Candelaria v. General Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 February 1986
• Docket Number: No. 7841,7841
• Citation: 730 P.2d 470,1986 NMCA 16,105 N.M. 167
• Parties: Robert Lee CANDELARIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, Employer, and Electric Mutual Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Page 470

730 P.2d 470

105 N.M. 167

Robert Lee CANDELARIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, Employer, and Electric Mutual Insurance Company, Insurer Defendants-Appellants.

No. 7841.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Feb. 13, 1986.

Certiorari Quashed Dec. 17, 1986.

[105 N.M. 168] Pedro G. Rael, Rael & Jarner, Los Lunas, Thomas A. Tabet, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee.

Kathryn Levy, Paul L. Civerolo, Civerolo, Hansen & Wolf, P.A., Albuquerque, for defendants-appellants.

OPINION

ALARID, Judge.

Defendants appeal from the judgment of the district court in favor of Robert Lee Candelaria (plaintiff). This appeal raises issues of first impression: whether and under what circumstances psychological disability predicated upon psychological injury that arises from work-related stress is compensable under the New Mexico Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), NMSA 1978, Sections 52-1-1 to -69 (Orig.Pamp. and Cum.Supp.1985). Defendants also appeal the trial court's failure to grant post-judgment relief, the amount of attorneys' fees awarded, and the award of interest on the judgment. We affirm.

FACTS

Plaintiff is forty-three years old and has been married for seven years. He has a high school education and was in the service for three years. He testified that he had no problems in the service and was honorably discharged. He then began to work as a "plater." Eventually, he became a foreman supervising platers and later became a plant manager overseeing a substantial number of employees. He held this position for thirteen or fourteen years until, in 1977, the owner sold the plant, leaving plaintiff without a job. Plaintiff came to New Mexico to look for work and had to settle for a janitor job. Subsequently, plaintiff worked as a laborer and for a company making roof trusses. He testified that he had no problems with these jobs and had no clashes with his supervisors. Plaintiff then went to work for General Electric (G.E.), as a janitor, hoping that he could advance to a plating job.

Plaintiff first worked as a janitor at G.E., but soon became a forklift operator. Thereafter, he began to work as a "process varied" preparing jet engine parts for plating. According to plaintiff, he had no emotional difficulties with his supervisors during this period of time. At first, plaintiff worked during the night shift under Gianini for a period of between six months and a year. Plaintiff testified that except for one instance where he had refused to take a shortcut requested by Gianini, he had no problems while he worked the night shift.

Plaintiff described the process of his work. Basically, he prepared various components of jet engines for plating. The parts would be cleaned and then placed in acid, cleanser chemical or plating baths for various periods of time. A timer would go off when the part was to be removed from the bath. More than one part would be going through this process at any given time. Plaintiff testified that this was a full-time job.

Plaintiff's problems began when he was transferred to the day shift and began working under the supervision of Jewett. At first, plaintiff had basically the same job. After a few weeks, however, Jewett began to assign more duties to plaintiff. An employee with a different job classification quit, and plaintiff was required to perform this employee's job in addition to his own. Plaintiff testified that he received no help from other employees in performing these additional tasks. The performance of these additional tasks was complicated by the fact that parts were being timed while plaintiff was doing these tasks and by the fact that Jewett would tell plaintiff to drop everything in order to work on the "hot" (priority) items.

Plaintiff complained to Jewett, but was told that he had to do the work assigned to him. Plaintiff then went to the union and various plant officials, but nothing was done. Plaintiff then went to the Labor Board, but was told to talk to the plant manager. Plaintiff did talk to the plant manager and was told a new worker would be hired in three weeks. Three weeks passed, and no new worker was hired.

On or about May 13, 1981, plaintiff again went to see the plant manager. The manager said he had been too busy and needed additional time. Plaintiff returned to his work station and was told to go outside to steam clean some parts. Plaintiff felt nervous. Jewett came outside and started giving plaintiff more orders. Plaintiff started shaking and felt like killing Jewett. Plaintiff formed an intent to kill Jewett but changed his mind. Plaintiff ran inside the building; he was crying, sweating and had chest pains. Plaintiff went home where he was later found by his wife still crying and shaking. His wife called the family doctor.

A series of hospitalizations began for psychological problems. First, plaintiff was hospitalized for three months at Vista Sandia on a voluntary basis. He then returned to G.E., was again placed under Jewett and asked to perform the same tasks. Soon, plaintiff was suffering from nervousness, sweating and chest pain. He was again hospitalized at Vista Sandia for three months. Plaintiff returned to work at G.E., again was placed under Jewett and asked to perform the same tasks. According to plaintiff, "Jewett didn't slack off one bit." Plaintiff had a nervous breakdown and was again hospitalized at Vista Sandia. This happened again and again for a total of four times. Plaintiff told officials at G.E. that he would work as a janitor, if necessary, if they would not place him under Jewett again. After the fourth hospitalization, plaintiff was finally placed under another supervisor. However, after attending a deposition, plaintiff saw Jewett, got chest pains and began to hyperventilate. He was then hospitalized for the fifth time in January 1983.

Dr. Gerard S. Fredman, a psychiatrist, testified that plaintiff was suffering from anxiety and depression disorders, and from paranoid ideations. The symptoms of anxiety and depression were severe. Dr. Fredman concluded that events at work had triggered the symptom formation. Dr. Fredman believed that plaintiff's problems arose from the fact that he could not cope with work. The doctor testified that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, plaintiff's disability was stimulated by the conflict with Jewett and by plaintiff's interpretation of that conflict. Dr. Fredman stated that there were things in plaintiff's history that could have predisposed him to the breakdown.

Dr. Fredman attached critical significance to the conflict with Jewett because plaintiff had done well in other settings. Dr. Fredman also evaluated the possibility that plaintiff was malingering. He concluded that plaintiff was not malingering because the physical symptoms were too sophisticated to fake, because plaintiff had made a genuine (as opposed to an attention-getting) suicide attempt, and because plaintiff had made diligent attempts to return to work.

More medical testimony was provided by Dr. Stephen I. Sacks, another psychiatrist. Dr. Sacks' deposition was read into the record. Dr. Sacks diagnosed plaintiff as suffering from affective or mood disorders involving anxiety and depression. He believed that these disorders were a reaction to the stress at work. Dr. Sacks stated that he was unable to identify any source of plaintiff's disability other than the stress at work.

Dr. Paul Rodriguez, a clinical psychologist, testified for defendants. After administering psychological tests to plaintiff, Dr. Rodriguez concluded that plaintiff had a "schizotypical" personality. Dr. Rodriguez found it difficult to believe that plaintiff's problems were caused by the particular job situation at G.E. because a schizotypical personality is a long-standing problem. However, Dr. Rodriguez refused to say whether the work situation at G.E. aggravated any pre-existing problems because he had insufficient information as to plaintiff's history.

On cross-examination, Dr. Rodriguez was asked a long, hypothetical question in which he was asked to assume, among other things, that plaintiff had no prior difficulties in other settings, was under stress at work and had a nervous breakdown after a confrontation with his foreman. Dr. Rodriguez admitted that, if all the facts in the hypothetical were true, the work situation may have aggravated plaintiff's problems.

After trial, the court found plaintiff to be temporarily totally disabled from May 13, 1981 to January 28, 1983, and permanently partially (25%) disabled thereafter. The trial court found that an accidental injury took place on May 13, 1981, and before each subsequent hospitalization.

DISCUSSION

I. COMPENSABILITY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY CAUSED BY EMOTIONAL STRESS

A. Recognition of the Cause of Action

Defendants' arguments on appeal are related to the issue of whether a workman may recover compensation benefits where he has sustained disability predicated upon a psychological injury, caused by emotional stress, which is unrelated to any accompanying physical injury. Although this question has been raised previously in this jurisdiction, recovery has been denied based upon the facts of each particular case. See Kern v. Ideal Basic Industries, 101 N.M. 801, 689 P.2d 1272 (Ct.App.1984) (a mental breakdown suffered as a result of termination was not an injury "arising out of" employment because it was not related to the performance of the employee's employment duties). No case has held or suggested that a psychological injury caused by stress arising out of and in the course of employment would not be compensable.

There is a divergence of opinion as to whether workmen's compensation benefits are payable due to the disability or death of a workman caused by shock, excitement or emotional disturbance unaccompanied by physical impact or violence on the workman's body. See e.g. State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission, 24 Ariz.App. 31, ...