Mull v. Duke Energy Corp.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 24, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 717904
StatusPublished

This text of Mull v. Duke Energy Corp. (Mull v. Duke Energy 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
Mull v. Duke Energy Corp., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Jones and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the Opinion and Award, except for minor modifications. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Jones, with modifications.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are bound by and subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. At all relevant times, an employment relationship existed between defendant and the decedent.

3. Defendant is self insured.

4. Defendant employed Roy Dale Mull from July 6, 1976, until November 1, 1996.

5. Roy Dale Mull's medical records were stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 1.

6. Dosimetry records for Roy Dale Mull were stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 2.

7. Radiation work permits and associated records for Roy Dale Mull were stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 3.

8. Dosimetry data for Roy Dale Mull was stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 4.

9. Plaintiff's and defendant's expert witnesses' curricula vitae for this case were stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 5.

10. The parties' responses to interrogatories were stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 6.

11. The parties stipulated the videotape of Roy Dale Mull's deposition testimony is a true and correct copy and can be admitted into evidence by plaintiff without further authentication subject to objections.

12. Barbara Armstrong's report was stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 8.

13. The parties stipulate that Roy Dale Mull died on November 28, 1997, as result of neurofibrosarcoma.

14. The issues before the Commission are: (i) whether Roy Dale Mull's neurofibrosarcoma was an occupational disease; (ii) if so, what compensation, if any, is due Roy Dale Mull's estate; and (iii) whether plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees.

***********
The Full Commission adopts in whole the following rulings on evidentiary matters as set forth in the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Jones as:

EVIDENTIARY RULINGS
1. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Roy Dale Mull's Testimony from Page 15, Line 4 through Page 16, Line 15 is SUSTAINED.

2. Defendant's General Objection to Statements made by Roy Dale Mull prior to his Death is OVERRULED.

3. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Defendant's Deposition Exhibits and Defendant's Expert is OVERRULED.

4. Defendant's Motion to Strike Expert Testimony is OVERULED.

5. The objections raised in the depositions of Drs. Steven Wing, Douglas Crawford-Brown, Roy Albert, Nachman Brautbar, John R. Frazier, John W. Poston Sr., David G. Hoel, Eric J. Hall, and Fred A. Mettler Jr., are OVERRULED.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Roy Dale Mull was employed by defendant from July 6, 1976, until November 1996.

2. Roy Dale Mull began work at the Oconee Nuclear Power Plant and was assigned to the Stress Relief crew. His primary responsibilities involved placing heat on metal surfaces to expand metal and working with various types of equipment, including an impeller. Mr. Mull worked in many areas of the plant and also worked outages at the Oconee, McGuire, and Catawba plants.

3. Roy Dale Mull received training regarding radiation protection and received high scores on his testing, indicating he was knowledgeable about radiation and radiation practices.

4. Roy Dale Mull was in good health and missed very little time from work as related to illnesses. He did have medical treatment for kidney stones and a gall bladder surgery.

5. Roy Dale Mull was exposed to radiation while working for defendant. His exposure never exceeded more than 3,906 millirem.

6. In early April 1996, Roy Dale Mull noticed a lump in the inner aspect of his left thigh.

7. A biopsy was performed on the lump, which showed neurofibrosarcoma. Roy Dale Mull's left leg was amputated at the hip on May 3, 1996, and he was hospitalized for five days as result of this surgery.

8. Roy Dale Mull's cancer metastasized to his lungs and he had additional surgery as well as three months of chemotherapy.

9. Roy Dale Mull last worked for defendant on November 1, 1996.

10. On November 28, 1997, Roy Dale Mull died from conditions resulting from the neurofibrosarcoma.

11. Plaintiff relies upon the expert testimony from Drs. Steven Wing, Douglass Crawford-Brown, Roy Albert and Nachman Brautbar.

12. Dr. Wing failed to review or discuss occupational studies that were relevant to this case. Dr. Wing admitted he was aware of epidemiological studies at his deposition, and that these studies contradicted his conclusion.

13. Dr. Wing has undertaken studies on nuclear workers at Oakridge National Laboratory. Dr. Wing does not rebut the extensive body of research that indicates that neurofibrosarcoma is unrelated to radiation exposure unless the person receives a therapeutic dose in excess of 400 million millirem. Roy Dale Mull's exposure was 3,906 millirem.

14. Dr. Crawford-Brown based his testimony on conditional assumptions. Many of these assumptions do not comport with testimony of witnesses who testified on December 12, 2000. Dr. Crawford-Brown's testimony does not lead to any reasonable inference that Roy Dale Mull's exposure was anywhere close to 400 million millirem.

15. None of plaintiff's other witnesses relied on Dr. Crawford-Brown's opinions.

16. Dr. Albert placed the central premise of his testimony on mistaken principles of radiation carcinogenesis. Dr. Albert's testimony indicates a lack of understanding regarding physical dimensions of the impeller in question in this case. Dr. Albert seems unclear and unfamiliar with Mr. Mull's overall work.

17. The Full Commission finds that the greater weight of the evidence would discredit Dr. Albert's theory that the more the radiation dose increases the more malignant the tumor becomes.

18. Dr. Albert relied on an article relating to the treatment of Tinea Capitas in child patients in the 1950's. Tinea Capitas is a fungus disease that originates in the roots of the hair of children. Large x-ray doses in the range of hundreds of thousands of millirems were used as treatment to facilitate hair loss for scalp treatment. As result of the treatment some children develop benign tumors and two children did develop neurofibrosarcoma.

19. There are biological differences between children studies and adults, such as Mr. Mull. The doses used to treat the children in this study were dramatically higher than the doses that plaintiff received.

20. The Full Commission finds that the greater weight of the evidence indicates that this study does not correspond to plaintiff's circumstances and is thus unreliable.

21. Dr. Brautbar was called to support plaintiff's position that Mr. Mull's neurofibrosarcoma was a result of occupational radiation exposure.

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

Related

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Young v. Hickory Business Furniture
538 S.E.2d 912 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mull v. Duke Energy Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mull-v-duke-energy-corp-ncworkcompcom-2003.