Fresenius Medical Care Co. v. Woolfolk

• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Irving, J.
• Citation: Fresenius Medical Care Co. v. Woolfolk, 920 So.2d 1024 (Miss. App. 2005)
• Decision Date: 27 September 2005
• Docket Number: No. 2004-WC-00756-COA.,2004-WC-00756-COA.
• Parties: FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE AND CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellants v. Stella L. WOOLFOLK, Deceased, by and through her heir-at-law, Glen Woolfolk, Appellee.

920 So.2d 1024

FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE AND CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellants v. Stella L. WOOLFOLK, Deceased, by and through her heir-at-law, Glen Woolfolk, Appellee.

No. 2004-WC-00756-COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

September 27, 2005.

Rehearing Denied February 7, 2006.

Clifford B. Ammons, Anastasia G. Jones Jackson, attorneys for appellant.

Janice T. Jackson, Jackson, William Joseph Kerley, attorneys for appellee.

Before KING, C.J., IRVING and BARNES, JJ.

IRVING, J., for the Court.

¶ 1. Fresenius Medical Care and Continental Casualty Company appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Yazoo County affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission awarding benefits to the Estate of Stella Woolfolk.¹ The issue presented in this appeal is whether there was substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding that the telephone call from the patient on the morning of March 28, 2000, was an untoward event that caused, exacerbated, and/or aggravated Woolfolk's aneurysm, causing it to rupture.

¶ 2. We find a lack of substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding that Woolfolk suffered a work-related injury, or stated another way, that the telephone call which Woolfolk received on the morning of the rupture of her aneurysm was an unnerving, untoward event which caused, exacerbated, or aggravated Woolfolk's aneurysm. Therefore, we reverse and render the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Commission.

FACTS

¶ 3. A petition to controvert was filed on behalf of Woolfolk by her son, Glenn Woolfolk, seeking disability benefits and payment of medical costs. Woolfolk's claim was thereafter submitted to an administrative law judge of the Workers' Compensation Commission on written stipulation, deposition testimony of medical experts, and written briefs by counsel. The administrative law judge ruled in favor of Fresenius Medical Care and Continental Casualty Company, finding that Glenn Woolfolk, as conservator of Woolfolk's estate, failed to meet his burden of proof; therefore, the administrative law judge denied the claim.

¶ 4. Woolfolk appealed to the Full Commission. In a split decision, the Commission reversed the administrative law judge and held that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that Woolfolk suffered a compensable work-related injury. Upon appeal by Fresenius and Continental, the Yazoo County Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the Commission.

¶ 5. The operative facts are these: Stella Woolfolk worked as a registered nurse at Central Dialysis Center in Yazoo City, Mississippi. She became ill on the morning of March 28, 2000, after receiving a telephone call at work between 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. from a patient who had undergone dialysis at the clinic the day before. The patient told Woolfolk that the patient thought that the patient was over her proper fluid weight and was experiencing shortness of breath. Shortness of breath is a known symptom of fluid retention in dialysis patients, and on the rare occasion this occurs, the patient is asked to come back for re-dialysis the next day. Woolfolk advised the patient to return to the clinic for re-dialysis after determining that a place was available that morning. Thereafter Woolfolk proceeded to review the patient's chart with a coworker.

¶ 6. Within about five minutes after taking the phone call, Woolfolk called for a coworker to help her, stating that her head was hurting. By the time her coworker reached her, Woolfolk began to complain that her legs were feeling weak. Woolfolk asked one of her coworkers to assist her to a chair. After assisting Woolfolk to a chair, the coworker propped up Woolfolk's legs. Woolfolk began rubbing her own legs. Woolfolk also put her hands behind her head and neck and stated that she had a headache. She became unresponsive. A coworker immediately checked Woolfolk's blood pressure, but the pressure was reportedly too high to be recorded on the automatic machine. A manual machine was then used and a reading of more than 200 over more than 130 was obtained. Woolfolk's speech became slurred, and she became agitated and scared. Woolfolk then became disoriented and an ambulance was summoned by a call to 911. Emergency personnel soon arrived and obtained a blood pressure reading of 232 over 114.

¶ 7. Due to the very high reading, Woolfolk was transported to King's Daughters Hospital where a brain scan was done. The scan showed that she had a brain hemorrhage, and she was immediately transported by ambulance to University Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi. Testing revealed that Woolfolk had a pre-existing five millimeter aneurysm that ruptured, resulting in a stroke.

¶ 8. Woolfolk underwent surgical procedures for her aneurysm at the University Medical Center on March 28 and 29, 2000, after which she improved to be awake, alert, and oriented with good speech and no focal neurologic changes. However, nine days following her hemorrhage, she became confused. On April 6, 2000, Woolfolk underwent an angioplasty procedure. Woolfolk never regained consciousness after receiving the angioplasty procedure, and she remained in a vegetative state until her death on February 28, 2003. She was fifty-six years old.

¶ 9. Dorothea Lockwood, Woolfolk's supervisor, testified by stipulation that Woolfolk was a competent nurse who always received positive annual evaluations. Lockwood stated that Woolfolk had never received a written reprimand, although she had received a "correction" once for failing to contact a patient's physician before changing the patient's calcium. Lockwood went on to state that by the time she arrived at work on March 28, 2000, the ambulance had already arrived to attend to Woolfolk. Lockwood also stated that before Woolfolk was carried out, Woolfolk simply told her, "Hi, Dorothea, I just got a headache." Woolfolk did not make any other statements before being taken to the hospital.

¶ 10. Lockwood remembered talking to the patient, who telephoned Woolfolk, when the patient came to the dialysis center that morning, and the patient was not upset over the fact that she had to come back for additional dialysis. According to Lockwood, it is not unusual for patients to be re-dialyzed, and Woolfolk followed the standard protocol by having the patient come back that morning. Also, according to Lockwood, Woolfolk never liked to re-dialyze patients, but she knew that it was protocol to do so when necessary. Lockwood stated that the type of incident involving the patient who called on the morning of March 28, 2000, was a common event in all dialysis centers operated by Fresenius, and such incidents had happened before and have happened since Woolfolk's aneurysm ruptured. Lockwood also stated that Woolfolk would not have been reprimanded for the incident.

¶ 11. Keith Alderman supervised the nine dialysis centers operated by Fresenius in Mississippi. In his stipulated testimony, Alderman stated that he generally telephoned once a week and visited the Yazoo City facility once a month and that at no time did Woolfolk ever mention or complain to him about any problems she might be having at work. Alderman's stipulated testimony corroborated Lockwood's testimony that (1) Woolfolk followed standard protocol in having the patient come back in to be re-dialyzed, (2) Woolfolk would not have been reprimanded for having the patient be re-dialyzed, (3) patients being re-dialyzed are not an every day occurrence, and (4) patients sometimes have to be re-dialyzed.

¶ 12. Shirley Broomfield, a very good friend of Woolfolk, was a registered nurse and a staff nurse at Central Dialysis Center. In her stipulated testimony, Broomfield confirmed that Woolfolk sought her assistance after taking the phone call from the patient that wanted to be re-dialyzed. Broomfield testified that Woolfolk complained of a headache and that her legs were weak, but Woolfolk never said anything to her about being upset over the phone call from the dialysis patient on the morning of March 28, 2000. Broomfield acknowledged that patients occasionally had to be re-dialyzed and that such an event was not unusual, although it was rare.

¶ 13. Daphne Bryant, a patient care technician at Central Dialysis, was on duty on the same shift as Woolfolk on the morning of March 28, 2000. In her stipulated testimony, Bryant stated that she and Woolfolk reviewed the treatment sheet of the dialysis patient who called on the morning of March 28, 2000, and it was their opinion that there was no reason for the patient to come back in, but it was normal protocol to have the patient come back if the patient wanted to do so. According to Bryant, Woolfolk was never upset during Woolfolk's discussion about the patient coming back in, but was only concerned about whether or not the patient would actually need to be re-dialyzed. Bryant stated that there was never any discussion about Woolfolk's job being in jeopardy or about Woolfolk being reprimanded by her supervisor because of the patient having to be re-dialyzed. Bryant also stated that following the phone call from the patient, Woolfolk was concerned only as a nurse would normally be concerned about a patient, but nothing out of the ordinary happened involving the phone call.

¶ 14. Woolfolk's mother, Alice Tate, Glen Woolfolk, and Angela Garner, the mother of Woolfolk's grandchild, each testified that they heard Woolfolk state either that her job was stressful or that she had a stressful relationship with her supervisor, Lockwood.

¶ 15. It was stipulated that Woolfolk had no recorded medical history of elevated blood pressure prior to March 28, 2000, and that her initial blood pressure reading, as obtained by emergency personnel at around 6:00 a.m. on March 28, 2000, was 232 over 114. This was a very high pressure reading.

¶ 16. Dr. Lynn Stringer, a Jackson neurosurgeon, testified in support of Woolfolk's claim. Dr. Stringer never treated...