Shadbolt v. Schneider, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 August 1985
• Docket Number: No. 8069,8069
• Citation: 1985 NMCA 86,710 P.2d 738,103 N.M. 544
• Parties: Cecil Dale SHADBOLT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCHNEIDER, INC. and CNA Insurance Companies, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Page 738

710 P.2d 738

103 N.M. 544

Cecil Dale SHADBOLT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCHNEIDER, INC. and CNA Insurance Companies,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 8069.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Aug. 20, 1985.

[103 NM 545] Byron Caton, Tansey, Rosebrough, Roberts & Gerding, P.C., Farmington, for defendants-appellants.

William H. Carpenter, Carpenter Law Offices, Ltd., Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Plaintiff, a quadriplegic as a result of a stroke, was awarded total disability benefits, medical expenses, and attorney fees under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Defendants' appeal raises the following issues: 1) whether there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding on causation; 2) whether the plaintiff's injury arose out of his employment; 3) whether the award of medical expenses for the care provided by plaintiff's wife was excessive; 4) whether the district court erred in making evidentiary findings; 5) whether the district court clerk taxed costs inconsistently with the trial court's ruling; and 6) whether the attorney fee award was an abuse of discretion. We affirm.

Defendants challenge the district court's findings as being unsupported by substantial evidence. We review the evidence in accordance with the appropriate appellate standard regarding substantial evidence. That standard requires us to review the evidence in the light most favorable to support the findings. Duran v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 83 N.M. 38, 487 P.2d 1343 (1971).

Plaintiff worked as a construction worker at a power plant. He had high blood pressure before he began working for defendant Schneider, Inc. Plaintiff began to experience difficulties at Schneider when McMillan became the foreman. Plaintiff testified that he and McMillan had repeated disagreements over McMillan's failure to follow safety rules. This testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Labossiere, a co-worker. Plaintiff claimed McMillan rushed the crew; plaintiff and McMillan also argued over the lack of "chokers" on the rigging, the overloading and positioning of cranes, the use of apprentices for tasks "in the air" for which they were inadequately trained, and the failure of McMillan to oversee the work and guard against unsafe situations. Plaintiff confronted McMillan with his concerns and then tried to have something done through the shop steward.

Plaintiff also testified that he was extremely concerned about the safety situation because he had seen others killed in this type of work. About one and one-half weeks after McMillan became foreman, plaintiff started to have headaches. These headaches followed incidents where he became angry or upset at work. On one occasion, after a crane nearly tipped over, plaintiff got a severe headache and vomited.

On the day before Thanksgiving, plaintiff's crew was given the task of installing a large duct. The duct weighed seven or eight tons. According to plaintiff and Labossiere, McMillan insisted on using an improper method of installing the duct. Finally, on the third attempt, the duct was properly installed. The crew was so upset by this incident that they decided to walk off the job.

Before the crew had left the work site, the superintendent approached and attempted to calm them down, telling them that everything would be worked out when they returned on Monday. At that pont, McMillan approached and said, "Let's settle this right now." There was a verbal confrontation between plaintiff and McMillan. Plaintiff started to walk away and then suddenly collapsed. No issue was raised at trial or on appeal that plaintiff comes within the "going and coming" rule. See NMSA 1978, Sec. 52-1-19. Plaintiff was taken to the hospital and, within twenty-four hours, was completely paralyzed.

Causation

Defendants claim there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings on causation. Defendants' theory is that the cause of plaintiff's stroke cannot be identified. They contend that the medical evidence established that there were certain "risk factors" that might have contributed to the stroke and that no one factor can be proved to have been the direct cause. Defendants also claim that plaintiff did not actually have a stroke at work. They contend that plaintiff was only suffering from the temporary effects of a transient ischemic attack when he collapsed at work, that he fully recovered from this event, and that the actual stroke, which was inevitable and which was not work connected, occurred while plaintiff was in the hospital. There was sufficient evidence upon which the trial court could have relied to reject these arguments.

Dr. Miller, a neurosurgeon, testified for plaintiff. Dr. Miller based his opinion upon the depositions and plaintiff's medical history. Dr. Miller knew of plaintiff's working conditions, his personal life, and his hypertension. Dr. Miller viewed plaintiff as a young man with hypertension who reacted severely to certain work episodes. Plaintiff's headaches were transient episodes produced by painful spasms of the cerebral artery. On plaintiff's last day of work, he "had the episode which has left him in his present condition." Each transient episode contributed to plaintiff's present condition, but the events on the last day of work produced "the straw which broke the camel's back." The plaintiff suffered a stroke at work, the effects of which progressed after he was taken to the hospital.

Dr. Miller felt that plaintiff was susceptible to stroke because of hypertension aggravated by work stress. It was probable, but not inevitable, that a stroke would have eventually occurred. However, if plaintiff had not been subject to acute stress at work, the stroke would certainly have been delayed and possibly averted altogether.

Dr. Miller described in detail the physiological process he believed produced plaintiff's stroke. Anger produces "acute stress" which can cause blood vessels to spasm, raise blood pressure, and increase the coagulability of the blood. The blood flow is retarded when the thickened blood is forced to run through the narrowed blood vessel. In this event, a clot may form, and the area supplied by the blood vessel will die. In Dr. Miller's opinion, this process began at work and continued after plaintiff had been taken to the hospital.

On cross-examination, Dr. Miller rejected defendants' theory of causation. Defense counsel attempted to get Dr. Miller to admit that none of the risk factors for stroke could be isolated as a direct cause. Dr. Miller disagreed, stating that although various factors played a role in plaintiff's stroke, the precipitating episode was the series of stressful events on the day of the stroke. Dr. Miller also expressly rejected the defense theory that plaintiff experienced only a transient attack at work. True, there was some recovery after plaintiff was taken to the hospital, but it was only superficial, due, perhaps, to some temporary collateral circulation. Even during this temporary recovery, plaintiff continued to have numbness, indicating that the stroke had begun at work.

Defendants' appellate issues on causation are answered by existing New Mexico case law. A stroke causally connected to the worker's job is compensable. Salazar v. County of Bernalillo, 69 N.M. 464, 368 P.2d 141 (1962). If work stress creates a physical injury, the injury is compensable. Little v. J. Korber & Co., 71 N.M. 294, 378 P.2d 119 (1963) (emotional upset caused heart attack); Salazar; Crane v. San Juan County, New Mexico, 100 N.M. 600, 673 P.2d 1333 (Ct.App.1983) (work stress caused high blood pressure which caused hemorrhage in eye). A preexisting condition, such as hypertension, which makes the workman more susceptible to injury, does not preclude recovery. Little v. J. Korber & Co. (arteriosclerosis); Salazar (hypertension); Bufalino v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 98 N.M. 560, 650 P.2d 844 (Ct.App.1982) (arteriosclerosis). If medical experts disagree on causation, it is up to the trier of fact to resolve the conflict. Crane (defendants argued that work and family stress were equally probable causes); Turner v. New Mexico State Highway Department, 98 N.M. 256, 648 P.2d 8 (Ct.App.1982); Bufalino.

Defendants also argue that when anger produces an injury, there has been no accident within the terms of the Act. This is incorrect. Little; Salazar. This argument would have merit if plaintiff's anger had not been reasonably related to his employment (i.e., if it did not "arise out of" his employment or if it was not "in the course of" his employment). The trial court found that "[t]he tension and disputes were not a matter of personality conflicts personal to Mr. Shadbolt, but were disputes in good faith concerning what was in the best interest of the job and the men from a safety standpoint." This finding is supported not only by the testimony of the plaintiff and Labossiere but also by the fact that the entire crew walked off the job on the day of the stroke. Given the court's findings, there is no difference between this case and Little v. J. Korber & Co., where the workman was "storming" over an error in a charge ticket, or Salazar, where the workman threw a "tantrum" over the conduct of one of his probationers.

"Arising out of"

Defendants argue that the "[t]hreshold question in this case is whether plaintiff's walking off or termination of his job was a 'risk' incident to plaintiff's employment." Defendants rely upon Kern v. Ideal Basic Industries, 101 N.M. 801, 689 P.2d 1272 (Ct.App.1984). In Kern, this Court held that a mental breakdown caused by termination from a job did not arise out of employment and, thus, was not compensable. A physician testified that Kern's illness was caused "by the trauma that he suffered at the loss of the job, not based on the job itself." The Court reasoned that, in order to satisfy the " 'arising out of' " requirement, the disability must have resulted from a risk that was " 'incident...