Madison v. International Paper Co.

• Decision Date: 06 July 2004
• Docket Number: No. COA03-815.,COA03-815.
• Citation: 598 S.E.2d 196,165 NC App. 144
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Mary Brown MADISON, as Guardian of Leonard Todd Madison, her minor son, and as Widow of Leonard E. Madison, Deceased Employee, Plaintiffs v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Employer, Self-Insured, (Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Servicing Agent), Defendants.

598 S.E.2d 196

165 NC App. 144

Mary Brown MADISON, as Guardian of Leonard Todd Madison, her minorson, and as Widow of Leonard E. Madison, DeceasedEmployee, Plaintiffs v.INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Employer, Self-Insured, (Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Servicing Agent), Defendants.

No. COA03-815.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 6, 2004.

Taft, Taft & Haigler, P.A., by Thomas F. Taft; Brannon Strickland, P.L.L.C., by Anthony M. Brannon, Greenville, for plaintiff-appellees.

Hedrick & Morton, L.L.P., by G. Grady Richardson, Jr. and P. Scott Hedrick, Wilmington, for defendant-appellants.

HUNTER, Judge.

International Paper Company("International Paper") and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company(collectively "defendants") appeal from an opinion and award of the Full Commission of the North Carolina Industrial Commission("the Commission") filed 28 March 2003 awarding benefits to Mary Brown Madison, as Guardian of Leonard Todd Madison, and as widow of Leonard E. Madison("plaintiffs").Because the Commission correctly found that Leonard E. Madison("Madison") was exposed to special heat conditions, which contributed to his fatal heart attack, and concluded that Madison's death was the result of an injury by accident arising out of his employment, we affirm.

The evidence before the Commission tends to show that on 15 August 1997, Madison was sixty years of age and had worked for International Paper and its predecessors since 1979.He was employed as a 5A or B utility worker or assistant whose job duties included vacuuming lint filters in the "Carolina King" pulp dryer, which would take in wet pulp and dry it, turning the pulp into a continuous sheet of paper.The Carolina King pulp dryer was estimated to be at least half a football field in length and consisted of four levels.Each level had thirty doors that opened into the dryer that were accessible via catwalks along the levels.Temperatures inside the dryer ranged from 220 to possibly up to 300 degrees Fahrenheit.With the doors closed the dryer radiated heat exceeding ninety degrees Fahrenheit.The dryer was located in a building with large fans, but that was not air conditioned except for a control room, which included a break area for employees.

Each utility worker was required to vacuum one level of the dryer at some point during their shift.The worker would open a door, reach up into the dryer, and vacuum the lint filters located about ten feet high.The process would be repeated for each door on a level and would take two or three minutes per door and last from an hour to an hour and a half.

Madison was observed vacuuming lint filters at around 9:00 p.m., during the last two hours of his shift on 15 August 1997, and eventually clocked out at 10:36 p.m. that evening.Madison drove to the main gate of the paper mill and told the security officer that he was having chest pain and needed medical assistance.Madison's supervisor came to the gate and found Madison sitting in his truck.Madison was sweaty and stated that he"thought he had gotten too hot."As Madison was being transported to the hospital by ambulance, he suffered a major heart attack and died.

An autopsy by Dr. J.L. Almeida revealed Madison had an enlarged heart with a hypertrophic left ventricle, severe coronary artery atherosclerosis, an enlarged liver and spleen, and mild nephrosclerosis of the kidneys.These findings were consistent with significant coronary artery disease and hypertension.This included one primary coronary artery that was ninety-five percent (95%) blocked with plaque and Dr. Almeida testified that Madison was "a heart attack waiting to happen."Dr. Almeida concluded that Madison died from "ischemic heart disease with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with a contributing factor being physical activity in a hot environment."There was no evidence Madison suffered the heart attack because of heat stroke or heat exhaustion.

Plaintiffs presented deposition testimony from Dr. Mark Friend, an industrial safety professional, as an expert in industrial safety.Dr. Friend based his expert testimony on his own inspection of the International Paper plant and his subsequent report, as well as his recollection of testimony presented before the deputy commissioner at the hearing.Dr. Friend stated that in his opinion the International Paper plant violated safety regulations by failing to have anyone directly monitoring employees vacuuming the lint filters in the dryer.Furthermore, by allowing unsupervised employees to even break the threshold of the doors to the dryer, which he described as a "permit-required confined space" meaning it was not fit for continuous human occupancy, International Paper, in Dr. Friend's opinion, was in violation of government safety regulations.

During his inspection, Dr. Friend took measurements of the heat radiating from the doors which averaged around ninety degrees Fahrenheit.Although he did not measure temperature inside the doors, Dr. Friend testified that in adjusting his equipment during the inspection, he had received a first-degree burn on his hand from the inside of the dryer door.¹He testified that, based on his own research and experimentation, it would have required heat in excess of 200 hundred degrees Fahrenheit to cause such a burn from contact with metal.Moreover, Dr. Friend observed that there was nowhere available where an employee would be likely to take a break in the middle of cleaning the lint filters.Thus, it would be more likely an employee would simply attempt to work straight through and finish the job.

In his opinion, the working conditions under which employees at International Paper were required to clean the lint filters of the dryer were "very unsafe.These people were subjected to high levels of ... heat ... and they were subjected for periods of time that would be in violation of all standards."Dr. Friend concluded in his report that Madison's death was a "heat stress death."Dr. Friend based his conclusion on the exposure to high levels of heat, which were measured at temperatures up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit outside the threshold of the dryer doors and that he described as like opening "a pizza oven," as well as his review of the circumstances surrounding Madison's death.

In addition, Dr. Franklin Tew, an expert in cardiology testified that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, heat was a significant contributing factor in Madison's heart attack.Dr. Tew based his opinion on his knowledge of Madison's health condition, and the temperatures to which Madison would have been exposed.In addition, Dr. Tew testified his belief that heat played a contributing role in Madison's heart attack was based on his own observations in clinical practice that heart disease patients "did worse in the summer than in the winter"; the use by heart surgeons of cardioplegia, the practice of stopping the heart and keeping it cool to prevent the expenditure of energy stored during surgery; the fact that as temperature increases, the body heats up and the heart is required to work harder; that heat may be linked to increased susceptibility to arrythmia; and that heat is a stressor to the body that can precipitate a heart attack in someone susceptible to coronary heart disease.

Dr. Almeida opined that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the circumstances around Madison's death, "of temperature and physical activity would be a stressful environment stressing the cardiovascular system of an individual.And that an individual with not much cardiovascular reserve would be extremely compromised."Dr. Almeida further opined that "the temperatures would be a contributing factor" to Madison's heart attack and "working in a hot environment would have stressed [Madison's] cardiovascular system and would have caused his heart attack."

The Commission in its ultimate finding of fact found:

17.[Madison] was never diagnosed with heat stroke.He died due to cardiac arrest associated in part with his preexisting medical conditions.In fact, [Madison's] coronary artery occlusion was a "widow maker" — a medical term which refers to the severity and the location of his coronary artery occlusion.The medical evidence, however, particularly from the second deposition of Dr. Almeida and from his autopsy report, establishes that a "contributing factor" to the heart attack was [Madison's] work "in a hot environment."Although the evidence does not establish that [Madison] suffered from heat exhaustion or heat stroke, the uncontroverted medical evidence is that decedent was exposed to a "special hazard," heat, in the course of his employment and that the "special hazard" was a contributing factor to his heart attack and death.

The Commission concluded as a matter of law:

1.On [15 August]1997, [Madison] sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with [International Paper]....Plaintiff[s] ha[ve] established that [Madison's] employment subjected him to a particular or special hazard from the elements which caused his heart attack and resulting death.

The issues presented on appeal are whether (I) there was sufficient evidence to support the Commission's finding that exposure to special hazard heat was a contributing factor to Madison's heart attack and death, and (II) the Commission's findings supported its conclusion that Madison's heart attack was a compensable injury by accident caused by special hazard heat.

I.

Defendants first contend that there was no evidence to support the Commission's finding that exposure to special hazard or excessive heat was a contributing factor in Madison's death.

Appellate courts reviewing decisions of the Commission are "limited to reviewing whether any competent evidence supports the Commission's findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support the Commission's conclusions of law."Deese v. Champion Int'l Corp.,352 N.C....