Adams v. AVX Corp.

• Citation: 509 S.E.2d 411,349 N.C. 676
• Decision Date: 31 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. 151PA98.,151PA98.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Parties: Mary Lou ADAMS, Employee, v. AVX CORPORATION, Employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier.

509 S.E.2d 411

349 N.C. 676

Mary Lou ADAMS, Employee, v. AVX CORPORATION, Employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier.

No. 151PA98.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 31, 1998.

George W. Lennon and Michael W. Ballance, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.

Lewis & Roberts, P.L.L.C., by Richard M. Lewis and M. Reid Acree, Jr., Raleigh, for defendant-appellees. ORR, Justice.

This case arises from proceedings before the Industrial Commission in which plaintiff alleged that she suffered an aggravation of preexisting medical conditions, pulmonary disease, and permanent and total disability as the result of an accidental exposure to chemicals, on 4 August 1992, arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant AVX Corporation. The deputy commissioner found (1) "that an incident at work on 3 or 4 August 1992, if it occurred, did not cause plaintiff to be unable to be gainfully employed after 4 August 1992"; and (2) "that there is insufficient evidence of record from which the [deputy commissioner] can find from the greater weight that any medical treatment plaintiff received from 3 August 1992 and continuing was made necessary as a result of the incident on 3 August 1992, if it occurred." The findings generated conclusions of law to the effect that if the incident occurred, it did not cause plaintiff any period of disability and did not make medical treatment necessary, and the deputy commissioner thus denied compensation.

Plaintiff appealed to the full Commission, which reconsidered the evidence but did not hear live testimony. The full Commission, with one commissioner dissenting, reversed the deputy commissioner and awarded compensation. Defendants then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals stated:

In the present case, the Commission's findings are not supported by competent evidence in the record. Because the Commission's findings were made simply from a review of the cold record, the Commission, as noted by Commissioner Sellers in her dissent, should have considered that the hearing officer was better able to determine the credibility of the parties. Without competent evidence to support plaintiff's contention she suffered a work place injury, the Commission's determination is in error. Accordingly, plaintiff's contention is without merit.

Because we determine plaintiff did not suffer a work-related injury, we do not reach the remaining assignments of error. Adams v. AVX Corp., 128 N.C.App. 748, 748, 496 S.E.2d 850, 850 (1998) (per curiam). For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the Court of Appeals.

Plaintiff, who was sixty-three years old at the time of the incident in question, was employed by defendant AVX Corporation and its corporate predecessor, Corning Glass Works, for over thirty years. During that time, plaintiff performed a number of jobs, some of which exposed her to industrial chemicals. Although plaintiff's primary job was as a visual inspector of glass capacitators, sometimes when production was slow, she would work on the "exit end" of the production line unloading ceramic ware. To ensure that ceramic ware being sent through the furnace did not stick to the pallet on which it sat, it was sprayed with a blue chemical compound consisting of acetone and kaolin. Plaintiff alleges she sustained injuries arising out of the occupational exposure to chemicals which resulted in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and restrictive lung disease. According to plaintiff's statement, the accident occurred when she sprayed herself in the face as she attempted to unclog the nozzle of a malfunctioning spray gun containing the blue acetone and kaolin compound. Defendants contested both the occurrence of the work-related accident of which plaintiff complains and the alleged disability that followed.

Plaintiff testified before the deputy commissioner that she informed two fellow employees who assisted her of the accidental spraying; however, both employees denied that she told them she had suffered a workrelated injury. One of the two employees, who was also trained as an emergency medical technician, testified that plaintiff complained of shortness of breath and that her blood pressure was quite high but that she never saw any bluish substance on plaintiff. Three other employees who had contact with plaintiff on the morning of the alleged accident testified that plaintiff complained of a breathing problem but said nothing of an accidental spraying or a work-related injury.

The evidence indicates that after plaintiff rested on a cot, the human-resources secretary took her to Kaiser Permanente, where she was treated, but her medical record for 4 August 1992 makes no reference to a workrelated injury. Plaintiff had preexisting respiratory problems, but a nurse practitioner testified that since August 1992, plaintiff's coughing and wheezing had become chronic.

In October 1992, plaintiff was referred by Kaiser to an allergist, Dr. H. Randy Schwartz. Dr. Schwartz found no evidence of allergy but noted possible restrictive lung disease. In November 1992, Kaiser referred her to a pulmonologist, Dr. Robert Alan Durr. After conducting a pulmonary test, Dr. Durr noted that plaintiff's condition was consistent with restrictive lung disease and informed Kaiser of the possibility that chemical exposure played a role in plaintiff's development of chronic bronchitis. After plaintiff suffered a heart attack in April 1994, a second pulmonary test revealed restrictive lung disease. Dr. Durr testified that inhalation of acetone and kaolin is harmful to the lungs and can cause lung disease.

Plaintiff's first argument focuses on the Court of Appeals' determination that the full Commission failed to consider that the hearing officer was better able to determine the credibility of the parties, and thus there was no competent evidence to support plaintiff's contention she suffered a workplace injury. According to the Court of Appeals, that failure resulted in the Commission's findings not being supported by competent evidence in the record and mandated reversal of the Commission's award. We agree with plaintiff and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals.

N.C.G.S. § 97-85 provides in part:

If application is made to the Commission within 15 days from the date when notice of the award shall have been given, the full Commission shall review the award, and, if good ground be shown therefor, reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, and, if proper, amend the award....

N.C.G.S. § 97-85 (1991). We have stated that "[i]n reviewing the findings found by a deputy commissioner ..., the Commission may review, modify, adopt, or reject the findings of fact found by the hearing commissioner." Watkins v. City of Wilmington, 290 N.C. 276, 280, 225 S.E.2d 577, 580 (1976).

Defendants rely...