Wooten v. Newcon Transp.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedApril 28, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 250240.
StatusPublished

This text of Wooten v. Newcon Transp. (Wooten v. Newcon Transp.) 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
Wooten v. Newcon Transp., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
Following the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner granted plaintiff additional time to depose Rodney McCoy. Defendants objected on the grounds that the testimony of Mr. McCoy and the dispatch report plaintiff intended to introduce during Mr. McCoy's testimony were inadmissible hearsay. The Deputy Commissioner held Mr. McCoy's deposition testimony and the dispatch reports were admissible but with all references to statements by unknown callers stricken from the record.

The Full Commission filed an Order on December 29, 2004 finding that the dispatch reports in their entirety were admissible evidence under the hearsay exceptions in the N.C. Rules of Evidence, Rule 803(1) and (2), as well as Rule 803(6) and (8). The Commission reopened the record to allow the parties to re-depose Dr. William Massello to obtain his expert opinions in light of the information contained in the dispatch reports. The transcript of the second deposition of Dr. Massello has been received by the Commission and is received into the evidence of record.

The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Baddour. The appealing party has shown good grounds to amend the prior Opinion and Award. Accordingly, the Full Commission REVERSES the Deputy Commissioner's holding and enters the following Opinion and Award.

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

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

2. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co./The Goff Group is the carrier on the risk.

3. An employee-employer relationship existed between defendant-employer and Walter Wooten (hereinafter, "decedent") at all relevant times.

4. Decedent's average weekly wage was $848.98, with a resulting compensation rate of $565.98.

5. The following stipulated exhibits were admitted into evidence:

(a) Stipulated Exhibit #1: Pre-Trial Agreement.

(b) Stipulated Exhibit #2: Virginia State Police Report, Medical Examiner's Certificate of Death, Report of Autopsy, Medical Records, Dispatch Report and other exhibits.

(c) Stipulated Exhibit #3: Photographs.

6. The issue for determination is whether decedent's death is compensable under the Act.

***********
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Prior to his death decedent drove trucks for defendant-employer and routinely made two round trips per week between the Hickory, North Carolina area and New Jersey.

2. On May 9, 2002, decedent was involved in a fatal accident while working as a truck driver for defendants. Decedent was traveling by himself driving his tractor-trailer at an estimated speed of 65 m.p.h. at approximately 10:45 p.m. His truck ran off the left side of the road and struck the guardrail on Interstate 81 in Augusta County, Virginia. The vehicle came to rest in the median. No other vehicles were involved in the incident.

3. The Virginia State Police were dispatched to the scene after an unknown passerby called 911 to report the accident. The passerby reported that her husband checked the driver (decedent) who was unconscious but still breathing. Emergency rescue workers pronounced decedent dead at the accident scene.

4. Following the accident, decedent's vehicle was inspected and found to be missing two tires on its left side. The evidence indicates that the tires most likely came off the vehicle as a result of damage to the tire rims caused when the vehicle hit the guardrail. Plaintiff argues decedent encountered debris in the roadway or had a tire blow out, causing him to lose control of the vehicle, resulting in increased stress and adrenaline and triggering a fatal heart attack. The 911 dispatch report indicates that an unknown 911 caller reported that decedent's tractor trailer "appeared to have struck tire debris in [the] road and ran off [the] roadway." The record is unclear why decedent's vehicle lost control. Defendants argue that decedent had a heart attack that caused him to lose control of his vehicle.

5. At the time of his death, decedent was a 51-year-old male with a prior history of heart related medical conditions, including one prior heart attack. Approximately two to three years prior to the accident, decedent began treatment by a cardiologist on an annual basis.

6. On May 10, 2002, an autopsy was performed on decedent by Dr. William Massello, the Assistant Chief Medical Examiner for the Virginia Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in western Virginia. Dr. Massello found that at the time of decedent's death, he was suffering from arteriosclerotic heart disease, or a hardening and narrowing of the arteries that supply blood to the heart. In his first deposition, Dr. Massello explained, "the main finding is he had very significant hardening of the arteries. And the most severe hardening of the arteries were in the arteries that supply blood to the heart. And these were almost completely — they were so narrow that they were almost closed completely shut." Dr. Massello further testified that decedent's heart disease triggered an arrhythmia, causing decedent to experience a sudden heart attack. Finally, Dr. Massello testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the immediate cause of decedent's death was arteriosclerotic heart disease.

7. In his first deposition Dr. Massello was asked whether the stress and physical exertion caused by the truck losing two tires, striking the guardrail and going into the median could have triggered decedent's arrhythmia. Dr. Massello stated: "If a person were physically or mentally stressed because of that and his blood pressure went up and the adrenaline came out and . . . physical exertion took place, those would be things that would precipitate an arrhythmia in this man with this kind of heart disease." Upon further questioning whether the arrhythmia took place while decedent was driving the truck or after he stopped driving the truck, Dr. Massello stated that there was no way that he could say one way or the other.

8. During the second deposition, Dr. Massello again stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that decedent's death was a result of an arrhythmia caused by arteriosclerotic heart disease. Regarding the information contained in the 911 reports, Dr. Massello stated that he did not know whether decedent allegedly struck debris because there was a heart attack in progress or whether decedent struck debris because he could not avoid it. Dr. Massello further stated decedent "could have had the accident because of a heart attack or he could have had the heart attack because of the accident." Dr. Massello also indicated that most people who have heart attacks while driving manage to steer the vehicle off the road, even if they lose consciousness before the car stops.

9. The greater weight of the competent medical and other evidence of record establishes that the medical cause of decedent's death was cardiac arrhythmia sustained during an accident occurring within the course of his employment.

10. At the time of his death decedent was survived by his wife, Eleanor G. Wooten, to whom he was married on October 12, 1984. Eleanor G. Wooten has not worked since 1995. The Social Security Administration determined that Eleanor G. Wooten became disabled on June 1, 2002, a month after decedent's death.

11.

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

Related

Cody v. Snider Lumber Co.
399 S.E.2d 104 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1991)
Bason v. Kraft Food Service, Inc.
535 S.E.2d 606 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Pickrell v. Motor Convoy, Inc.
368 S.E.2d 582 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1988)
Melton v. City of Rocky Mount
454 S.E.2d 704 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1995)
Henry v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co.
57 S.E.2d 760 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Melton v. City of Rocky Mount
460 S.E.2d 319 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wooten v. Newcon Transp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wooten-v-newcon-transp-ncworkcompcom-2005.