Bayer Corp. v. Lassiter

Decision Date09 November 2006
Docket NumberNo. A06A0908.,A06A0908.
PartiesBAYER CORPORATION et al. v. LASSITER et al.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Richard Kissiah, Kissiah & Lay, Alpharetta, for appellants.

Franklin Parker, Deming, Parker, Hoffman, Green & Campbell, Norcross, for appellees.

MILLER, Judge.

Charles Lassiter filed a claim with the State Board of Workers' Compensation (the "Board") seeking temporary total disability ("TTD") benefits, alleging that his disabling injury resulted from an automobile accident arising out of his employment. Prior to the adjudication of this claim, Mr. Lassiter committed suicide. His widow, Mary Lassiter, subsequently amended the claim to seek both the outstanding TTD benefits and the statutory death benefit, asserting that Mr. Lassiter's suicide resulted from his compensable injury. Mr. Lassiter's employer, Bayer Corporation ("Bayer"), and Bayer's insurance company, Pacific Employers Insurance Company ("Pacific") opposed both the original and amended claims on the grounds that Mr. Lassiter's disability resulted from a pre-existing disease, rather than the accident.

Following a hearing held after Mr. Lassiter's death, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") ruled in favor of the Lassiters, and that ruling was affirmed by the Board. Bayer and Pacific thereafter appealed the award to the Superior Court for Muscogee County, which affirmed the Board's decision. Bayer and Pacific allege that the evidence is insufficient to support the conclusion that Mr. Lassiter's suicide was a compensable injury. Discerning no error, we affirm.

"On appeal from an award of the State Board of Workers' Compensation, this Court examines the record to see if there is competent evidence ... to support the award and construes the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. Harris v. Seaboard Farms of Elberton, 207 Ga.App. 147, 149, 427 S.E.2d 524 (1993)." St. Joseph's Hosp. v. Cope, 225 Ga.App. 781, 783, 484 S.E.2d 727 (1997). The question of whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard in evaluating the evidence, however, is one of law, which we review de novo. Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga.App. 822, 824(1), 543 S.E.2d 733 (2000).

Viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. and Mrs. Lassiter, the evidence shows that on March 20, 2001, while on a sales call in Columbus, Georgia, Mr. Lassiter was involved in an automobile accident. He suffered back and neck injuries, and later developed a constant ringing in his ears that his physicians labeled "post-traumatic tinnitis." The tinnitis eventually became so severe that it served as the basis of Mr. Lassiter's disability claim.

On December 8, 2002, Mr. Lassiter told his wife that he had "to do something" about the ringing in his ears. The following day, Mr. Lassiter shot himself with a rifle, and his death was ruled a suicide.

Prior to the accident, Mr. Lassiter had no history of significant medical problems. He had never complained of ringing in his ears, but such ringing started almost immediately after the accident. The onset of the tinnitis caused a personality change in Mr. Lassiter, and adversely impacted his judgment, causing him to do irrational things. Mrs. Lassiter testified that eventually her husband so doubted his own judgment that he "didn't want to make any decisions because he was afraid that they would be wrong."

Mr. Lassiter saw several physicians in an unsuccessful attempt to have his tinnitis treated. The lack of relief put Mr. Lassiter into what his wife described as a state of despair. The tinnitis eventually became so severe that Mr. Lassiter would go outside and start his leaf blower, because that noise was the only thing that could drown out the ringing in his ears.

In support of her claim, Mrs. Lassiter submitted the expert report and deposition testimony of Dr. Michael Hilton, a psychiatrist, who had reviewed her husband's medical records and Mr. Lassiter's personal notes. Dr. Hilton testified that in his professional opinion Mr. Lassiter's suicide resulted from the tinnitis, and a "disturbance of the mind" caused by that disease. Specifically, Dr. Hilton testified that the ringing in Mr. Lassiter's ears caused a disturbance in his mind that so impacted his judgment that he deemed suicide preferable to living with the tinnitis. Despite the fact that Dr. Hilton looked for evidence of any other factors in Mr. Lassiter's life that could have contributed to his disturbance of the mind, he could find none.

Bayer and Pacific did not present any evidence to refute the testimony of Mrs. Lassiter or Dr. Hilton. Instead, they claim that the trial court failed to apply the correct legal standard in reaching its conclusion that Mr. Lassiter's suicide was a compensable injury.

Suicide is generally excluded from the Workers' Compensation Act ("WCA") as an "intentionally self-inflicted injury" under OCGA § 34-9-17(a). This Court, however, has recognized that:

suicide does not ipso facto preclude compensation where [the compensable] injury is its proximate cause; that is, where it is caused by severe pain and despair proximately resulting from the accident sufficient to cause a disturbance of the mind and the overriding of normal judgment to the extent that the act, although "purposeful" is found to be not "intentional."

McDonald v. Atlantic Steel Co., 133 Ga.App. 157, 158(2), 210 S.E.2d 344 (1974).

The ALJ and the Board both found that Mr. Lassiter's tinnitis resulted from the automobile accident. They further concluded that the tinnitis so deprived Mr. Lassiter of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Keystone Automotive v. Hall
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 10, 2008
    ...evaluating the evidence, however, is one of law, which we review de novo. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bayer Cor. v. Lassiter, 282 Ga.App. 346, 347, 638 S.E.2d 812 (2006). Further, "[i]t is axiomatic that the findings of the State Board of Workers' Compensation, when supported by any......
  • Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rockefeller
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 29, 2017
    ...award does not provide benefits from the employer for the employee's past or future pain and suffering. See Bayer Corp. v. Lassiter, 282 Ga. App. 346, 349, 638 S.E.2d 812 (2006) (Workers Compensation Act relieves employers of "liability for traditional tort claims such as ... pain and suffe......
  • Smart Document Solutions, LLC v. Hall
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 24, 2008
    ...and certain financial assistance ... as long as the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.'" Bayer Corp. v. Lassiter, 282 Ga.App. 346, 349, 638 S.E.2d 812 (2006). To achieve this purpose, it designed a compensation program that, by its own terms, provides benefits to workers a......
1 books & journal articles
  • Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, and Katherine D. Dixon
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 59-1, September 2007
    • Invalid date
    ...O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-12-40 (2006)). 140. Faulds, 281 Ga. App. at 338, 636 S.E.2d at 76. 141. O.C.G.A. Sec. 34-9-17(a) (2004). 142. Id. 143. 282 Ga. App. 346, 638 S.E.2d 813-14 (2006). 144. See id. at 348-50, 638 S.E.2d at 813-14. 145. Id. at 346, 638 S.E.2d at 812. 146. Id. at 348, 638 S.E.2d at......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT