George E. Ingram v. James Conrad, Administrator, Bureau of Workers' Compensation, and Athens Plastics, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 December 2001 |
| Docket Number | 01-LW-5285,01CA36 |
| Parties | GEORGE E. INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JAMES CONRAD, ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, AND ATHENS PLASTICS, INC. Defendants-Appellees Case |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: George M. Sarap, 51 North High Street, Suite 400B, Columbus, Ohio 43215
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION: Betty D Montgomery and Phil Wright, Jr., 140 East Town Street, 15t h Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE ATHENS PLASTICS, INC.: Joan M. Verchot, 1900 Chemed Center, 255 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
This is an appeal from an Athens County Common Pleas Court summary judgment in favor of James Conrad, Administrator of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation, and Athens Plastics Inc., defendants below and appellees herein.
George E. Ingram, plaintiff below and appellant herein, assigns the following error for review:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS NO ISSUE OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF COULD PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND FOR THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT."
In 1967, appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident. As a result of the injuries he received in the accident, his spleen was removed. The spleen is an organ that fights infection. Thus, a person without a spleen carries a greater risk of infection.
In 1998, appellant was employed as the general manager for Athens Plastics, Inc. Between January and April of 1998, in order to help the plant function smoothly, appellant worked almost seven days per week, sometimes up to twenty hours per day.
On April 28, 1998, appellant was admitted to Adena Hospital Emergency Room with flu-like symptoms. Doctors determined that appellant had become infected with pneumococcal pneumonia. Later the same day, appellant was transferred to Grant Memorial Hospital in Columbus "with problems stemming from overwhelming post splenectomy Pneumococcal sepsis." Appellant subsequently lapsed into a coma, had renal failure, suffered "massive damage to the skin from dermal hemorrhages," and "suffered clotting of the distal vasculature of all four extremities." Eventually appellant's doctors found it necessary to amputate portions of appellant's arms and legs.
Appellant filed a First Report of Injury report with the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation. He sought compensation for the complication of injuries he suffered as a result of contracting pneumococcal pneumonia. Appellant claimed that due to the stressful situation at work, his body became "run down" and that he contracted the germ that caused his illness while at work. Appellant's claim for benefits was denied at all administrative levels.
On December 29, 1999, appellant filed a complaint against appellees in the Athens County Common Pleas Court. Appellant's complaint alleged that on April 28, 1999, he sustained an injury in the course of and arising out of his employment. He claimed that his injuries included pneumococcal pneumonia, pneumococcal infection, immunocompromise, loss of both kidneys, and loss of both arms and legs. Appellant alternatively claimed that he contracted an occupational disease. He demanded that he be allowed to participate in the State Insurance Fund for his injuries or occupational disease.
Appellees denied appellant's claim. In their joint motion for summary judgment, appellees argued that no genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether appellant: (1) was injured while in the course of and arising out of employment; or (2) contracted an occupational disease. Appellees referred to Dr. Rodney K. Kusumi's deposition testimony. Dr. Kusumi is the consulting physician who treated appellant at Grant Hospital. In his deposition, Dr. Kusumi stated that whether appellant contracted pneumococcal pneumonia at work was simply not provable. Dr. Kusumi further opined that appellant's illness was not stress-related. Instead, Dr. Kusumi stated that appellant likely contracted the infection due to his lack of a spleen. Dr. Kusumi explained that an individual without a spleen is more susceptible to infection.
Appellant, on the other hand, asserted that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether he suffered an injury in the course of and arising out of employment and as to whether he contracted an occupational disease.
In support of his argument, appellant referred to the deposition testimony of Dr. Charles V. Mattingly, appellant's expert medical witness. Dr. Mattingly, like Dr. Kusumi, stated that a person without a spleen has a greater risk of infection. Dr. Mattingly also stated that a person lacking a spleen is more susceptible to pneumococcal bacteria, the bacteria that infected appellant, but that he disagreed with Kusumi's opinion that appellant's lack of a spleen was the most likely cause of his illness. Rather, Dr. Mattingly explained that the pneumococcal bacteria is largely spread by human contact and that a person could be exposed to the bacteria anywhere. He stated that although he could not pinpoint the location where appellant contracted the bacteria, he believed "[t]here wold be a high probability," that appellant contracted the bacteria at work. Mattingly explained: "It's highly probable that his close association in that area, assuming when he went home he was not frequenting bars and going into other enclosed areas, that it most of all probably was at the workplace." Mattingly continued to acknowledge, however, that one cannot really know where one contracts bacteria.
Mattingly also indicated that (1) a person with a weakened immune system is more susceptible to contracting the bacteria, and (2) chronic stress and fatigue can influence the immune system's response and increase the risk of disease. Mattingly explained that "high levels of chronic stress have been associated with an increased susceptibility to infectious disease." He opined that chronic stress "certainly could be a direct cause and effect" of an infectious disease.
Mattingly further stated that appellant's asplenic condition, plus his chronic stress, could "produce a certain breakdown in the immune system or make him immunodepressed to the point that he had an overwhelming infection." Mattingly opined that appellant's chronic stress and fatigue were a direct and proximate cause of the immunocompromise and stated that a "high probability" existed that appellant's immunocompromise resulted from his course of employment. Mattingly further testified that appellant's immunocompromised condition was a direct and proximate cause of appellant's renal failure and of his amputations. Mattingly explained that multiple causes could have contributed to appellant's immunocompromised condition, including his lack of a spleen and the excessive stress associated with his employment.
With respect to whether appellant contracted an occupational disease, Mattingly stated that: (1) he did not know whether a greater hazard of developing the illness existed at Athens Plastic than anywhere else; and (2) he did not know if employment at Athens Plastic created a risk of contracting the disease in greater degree and in a different manner from the public in general.
Later in his deposition, however, Mattingly stated that appellant's employment resulted in a hazard, which distinguishes the employment in character from employment generally, because of appellant's position of high responsibility. Mattingly stated: "[Appellant] was highly predisposed to an infection due to the position of being a manger at this workplace and the excessive stress." Mattingly explained that appellant's employment created a risk of becoming immunocompromised in greater degree and in a different manner from the public in general.
When asked about his apparent inconsistent answers, Mattingly stated that he did not believe his answers were inconsistent. Instead, Mattingly explained that his first responses related to questions posed in the abstract and that his second responses related to questions posed based upon a hypothetical. Mattingly stated: "The excessive stress that [appellant] endured differentiates him from being in a plastics factory that may or may not have predisposed factors or a manger who may or may not have predisposing problems."
On June 14, 2001, the trial court granted appellees summary judgment. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that several genuine issues of material fact remain to be determined at trial. Specifically, appellant contends that reasonable minds can differ as to whether: (1) he sustained an injury in the course of and arising out of employment, and (2) he contracted an occupational disease.
With respect to his claim that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether he suffered an injury, appellant argues that evidence exists to indicate that he contracted the illness at work and that the illness was a direct and proximate cause of his injuries.
Appellant further asserts that the excessive stress and fatigue that his work caused resulted in appellant's immune system being compromised, thus exposing appellant to a greater risk of infection, which, in turn, caused appellant's injuries. Appellant argues that the chronic stress and fatigue began the chain of causation that led to his injuries: (1) the chronic stress and fatigue that his work created led to his immunocompromised condition; (2) his immunocompromised condition led to his illness; (3) his illness led to pneumococcal sepsis; (4) pneumococcal sepsis led to his renal failure and amputations.
App...
To continue reading
Request your trial