Wheeler v. Glens Falls Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 July 1974
• Citation: 513 S.W.2d 179
• Parties: Alma G. WHEELER v. GLENS FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY and the City of Oak Ridge.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 179

513 S.W.2d 179

Alma G. WHEELER v. GLENS FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY and the City of Oak Ridge.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

July 15, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 26, 1974.

E. Bruce Foster, Jr., Ronald C. Koksal, Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, Knoxiville, for appellants.

H. Calvin Walter, Walter, Gilbertson & Claiborne, Knoxville, for appellee.

OPINION

McCANLESS, Justice.

This is a workman's compensation case in which the employee, Joseph G. Wheeler, sustained an injury from a fall in the course of his employment, but in which death resulted from complications arising out of chronic alcoholism. The case raises three distinct issues: whether there was material evidence to support the trial court's judgment awarding compensation benefits to Wheeler's widow; whether the injury was the proximate cause of the death for which plaintiff seeks compensation benefits; and whether decedent's heavy drinking amounted to 'willful misconduct', thus barring recovery under the Tennessee Workmen's Compensation Law.

The record in the trial shows that Wheeler, an Oak Ridge policeman, was injured on January 13, 1970, when he slipped on an icy street and fell on his back. The fall aggravated degenerative arthritis in his back and neck, resulting in extreme pain in these areas. Wheeler continued to work until January 24, when the pain forced him to stay home until February 20, 1970. His return to work lasted only two days, when the pain forced him to quit again. He returned on April 6, 1970, but on this day was able to work for only two hours. For these periods, a total of ten weeks, the defendant, Glen Falls Insurance Company, paid the decedent temporary total disability benefits.

At the time of his injury, the decedent had a history of alcoholism and its related diseases. The family physician, Dr. Charles Gurney, first saw him in 1965 and found evidence of alcoholism. Wheeler was hospitalized in the Oak Ridge Hospital in 1966 and was found to have pancreatitis and cirrhosis of the liver. He was hospitalized again in 1967 and the same diseases were diagnosed. The record shows that the decedent was drinking heavily at this time as a result of marital difficulties.

There is no medical record of any treatment of these diseases between his discharge from Oak Ridge Hospital in 1967 and the injury in January, 1970. Following Wheeler's absences from work because of pain resulting from his accident, he was admitted to Oak Ridge Hospital again on April 27, 1970. He had been drinking heavily, according to the testimony of his wife, to relieve the pain in his back and neck. Shortly after admittance, he was treated for acute delirium tremens. His doctors again found pancreatitis and cirrhosis to be present. After his discharge, Wheeler was found to have a marked enlargement of the liver on July 1, 1970. On July 23, 1970, he was admitted to the hospital in a comatose state. He died early the next morning. Dr. Alex Carabia, who performed the autopsy, stated that the immediate cause of death was 'acute necrotizing pancreatitis, and he has as a contributing factor bilateral lobular pneumonia, and also cirrhosis of the liver.'

The widow, Alma G. Wheeler, filed this action seeking medical and funeral benefits, and maximum benefits as decedent's widow under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The trial judge of the Law and Equity Court of Anderson County allowed the maximum benefits. Defendants prayed for and were granted this appeal.

The first two assignments of error arise out of the basic disagreement between the parties as to the cause of death and its relation to the injury. The plaintiff contends that her husband drank heavily, and unintentionally precipitated his own death in order to alleviate the pain and despair which rsulted from his injury. The defendants contend that Wheeler's death resulted from longstanding alcoholism which originated before the decedent's compensable injury, and which was unrelated to the injury.

We are unable to agree with the defendants in their first assignment, that is, that the record contains no material evidence to support the judgment of the trial judge in upholding the plaintiff's theory of the case. While we agree that the decedent had a background of alcoholism before the injury, we are persuaded by testimony in the record that his consumption of alcohol increased greatly after, and as a direct result of, the injury. His widow testified, for example, as follows:

'Q Now Mrs. Wheeler, prior to that time (the injury), was your husband in good health?

'A Well, he seemed to be yes.

'Q And working regularly?

'A He did.

'Q And let me ask you concerning his drinking habits. Was he a social drinker? Did he drink prior to the accident?

'A He drank some.

'Q Did he drink very much?

'A Not too much.

'Q Now after this accident, did he have quite a bit of difficulty?

'A He was in very much pain.

'Q And to alleviate the pain, what, if anything, did he do?

'A He drank a right smart.

'Q Mrs. Wheeler, after this accident just tell what kind of problems your husband was having?

'A He was in a lot of pain. He couldn't rest and he couldn't sleep. He complained of his back and his neck.

'Q And did he take any drugs?

'A Well, he'd take some doctor medicine, whatever the doctor gave him to take.

'Q What else did he do to try to relieve his pain?

'A He drank.

'Q Did he drink quite a bit during that period of time?

'A Yes, he did.

'Q Did he continue drinking to up just prior to his death?

'A Yes, he did.'

Moreover, expert medical testimony revealed that the condition of the decedent's liver remained about the same between 1966 and 1970, but that after the injury and its resultant pain, the condition of the liver rapidly worsened. Dr. Gurney, among others, testified that the progression of cirrhosis of the liver is measured by the organ's descent below the lower margin of the rib cage as a consequence of fatty infiltration caused by heavy drinking. When the decedent was hospitalized in 1967 the measure of the liver's drop below the ribs was about four finger breadths. The measure was still four finger breadths when he was examined shortly after his injury in 1970. Just before his death, however, the decedent's liver descended to eight finger breadths. Thus, in a period of less than seven months after the injury, the liver had absorbed enough fat to have dropped twice as far as it had during the previous three years.

Dr. John P. Crews also testified to the effect that such a marked increase in alcoholic intake over a short period of time could cause an early death:

'Q Well, if a person came along and he drank, say he was a--drank pretty regularly, you might call him an alcoholic, but for some reason or other during the last three or four months of his life he drank extremely heavy, that would cause him to die sooner than if he continued in his normal pattern of drinking, wouldn't it?

'A That's a hard one to answer. Certainly if he, you know, drank enough, there's no question.

'Q The Doctor, let me ask you a question: Assume for a fact that this man did drink prior to the accident of January, 1970, and that he was hospitalized several times, attempted to go back to work unsuccessfully, but that as a result of the increased pain, and as a result of his concern about not being able to go back to work he did in fact drink considerably more between the period of January, 1970, and July, 1970, the time of his death, in your opinion did the fact that he drank more heavily during that period of time cause him to die as much as one day earlier than had he continued his normal pattern of drinking?

'A I think this would be a reasonable assumption, yes.'

There was also testimony from the decedent's fellow employees that no signs of heavy drinking or pain had been noticeable before the accident, and that such signs had become apparent after the accident.

We think the above testimony from the decedent's wife, doctors, and fellow employees is material evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that, while the decedent was an alcoholic before the accident, the injury precipitated a flurry of heavy drinking which drastically deteriorated his condition and resulted in death. The first assignment is overruled.

Defendant's second and third assignments of error both stem from the employee Wheeler's failure to heed the warnings made by his doctors that continued drinking could eventually lead to his death. The record makes it clear that these warnings were made to the decedent on more than one occasion. He was also advised by one physician that his heavy drinking could be contributing to the muscle pain in his shoulders. Defendants contend that this behavior by the decedent either, first amounted to 'intentional conduct' which broke the chain of causation between the injury and the death; or second, amounted to 'willful misconduct' which barred recovery under Section 50--910, T.C.A.

The first issue challenges the proposition that the work-related injury was the proximate cause of the death, which it must be in order for the plaintiff to recover. The general rule is expressed in 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Section 13.00 at 3--279:

'When the primary injury is shown to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury likewise arises out of the employment, unless it is the result of an independent intervening cause attributable to claimant's own intentional conduct.'

There is no question in this case but that the death of the employee was causally related to the injury, assuming momentarily no intentional conduct on his part. In fact, we have already determined this causual connection in a case with similar facts, Fennell v. Maryland Casualty Co., 208 Tenn. 116, 344 S.W.2d 352 (1961). There the employee suffered an on-the-job injury and began drinking to relieve the subsequent pain. As a result of his drinking combined with a state of malnutrition, the employee died....