Mataraza v. City of Euclid
| Decision Date | 09 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 95830.,95830. |
| Citation | 2011 -Ohio- 2795,193 Ohio App.3d 479,952 N.E.2d 574 |
| Parties | MATARAZA, Appellant,v.CITY OF EUCLID et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bentoff & Duber Co., L.P.A., Glen S. Richardson, Cleveland, for appellant.Millison & Nobil Co., L.P.A., Mark E. Snyder, Jason M. Baasten, for the city of Euclid.Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, Vincent T. Lombardo, Assistant Attorney General, for the Bureau of Workers' Compensation.MARY EILEEN KILBANE, Judge.
[Ohio App.3d 480] {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Kim Mataraza, appeals from the order of the trial court that awarded summary judgment to the city of Euclid, thereby reversing her award of workers' compensation surviving-spouse death benefits. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{¶ 2} Mataraza's late husband, James Mataraza (referred to herein as “James” or “the decedent”), began working as a firefighter for the city of Euclid in 1991. On January 19, 2005, James, who was then 41 years old, suffered a fatal heart attack. Mataraza filed a request for determination of death benefits for “accident/occupational disease” with the Bureau of Workers' Compensation. According to Mataraza, James's heart disease was “caused or contributed to by the cumulative effect of exposure to heat, the inhalation of smoke, toxic gasses, chemical fumes and other substances in the performance of his duties [as a firefighter] over the prior fourteen years,” and was therefore a work-related death under the rebuttable presumption codified at R.C. 4123.68(W).
{¶ 3} On January 5, 2006, the administrator of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation denied the claim, noting:
The decedent's death did not occur in the course of and arising out of employment. The employee was not on property owned or controlled by the [Ohio App.3d 481] employer. * * * There is no medical documentation to indicate the death was caused by employment.
{¶ 4} Mataraza appealed the administrator's decision to the district hearing officer (“DHO”). Following a hearing on September 14, 2006, the DHO concluded that the “[d]eceased claimant was a firefighter who died from atherosclerotic heart disease. Per Ohio Revised code 4123.68, the claim is referred for qualified medical specialist review.
{¶ 5} Dr. Alan Kravitz, Euclid's expert, and Dr. Haridas Biswas, Mataraza's expert, subsequently reviewed the matter. Following a second hearing before the DHO on January 8, 2007, the DHO concluded:
It is the finding of the District Hearing Officer that the date of diagnosis is 01/19/05 [the date of James's death]. Employment [sic].
District Hearing Officer finds decedent's occupation as a firefighter to be a contributing factor to the decedent's coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction resulting in death per Dr. Kravitz review dated 09/16/2006 and the 12/01/2006 [Dr. Haridas] Biswas review.
District Hearing Officer further finds the surviving spouse Kimberly Mataraza to be wholly dependent upon decedent for support at the time of death * * *.
{¶ 6} Euclid appealed this decision to a staff hearing officer (“SHO”). The SHO heard the matter on March 9, 2007, and on March 13, 2007, the SHO affirmed the award of surviving-spouse death benefits.
{¶ 7} Euclid filed a further appeal on March 19, 2007, and on April 10, 2007, the SHO released the following decision:
[I]t is ordered that the Appeal filed 03/19/2007 by the Employer from the order issued 03/13/2007 by the Staff Hearing Officer be refused and that copies of this order be mailed to all interested parties.
This appeal was reviewed by two Staff Hearing Officers on behalf of the Commission. Both Staff Hearing Officers concur with this decision.
{¶ 8} Euclid filed an appeal to the court of common pleas on April 10, 2007, which was subsequently dismissed. On February 2, 2009, a new complaint was filed in the matter.
{¶ 9} On May 4, 2010, Euclid filed a motion for summary judgment. Euclid acknowledged that R.C. 4123.68 creates a rebuttable presumption that when a firefighter suffers cardiovascular, pulmonary, or respiratory disease, the disease occurs in the course of and arising out of his employment where it is caused or induced by the cumulative effect of exposure to heat, the inhalation of smoke, toxic gases, chemical fumes, and other toxic substances in the performance of his [Ohio App.3d 482] duty. Euclid maintained, however, that James had cardiovascular disease prior to becoming a firefighter, and that the aggravation of this preexisting disease is not compensable.
{¶ 10} In support of its motion, Euclid submitted the April 14, 2010 report of Dr. Kravitz that states as follows:
I believe Mr. Mataraza's death was secondary to his duties as a firefighter. These are arduous work, working in an active fire, superheated flames, dragging heavy hoses and the like. Indeed, it is a time when a firefighter is fearful for his very life. It is certain [James] had atherosclerosis prior to any fire-fighting due to his family history and hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol). His cholesterol was extraordinarily high at 269, his LDL, or bad cholesterol, at 197 (nl less than 80). The descriptions I have referred to of his occupation as a firefighter are indeed stressful and accordingly aggravated the preexisting conditions stated. * * * Specifically, his infarction was predetermined, but for a time later in life were it not for his occupation. The thrombosis in his left anterior descending artery was in fact the cause of his infarction although it manifested itself (although present) days before. The coroner's report shows severe atherosclerosis, 90% occlusion with acute plaque rupture and thrombosis clot in the left anterior descending arteries with resultant recent myocardial infarction. I have described in great detail the chores of a firefighter. They are certainly different from those of an average worker. In addition to the statements above, there is a very high degree of stress associated with this job. Such stress is known to make platelets ‘sticky’ or aggregate, which caused the occlusion.
* * * It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and probability that the sequence of events, i.e., aggravation of pre-existing condition, is directly and proximately related to his work as a firefighter.
{¶ 11} In opposition, Mataraza asserted that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether she is entitled to compensation: (1) Did James have preexisting heart disease at the time he was hired as a firefighter at age 27? and (2) Was James's fatal heart attack an injury occasioned by stress experienced in the course of and arising out of his employment? Mataraza noted that prior to becoming a firefighter, James had never been diagnosed with cardiovascular disease. In addition, James passed his 1991 preemployment physical, and there was no finding of cardiovascular disease at that time.
{¶ 12} Mataraza cited the April 14, 2010 report of Dr. Kravitz, quoted above, and also presented the December 1, 2006 report of Dr. Biswas, which stated:
1. The claimant's death and autopsy report suggests that the patient had coronary artery disease. It appears that the patient's death was due to sequelae of the patient's coronary atherosclerosis. This appears to be preexisting[Ohio App.3d 483] conditions [sic] in terms of the timing of death. There is no direct causation of his death as a firefighter for City of Euclid.
2. The patient definitely had preexisting atherosclerotic heart disease but the duration is not known. Normally, coronary artery disease or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a multifactorial disease. The risks of the disease include a lot of significant diseases including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and coronary artery disease as well as stress factors. Although his death was not directly related to his duty as a firefighter, there were aggravations related by his duty in terms of significant stress and exposure to other harmful chemicals, etc.
3. I do not feel that the aggravations from his job duties were a direct causation of his death. As mentioned above, the coronary artery disease has multiple risk factors including the job duties and activities as well as stress, but it is not the total or only aggravating risk factors for his death.
4. The coroner's report indicated the patient had a fatal disease with significant myocardial infarctions and acute myocardial infarctions. The patient also had significant atherosclerotic heart disease. The report indicated immediate causes of the patient's death. However, as mentioned above, I feel the combination of multiple factors was coronary atherosclerosis which has multiple risk factors as mentioned above and the stress of the job duties as a firefighter was significant and that is one of the aggravating risk factors.
However, because of the lack of the patient's previous medical history including the status of multiple risk factors for coronary artery disease, it is not possible at this time to determine what percent of the patient's ultimate demise or death was the result of the patient's job stress.
{¶ 13} Euclid filed a reply brief. With regard to the claim for recovery for a cardiovascular disease occurring in the course of and arising out of James's employment, Euclid presented the May 27, 2010 report of its medical expert, Dr. Harris, who indicated that at the time he was hired, James had a number of risk factors for the potential development of coronary artery disease, including elevated cholesterol and triglyceride levels, smoking, and a family history of cardiovascular disease. Dr. Harris opined that James's “occupation as a Firefighter did not cause or contribute to the development of his coronary artery disease.” Dr. Harris noted that James's work records from 1991 to 1999, or the first eight years of James's...
To continue reading
Request your trial