar to the employment and (2) not an ordinary disease of life to which the general public is equally exposed.
- Causation under § 97-53(13) does not require proof that the employment was the sole cause; it is sufficient that workplace conditions significantly contributed to, or significantly aggravated, the disease.
- The existence of non-occupational risk factors (e.g., smoking) does not bar compensation if occupational exposure is a significant contributing cause.
- In cumulative-exposure cases involving multiple employments, liability may be imposed on the employer providing the last injurious exposure if that employment contributed to the disease, even if earlier exposures were greater.

## Conclusion

The court required the Industrial Commission to reassess Rutledge’s occupational disease claim under § 97-53(13) using a significant-contributing-cause standard rather than an exclusive-causation approach, and to consider that a later, lesser exposure may still qualify as the last injurious exposure supporting liability.


Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn, 308 N.C. 85, 301 S.E.2d 359 (1983)