Adkins v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings
This text of Adkins v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings (Adkins v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
2. The employee died on September 25, 1998. His Certificate of Death indicates that he died as a result of adult respiratory distress syndrome and nosocomial aspiration pneumonitis.
3. On September 22, 1999, Dr. Arthur Frank notified plaintiff's counsel in writing that plaintiff suffered from asbestosis and colon cancer due to occupational exposure to asbestos.
4. Plaintiff initiated the subject claim by filing a Form 18B, dated March 3, 2000, claiming injury and death resulting from exposure to asbestos. The employer listed on the Form 18B was Broyhill Furniture Industries, Inc. ("Broyhill"). Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Inc. ("Drexel") was not listed on the Form 18B. The Form 18B also listed the medical conditions of asbestosis and colon cancer as the medical conditions for the subject action based on the findings of Dr. Arthur Frank.
5. The competent evidence in the record establishes that when the plaintiff initially filed her claim she believed there was exposure at Broyhill. Subsequent to the filing of the claim, it became abundantly clear that exposure at Broyhill was questionable. At that point, plaintiff was sure of some exposure at Drexel.
6. In discovery responses dated December 2000, plaintiff cited the deceased employee's exposure to asbestos at Drexel.
7. Consequently, on February 25, 2002, plaintiff filed a Motion to Add Additional Parties to the previously filed workers' compensation claim. On March 4, 2002, Executive Secretary Tracey H. Weaver added "Drexel Furniture Enterprises, Inc." and its respective workers' compensation carriers" as parties to the claim.
8. Drexel denied the claim with a Form 61 in August 2002.
9. The Full Commission finds that it is common practice at the Industrial Commission to allow both plaintiffs and defendants to add additional parties. This exists oftentimes in complex asbestosis cases because of the myriad of issues often associated with the lengthy period between the possible exposure and the diagnosis date and also due to the difficulties in ascertaining insurance coverage for past employments.
10. Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff filed her motion to add Drexel Heritage Furnishings on February 25, 2002, the Full Commission finds that because asbestosis cases are complex cases often involving difficult issues, which often take a long time to obtain relevant and necessary information to prosecute and to defend, and due to the common practice of adding parties at the Industrial Commission, the plaintiff's Motion to Add Drexel Heritage Furnishings as an additional party in this asbestosis claim should be granted.
2. Each side shall pay its own costs.
This the ___ day of June 2005.
S/_____________ PAMELA T. YOUNG COMMISSIONER
CONCURRING:
S/______________________ LAURA KRANIFELD MAVRETIC COMMISSIONER
S/_______________ CHRISTOPHER SCOTT COMMISSIONER
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Adkins v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adkins-v-drexel-heritage-furnishings-ncworkcompcom-2005.