{ "id": 11200245, "name": "SARA LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STEDMAN CORP./SARA LEE KNIT PRODUCTS, Defendant, SELF/CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE COMPANY, Defendant and/or M.J. SOFFE COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant, SELF/KEY RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Locklear v. Stedman Corp./Sara Lee Knit Products", "decision_date": "1998-11-17", "docket_number": "No. COA98-192", "first_page": "389", "last_page": "394", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "131 N.C. App. 389" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "311 S.E.2d 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 S.E.2d 215", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "218" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4708294 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "706" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-58", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 S.E.2d 646", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "647" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4689159 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-57", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 S.E.2d 101", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "106" }, { "page": "101" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565283 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "52" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0044-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E.2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "365", "parenthetical": "quoting Hansel v. Sherman Textiles, 304 N.C. 44, 52, 283 S.E.2d 101, 106 (1981)" }, { "page": "369-70" }, { "page": "370", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4707972 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "93", "parenthetical": "quoting Hansel v. Sherman Textiles, 304 N.C. 44, 52, 283 S.E.2d 101, 106 (1981)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "488 S.E.2d 801", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139458, 139363, 139469, 139548, 139613 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0546-05", "/nc/346/0546-03", "/nc/346/0546-04", "/nc/346/0546-02", "/nc/346/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "484 S.E.2d 853", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "856" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "126 N.C. App. 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11710610 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "357" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/126/0354-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 S.E.2d 396", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "397" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N.C. App. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11918820 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "573" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/121/0570-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 588, "char_count": 13003, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.09189850032437e-07, "percentile": 0.5658271968751846 }, "sha256": "07f33c52ac8250f29fbdf2cd6616df55e4be43db3ca2a689b4db7e29366ee457", "simhash": "1:fbfb5cc890806e54", "word_count": 1972 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:28.584435+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN, John C. and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur." ], "parties": [ "SARA LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STEDMAN CORP./SARA LEE KNIT PRODUCTS, Defendant, SELF/CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE COMPANY, Defendant and/or M.J. SOFFE COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant, SELF/KEY RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendant-Appellant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HORTON, Judge.\nSara Locklear (plaintiff) was employed by defendant-employer Stedman Corp./Sara Lee Knit Products (Stedman) as a sewing machine operator from 27 May 1968 to 27 May 1969, 18 March 1970 to 21 April 1971, 2 February 1972 to 22 November 1972, and 22 May 1975 to 25 September 1989. Plaintiff was exposed to and inhaled cotton dust and lint on a daily basis. At the end of her shift, plaintiff and other workers' cleaned lint from their machines and their clothing with compressed air. In the fall of 1985, plaintiff began coughing and having trouble breathing and by the summer of 1988 the coughing and wheezing had become constant symptoms.\nDuring plaintiffs shift on 4 February 1989, a roof-mounted air conditioning unit was serviced and a liquid chemical spilled from the air conditioning unit onto the floor. Plaintiff testified that the fumes took her breath away. Two days later, she was admitted to the hospital in severe respiratory distress. Plaintiff was discharged on 15 February 1989 in an improved condition, but diagnosed with severe asthmatic bronchitis and severe airway disease. Her treating physician, Dr. F. Farrell Collins (Dr. Collins), had difficulty with an etiologic diagnosis but indicated in the discharge summary that the problems might be related to the work environment. He did not diagnose plaintiff with an occupationally related disease or instruct her to stop working. Dr. Collins testified that, if he had had a strong suspicion that plaintiffs problems were work-related, he would have told her to cease her employment.\nIn November 1989 plaintiff began working for defendant M.J. Soffe (Soffe), because she understood that the Soffe plant was \u201ccleaner\u201d and had less airborne dust and lint due to sewing machines with internal cleaning systems. Plaintiffs symptoms, however, continued to progress in severity during her employment with Soffe. On 13 June 1990, plaintiffs employment with Soffe ended and she ceased working altogether. Plaintiff filed a workers\u2019 compensation claim on 8 June 1992 naming Stedman and Soffe as responsible employers.\nDuring the time plaintiff worked for Soffe, Dr. Martin Brooks was her treating physician. He advised her to stop work, but indicated her problems were not work-related. James M. Sullivan, a physician\u2019s assistant, and Dr. Lloyd McCaskill have also treated plaintiff for asthma and other illnesses but did not advise her that her condition was work-related.\nDr. John Eugene Gardella (Dr. Gardella), an expert in the field of internal medicine and pulmonary disease expressed his opinion that plaintiff had asthma and that her airway problem was permanent. He acknowledged that plaintiff\u2019s employment with Stedman placed her at an increased risk of developing pulmonary disease as compared to the general public. When asked if plaintiff\u2019s work environment \u201csignificantly contributed to [her] pulmonary disease,\u201d Dr. Gardella replied that the exposure had \u201ccontributed to her pulmonary condition.\u201d He further stated that he could not assign a probability to how much the work environment contributed to plaintiff\u2019s disease but that it was \u201centirely possible that her occupational exposures may have contributed to her asthmatic problem.\u201d When asked again if he had an opinion as to whether the exposure plaintiff experienced at Stedman and Soffe \u201csignificantly contributed to the permanent epithelial damage,\u201d Dr. Gardella stated that \u201cit may well have contributed, but [he could not] put any more precise qualifiers on it.\u201d He further testified that the environment at Soffe likely augmented, however slight, plaintiff\u2019s pulmonary disease process.\nDr. Scott Donaldson (Dr. Donaldson), an expert in internal medicine and pulmonary disease is plaintiff\u2019s treating pulmonary disease physician. Although he testified that she has asthma and that plaintiff\u2019s work environment placed her at an increased risk for developing pulmonary diseases as compared to the general population, he also stated that plaintiffs work did not cause her asthma. When asked if the occupational exposure made a \u201csignificant contribution\u201d to the asthma, Dr. Donaldson answered that plaintiff\u2019s \u201cexposure to dust and lint contributed to a worsening of her asthma\u201d and that it was \u201cmore likely than not, that her occupational exposure worsened her asthma.\u201d He could not identify any clear factors other than work-related exposure which would identify with the development or aggravation of the asthma. He further believed that plaintiff\u2019s occupation contributed to the permanent epithelium damage.\nThe Industrial Commission (Commission) found that plaintiff \u201cbecame disabled secondary to asthma or severe obstructive lung disease\u201d and made the following conclusions of law:\n2. Plaintiff timely filed claims for medical compensation and compensation for incapacity to earn wages against Stedman Corporation and M.J. Soffe, Inc. on June 8, 1992. [Citation omitted.]\n* * * *\n5. Plaintiff\u2019s occupational exposure to dust, lint and other respirable pulmonary irritants while working at Stedman Corporation significantly increased her risk of developing epithelium damage and obstructive pulmonary disease over that of the general public and either significantly contributed to the development of, or significantly aggravated her severe obstructive lung disease/asthma. Plaintiff\u2019s employment also significantly contributed to the development of epithelium damage. . . .\n6. Plaintiff\u2019s occupational exposure to dust, lint, and other respirable pulmonary irritants while working for M.J. Soffe, Inc. proximately augmented her severe obstructive lung disease/asthma and epithelium damage, however slight.\nThe Commission awarded plaintiff total permanent disability and Soffe appealed.\nThe issues in this case are whether: (I) plaintiff contracted a compensable occupational disease; (II) plaintiff\u2019s employment with Soffe augmented her condition, however slight; and (III) plaintiff filed her workers\u2019 compensation claims within the applicable statute of limitations.\nThis Court is limited to two questions when reviewing an opinion and award from the Commission: (1) whether there is any competent evidence in the record to support the Commission\u2019s findings of fact; and (2) whether those findings of fact support the Commission\u2019s conclusions of law. Lowe v. BE&K Construction Co., 121 N.C. App. 570, 573, 468 S.E.2d 396, 397 (1996). Thus, if there is competent evidence to support the findings, those findings are conclusive on appeal even though there is plenary evidence to support contrary findings. Hedrick v. PPG Industries, 126 N.C. App. 354, 357, 484 S.E.2d 853, 856, disc. review denied, 346 N.C. 546, 488 S.E.2d 801 (1997).\nI\nFor a disease to be occupational under G.S. 97-53(13) it must be (1) characteristic of persons engaged in the particular trade or occupation in which the claimant is engaged; (2) not an ordinary disease of life to which the public generally is equally exposed with those engaged in that particular trade or occupation; and (3) there must be \u201ca causal connection between the disease and the [claimant\u2019s] employment.\u201d\nRutledge v. Tultex Corp., 308 N.C. 85, 93, 301 S.E.2d 359, 365 (1983) (quoting Hansel v. Sherman Textiles, 304 N.C. 44, 52, 283 S.E.2d 101, 106 (1981)).\nThe first two elements are satisfied if the occupation exposed plaintiff to a greater risk of contracting the disease than the general public. Id. The causal connection prong is established if the work environment \u201csignificantly contributed to, or was a significant causal factor in, the disease\u2019s development.\u201d Id. at 101, 301 S.E.2d at 369-70.\nSignificant means \u201chaving or likely to have influence or effect: deserving to be considered: important, weighty, notable.\u201d Significant is to be contrasted with negligible, unimportant, present but not worthy of note, miniscule, or of little moment. The factual inquiry, in other words, should be whether the occupational exposure was such a significant factor in the disease\u2019s development that without it the disease would not have developed to such an extent that it caused the physical disability which resulted in claimant\u2019s incapacity for work.\nId. at 101-02, 301 S.E.2d at 370 (citation omitted).\nIn this case, there is competent evidence in the record to support the Commission\u2019s conclusion that plaintiff\u2019s work environment significantly contributed to the development of the asthma to the extent that it disabled her. Dr. Gardella stated that the exposure \u201cmore likely than not\u201d contributed to the worsening of her asthma and there was evidence in the form of Dr. Donaldson\u2019s testimony that plaintiffs asthma was severe enough to prevent her from working. Although the witnesses did not use the exact words \u201csignificantly contributed\u201d in describing the development of plaintiffs asthma, there were no other clear factors which aggravated the condition. Therefore, this assignment of error is overruled.\nII\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-57 states that \u201cthe employer in whose employment the employee was last injuriously exposed to the hazards of such disease . . . shall be liable.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-57 (1991). This language has been interpreted to include occupational exposure which augmented the illness to any extent, regardless of how slight. Caulder v. Waverly Mills, 314 N.C. 70, 74, 331 S.E.2d 646, 647 (1985). In this case, Dr. Gardella testified that plaintiffs exposure at Soffe likely augmented her illness, however slight. Therefore, the Commission\u2019s finding of fact on this issue is supported by competent evidence in the record and this assignment of error is overruled.\nHI\nAn employee must file a workers\u2019 compensation claim within two years of being advised by competent medical authority that he or she has an occupational disease. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-58 (1991); Dowdy v. Fieldcrest Mills, 308 N.C. 701, 706, 304 S.E.2d 215, 218 (1983), reh\u2019g denied, 311 S.E.2d 590 (1984). In this case, there is competent evidence in the record to support the Commission\u2019s finding and conclusion that plaintiff\u2019s claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. Although there may be some evidence to support a finding that plaintiff knew about her illness prior to 13 June 1990, there is also competent evidence which shows that she was not advised by competent medical authority before 13 June 1990 that her disease was related to her work environment. Dr. Collins testified that while he may have indicated in the discharge summary that plaintiff\u2019s problems might be related to her work environment, he did not diagnose her with an occupational disease nor did he instruct her to stop working.\nAffirmed.\nJudges MARTIN, John C. and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HORTON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "BenE. Roney, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.", "CranfiU, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Robin H. Terry, for Stedman Corp./Sara Lee Knit Products and Self/Constitution State Service Company, defendant appellees.", "Carruthers & Roth, P.A., by Kenneth L. Jones, for M.J. Soffe Company, Inc., and Self/Key Risk Management Services, defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SARA LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STEDMAN CORP./SARA LEE KNIT PRODUCTS, Defendant, SELF/CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE COMPANY, Defendant and/or M.J. SOFFE COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant, SELF/KEY RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendant-Appellant\nNo. COA98-192\n(Filed 17 November 1998)\n1. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 occupational disease \u2014 significant contribution\nThere was competent evidence in a workers\u2019 compensation action to support the Industrial Commission\u2019s conclusion that plaintiff\u2019s textile work environment significantly contributed to the development of asthma to the extent that it disabled her. Although the witnesses did not use the exact words \u201csignificantly contributed\u201d in describing the development of plaintiff\u2019s asthma, there were no other clear factors which aggravated the condition.\n2. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 occupational disease \u2014 last exposure\nThe Industrial Commission\u2019s finding of fact in a workers\u2019 compensation action that plaintiff\u2019s employment with defendant Soffe augmented her respiratory condition, however slightly, was supported by competent evidence.\n3. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 statute of limitations \u2014 date plaintiff informed of occupational disease by medical authority\nThere was competent evidence in the record in a workers\u2019 compensation action to support the Industrial Commission\u2019s finding and conclusion that plaintiff\u2019s claim was not barred by the two year statute of limitations where plaintiff filed her claim on 8 June 1992 and, while there may be some evidence to support a finding that she knew about her illness prior to 13 June 1990, when she ceased work, there is also competent evidence which shows that she was not advised by competent medical authority before 13 June 1990 that her disease was related to her work environment.\nAppeal by M.J. Soffe Company, Inc., and Self/Key Risk Management Services from an opinion and award filed 25 September 1997 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 October 1998.\nBenE. Roney, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.\nCranfiU, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Robin H. Terry, for Stedman Corp./Sara Lee Knit Products and Self/Constitution State Service Company, defendant appellees.\nCarruthers & Roth, P.A., by Kenneth L. Jones, for M.J. Soffe Company, Inc., and Self/Key Risk Management Services, defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0389-01", "first_page_order": 423, "last_page_order": 428 }