Hall v. Feldspar Corp.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 23, 2006
DocketI.C. NO. 983244.
StatusPublished

This text of Hall v. Feldspar Corp. (Hall v. Feldspar Corp.) 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.

Bluebook
Hall v. Feldspar Corp., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2006).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Glenn, and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing parties have shown good ground to reconsider the evidence in this matter. Having reconsidered the evidence of record, the Full Commission hereby reverses the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award and enters the following Opinion and Award.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties as: *Page 2

STIPULATIONS
1. All the parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and this claim. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employer-employee relationship existed between the defendant-employer and the plaintiff at all relevant times herein.

3. The defendant-employer was insured for workers' compensation by The Hartford from August 1, 1993 through August 1, 1996, and by Royal Sunalliance Insurance Company from August 1, 1996 through the plaintiff's last date of employment with the defendant-employer.

4. The plaintiff's average weekly wage will be determined from a Form 22 that is to be submitted by the defendants in this matter for all relevant times herein.

5. The issues to be determined from this hearing are as follows:

a) Whether the plaintiff developed an occupational disease as a direct result of his employment with the defendant-employer?

b) If so, what, if any, benefits is the plaintiff entitled to recover under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act?

6. The Pre-Trial Agreement along with its attachments and any stipulations that have been submitted by the parties is hereby incorporated by reference herein. *Page 3

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon all the competent evidence of record, and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The plaintiff, who died after this matter was heard before the Deputy Commissioner, was born on August 11, 1939. He graduated from high school and completed Barber College in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The plaintiff operated a barber shop in Spruce Pine until September 1979. Thereafter, he worked for Southern Seating Company installing church furniture until 1986. The plaintiff was next employed by Kivetts Company until August 1988, again installing church furniture. He began working for the defendant-employer on September 2, 1988, as a fine grind operator.

2. The plaintiff worked at the Feldspar Plant in which the defendant-employer ground rock to a fine, flour-like consistency. When the material came to the fine grind machines, it was the consistency of sand. The material contained feldspar/silica. The plaintiff stated that the material looked like flour when it had come through the fine grind machines, and most people could not tell it from flour.

3. The plaintiff operated 4 machines from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. His job duties included oiling the machines, patching holes that developed in the processing of the material, checking dials, getting samples of the material, changing bins, and blowing machines.

4. The area in which the plaintiff worked was dusty. The defendant-employer provided the plaintiff with disposable masks for protection; however, these masks would become clogged by the dust, which made it difficult for the plaintiff to breathe while working. Thus, the plaintiff did not use the mask on a regular basis. *Page 4

5. Three or four times per shift, the plaintiff would climb several flights of steep stairs to a collection bin located above the milling machines to obtain samples of the flour-like material and complete tests to determine the percentage of silica it contained. In order to get the sample, the plaintiff would have to catch the ground material in a container after opening the lid to the bin. The material was at times under substantial air pressure having been transported from the milling machines to the catch bins.

6. During his regular shifts, the plaintiff was exposed to extremely dusty conditions from the ground material and at times would have to open the door of the building to get fresh air. The dust exposure was such that at the end of each shift, he would need an air hose to blow his clothes clean of the dust. The plaintiff was also required to use the air hose to clean and remove dust from the machines and equipment on a regular basis. The machines and equipment used in the processing of the fine ground rock would from time to time develop leaks, and dust would be blown into the building where the plaintiff was working. He would often stop these leaks by using a cloth. There were dust collectors located in the plaintiff's work area that would malfunction from time to time causing large amounts of fine-ground material to be discharged in the building. At times, the plaintiff would have to shovel this material to clean the area and wash down the floor with a water hose. By the end of each shift, the fine ground material would accumulate in observable amounts on the plaintiff's nose, ears, and face.

7. The plaintiff began to develop breathing problems in 1992 that became progressively worse and required hospitalization in early 1995. On or about April 24, 1995, the defendant-employer moved plaintiff to the filtration plant as a result of his breathing problems. The filtration plant processed the waste material from various areas of the facility. The plaintiff's *Page 5 exposure to dust in the filtration plant was reduced, but his breathing problems continued to worsen.

8. In March of 1999, plaintiff was admitted to Watauga Medical Center in Boone, North Carolina, after a syncopal episode. He was evaluated there for severe lung disease and systemic melanoma unrelated to his lungs. While hospitalized at that time, chest X-rays taken revealed diffuse reticular nodular patterns in both lungs. CT scans performed at that time revealed interstitial fibrosis with pulmonary emphysema. While hospitalized, the plaintiff came under the care of Dr. Robert C. Snyder, a specialist in internal medicine and the treatment of pulmonary diseases.

9. Dr. Snyder examined plaintiff for his breathing problems on March 18, 1999, at the request of the plaintiff's oncologist, Dr. Gray. Plaintiff informed Dr. Snyder at that time that he had been exposed to silica dust while working as a fine grind operator for the defendant-employer. Plaintiff also told Dr. Snyder that he smoked approximately two packs of cigarettes per day, but had cut down to ¾ of a pack per day over the preceding year. After an examination of the plaintiff, Dr. Snyder was of the opinion that the plaintiff was suffering acute respiratory failure due to low oxygen content caused by a form of pneumoconiosis, probably silicosis, as a result of his exposure to dust at work.

10. Plaintiff's chest X-ray was read by Dr. Geldmeyer, a radiologist. Dr. Geldmeyer concluded that plaintiff's X-ray was suggestive of silicosis. Plaintiff also had CT scans performed and read by Drs. Vance and Cornella, who are both radiologists. Dr. Vance reported that the CT scan revealed interstitial fibrosis with non-uniform pulmonary emphysema and small mediastinal and right pilar lymphoadenophaty.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 97-54
North Carolina § 97-54
§ 97-62
North Carolina § 97-62

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hall v. Feldspar Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-feldspar-corp-ncworkcompcom-2006.