Hodge v. Diamond Container General Inc.

759 S.W.2d 659, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 194
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 24, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 759 S.W.2d 659 (Hodge v. Diamond Container General Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hodge v. Diamond Container General Inc., 759 S.W.2d 659, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. 1988).

Opinion

OPINION

O’BRIEN, Justice.

This appeal is from dismissal of a workers’ compensation petition. The plaintiff suffered brain damage and is totally and permanently disabled. There are factual issues involved here and the scope of review by this Court is “de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” T.C.A. § 50-6-225(e). The memorandum opinion of the trial judge substantially stated the essential evidence and we summarize from that opinion:

In January of 1986, the plaintiff was 46 years of age and was employed as a truck driver for the defendant. He had been with the defendant, or its predecessor, some 20 years. Based upon the record, the plaintiff had no prior heart troubles and was in good physical condition. On January 27, 1986, it was very cold in Chattanooga and, according to some of the testimony, it was the coldest day of the year and it was 11 degrees [660]*660Fahrenheit outside. Plaintiff had gone to work at 7:00 and worked without difficulty until he took a morning break at approximately 9:00 a.m. At that time, he took a sandwich and an apple to the break room and was observed eating the sandwich. Prior to the break, he had hooked his tractor up to a trailer that had to be moved a short distance from the loading dock. After the break, he continued and with another worker signaling him, he moved the trailer forward to the correct position. In the usual course of events, he would have jacked the trailer dolly down, disconnected the air lines, and removed the pin at the ‘fifth wheel.’ However, no witnesses were found who observed the plaintiff for the next ten to fifteen minutes. He was next seen lying flat on the grass on his back. Workmen rushed to him and they heard choking and rattling sounds in the plaintiffs chest. Medical assistance was called for and the co-employees tried to assist the plaintiff as best they could. Apparently, someone attempted CPR. However, his pulse dropped and upon the arrival of an EMT the plaintiff's heart was in ventricular fibrillation and he was essentially pulseless and non-breathing. CPR was administered and they brought him back to a sinus rhythm with the appropriate pulse and blood pressure.

There were other evidentiary findings made by the trial court which are essential to a proper resolution of this matter. He reviewed the testimony of several of plaintiffs co-workers. One of these persons testified that it “seemed” as if the [trailer] dolly was down and the air hoses were disconnected. There was circumstantial evidence that there had been some difficulty with the pin on the fifth wheel of that particular tractor. There was testimony that sometimes in cold weather it is difficult to remove the pin [when disconnecting the tractor from the trailer].

At the conclusion of the hearing the chancellor was not satisfied that the plaintiff had carried the burden of proof. Exercising an abundance of caution he elected, under the provisions of T.C.A. § 50-6-204(d)(5), to appoint a neutral physician to make an examination of the plaintiff and report his findings to the court.

Our review of the record indicates that the trial judge's findings and final order were based almost exclusively on the testimony of the three physicians who were called, one by the defendant, one by the plaintiff, and the third by the court.

Dr. Michael Love, a cardiologist, deposed by the plaintiff, examined Mr. Hodge on his admission to Erlanger Hospital. The history he received was that when plaintiff was found at work he was lying on the ground, “pulseless and non-breathing.” When the paramedics arrived they found he was in ventricular fibrillation, which is an abnormal rhythm of the heart. The paramedics defibrillated him and brought him back to a sinus rhythm with appropriate pulse and blood pressure. Dr. Love took over his care when they brought Mr. Hodge into the emergency room. His original examination revealed Hodge was in post-cardiac and respiratory arrest and had suffered severe brain damage. After a neurological examination the doctor concluded it was a high probability that he would not recover. The brain damage was caused when his heart went into ventricular fibrillation. When he stopped breathing he had no blood flow to his brain and it was probably more than four or five minutes before someone got to him to initiate cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, and that was enough to cause brain damage. He ruled out a heart attack because of the patient’s enzyme level and his electrocardiogram did not change, always showing that it was within normal limits. A CT scan of the brain was negative in reference to an aneurism. Mr. Hodge’s medical history indicated he had no prior cardiac problem or history of blood pressure and otherwise was in good health. He could not relate his medical condition to anything in his past. He made three final diagnoses in his discharge summary, (1) brain damage due to lack of oxygen secondary to cardiac and respiratory arrest; (2) akinetic mutant, which he defined as totally unresponsive, an in-limbo state where the patient’s eyes may open and [661]*661seem to roam around, but there are no other responses, the patient cannot talk or do anything for himself; (3) sudden death syndrome which he described as people who pass out suddenly or die suddenly from cardiac cause, such as a cardiac arrest or ventricular arrhythmia such as ventricular fibrillation or heart attacks. He could not document a heart attack by EKG or by enzymes. Sudden death syndrome sometimes is used as a term to put down when you do not know what else happened. He utilized that term in his discharge summary because of the ventricular fibrillation that was found. There were no specific findings to explain what happened to Mr. Hodge other than that he was working in an area that was cold and was doing some fairly vigorous work. He had not talked with anyone who had been present, but had tried to find out to get a better feel of what had occurred. His recollection was that there was not anyone close at the time that Mr. Hodge was stricken.

Dr. Edward F. Buchner, III, was called on behalf of the defendant. Dr. Buchner testified he was not certified in any specialty. He reviewed the hospital charts and the ambulance “trip report” pertaining to Mr. Hodge. He was asked a hypothetical question which we record in its entirety to further clarify the conditions under which Mr. Hodge was found:

“I want you to assume, ... with respect to Mr. Arvil Leroy Hodge, that when he was found unconscious on a grassy strip at his place of employment by some of his fellow employees ... he was choking, was rattling, his chest was rattling and choking, rattling sounds were coming from his chest, that he was perceived to have difficulty in getting his breath and breathing. I want you to assume further that there was no evidence of any bumps, any bruises, no evidence of any trauma to the head or any other part of the body. I want you to assume further that when an EMT or paramedical personnel arrived at the scene, his complexion and facial, complexion of his skin was described as being flushed. I want you to assume further that within fifteen to twenty minutes previous to that, he had been observed eating an apple and sandwich, having a cup of coffee.

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

Related

Galloway v. Memphis Drum Service
822 S.W.2d 584 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)
Bacon v. Sevier County
808 S.W.2d 46 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
759 S.W.2d 659, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodge-v-diamond-container-general-inc-tenn-1988.