{ "id": 9188268, "name": "BOBBY MARTIN, Employee, Plaintiff v. MARTIN BROTHERS GRADING, Employer, and N.C. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Administrator, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Martin Bros. Grading", "decision_date": "2003-06-17", "docket_number": "No. COA02-381", "first_page": "503", "last_page": "508", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "158 N.C. App. 503" } ], "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": "278 S.E.2d 268", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272-73", "parenthetical": "expert's opinion that accident \"could\" have caused disc protrusion competent although also testified on cross-examination that it was \"equally possible\" that the defect was degenerative in nature" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 N.C. App. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12170012 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "94-95", "parenthetical": "expert's opinion that accident \"could\" have caused disc protrusion competent although also testified on cross-examination that it was \"equally possible\" that the defect was degenerative in nature" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/52/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "532 S.E.2d 207", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N.C. App. 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11080920 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "599", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/138/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "575 S.E.2d 797", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "802" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 N.C. App. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9189614 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "49" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/156/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "538 S.E.2d 912", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "914" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135777 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "230" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "509 S.E.2d 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "414" }, { "page": "414" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 676", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571666 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "681" }, { "page": "681" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "282 S.E.2d 458", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "463" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565243 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "6" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "409 S.E.2d 103", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "104" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. App. 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521328 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "285-86" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/104/0284-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 660, "char_count": 12456, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.277941826594198e-08, "percentile": 0.5118263651664634 }, "sha256": "ad93ce1e9063dd97b38b0f0b9b2867f2a31e8044a94c83da0a083dd345aa2ff1", "simhash": "1:7d81d2e30ea7cae7", "word_count": 1919 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:16:33.883812+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and BRYANT concur." ], "parties": [ "BOBBY MARTIN, Employee, Plaintiff v. MARTIN BROTHERS GRADING, Employer, and N.C. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Administrator, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GEER, Judge.\nIt is undisputed on this appeal that plaintiff Bobby Martin suffered compensable work-related accidents on 29 November 1996 and 2 April 1997. The sole issue before this Court is whether the Industrial Commission\u2019s decision finding that plaintiff\u2019s disability was caused by those accidents is supported by competent evidence. We hold that it is and affirm.\nDefendant Martin Brothers Grading is a grading company owned by plaintiff\u2019s son, Ricky Martin. Martin Brothers clears and grades land prior to new construction. In August 1996, after being laid off from his prior employment, plaintiff went to work full time for his son running a compactor.\nOn 29 November 1996, a falling tree limb struck plaintiff on the head while plaintiff was helping clear property for a softball field. The force of the blow knocked plaintiff unconscious. Because there were no witnesses, no one knows how long plaintiff lay unconscious. A coworker found plaintiff wandering in the woods and brought him to his son, who then took plaintiff to the hospital.\nPlaintiff was hemorrhaging from a large laceration that exposed his skull. The hospital\u2019s triage staff was unable to control plaintiff\u2019s scalp hemorrhage and plaintiff underwent emergency surgery to close and repair the laceration. A CT scan revealed that plaintiff had also suffered a subdural hematoma to the right hemisphere of his brain.\nAfter returning home from the hospital on 1 December 1996, both plaintiff and his wife noticed that plaintiff was having problems with his memory. He was also irritable, anxious, and had begun repeating himself. Dr. Kimberly Livingston, the neurosurgeon who had treated plaintiff in the hospital, reported to plaintiff\u2019s family physician that plaintiff\u2019s symptoms were consistent with a closed head injury. Plaintiff\u2019s medical records prior to 29 November 1996 showed no evidence that plaintiff had ever before experienced any neurological, cognitive, or memory problems.\nDr. Livingston released plaintiff to return to work on 3 March 1997. Because neither plaintiff nor defendant-employer felt that plaintiff was yet ready to return to work, he was assigned to the lightest duty work available: driving a small earth compactor. On 2 April 1997, plaintiff backed the compactor onto a mound of dirt, overturned the compactor, and sustained another head injury. Plaintiff has not worked since 2 April 1997.\nPlaintiff has experienced continuing personality, memory, and cognitive problems. He was seen by his family physician who recommended that plaintiff undergo a neurological examination. Subsequently, he revisited Dr. Livingston who suggested that he see a neuropsychologist regarding the nature of his memory and cognitive problems.\nOn 25 March 1998, the defendant-carrier referred plaintiff to Dr. Thomas Gualtieri for a neuropsychiatric evaluation. After performing complete physical and neurological examinations, Dr. Gualtieri also recommended that plaintiff undergo a battery of neu-ropsychological tests.\nOn 8 June 1998, plaintiff was referred by his attorney to Dr. Stephen Kramer, an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine and the Director of the Wake Forest University Department of Neuropsychiatry. Dr. Kramer consulted with Dr. Jonathan Burdette, a neuroradiologist at Wake Forest, who reviewed plaintiffs 10 December 1996 CT scan and subsequent 9 November 1998 Gadolinium enhanced MRI scan.\nOn 15 December 1998, 18 January 1999, and 19 August 1999, plaintiff was examined, at the request of defendants, by Alexander A. Manning, Ph.D, an expert in neuropsychology, specializing in the study of how the brain functions and the relationship of brain functions to behavior. Dr. Manning performed a complete battery of neu-ropsychological tests on plaintiff.\nPlaintiff filed separate workers\u2019 compensation claims for the November 1996 and April 1997 accidents. The two claims were consolidated and initially heard by Deputy Commissioner Chrystal Stanback who awarded plaintiff temporary total disability benefits. On defendants\u2019 appeal, the Full Commission affirmed the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, finding that \u201c[t]he greater weight of the medical evidence establishes that plaintiff\u2019s disability after April 2, 1997 was the proximate result of either the injury by accident of November 29, 1996 or a combination of the compensable injuries plaintiff sustained on November 29, 1996 and April 2, 1997.\u201d Because the Commission further found that plaintiff was and remains incapable of earning the wages that he was receiving at the time of his injuries by accident at the same or other employment, the Commission awarded plaintiff temporary total disability benefits from 2 April 1997 until further order of the Commission or until plaintiff returns to work.\nDefendants argue that the Commission\u2019s finding that plaintiffs disability after 2 April 1997 was the proximate result of his work injuries is unsupported by competent evidence. In reviewing a decision by the Commission, this Court\u2019s role \u201cis limited to determining whether there is any competent evidence to support the findings of fact, and whether the findings of fact justify the conclusions of law.\u201d Cross v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 104 N.C. App. 284, 285-86, 409 S.E.2d 103, 104 (1991). The Commission\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive upon appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if there is evidence to support a contrary finding. Morrison v. Burlington Industries, 304 N.C. 1, 6, 282 S.E.2d 458, 463 (1981). On appeal, this Court may not re-weigh the evidence or assess credibility. Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998). Findings of fact may be set aside on appeal only \u201cwhen there is a complete lack of competent evidence to support them.\u201d Young v. Hickory Bus. Furniture, 353 N.C. 227, 230, 538 S.E.2d 912, 914 (2000).\nThe record contains ample evidence to support the Commission\u2019s finding that plaintiff\u2019s disability was proximately caused by either the November 1996 accident or by a combination of the November 1996 and April 1997 accidents. Although defendant points to plaintiff\u2019s pre-existing small-vessel disease as a cause for plaintiff\u2019s disability, the Commission was entitled to rely upon medical testimony otherwise.\nSpecifically, in Dr. Kramer\u2019s opinion, \u201cthe most likely diagnosis\u201d for plaintiff was persistent post-concussive syndrome resulting from the November 1996 and April 1997 accidents with the November 1996 accident \u201can essential factor producing the syndrome.\u201d On cross-examination, Dr. Kramer rejected defendants\u2019 contention that plaintiff\u2019s disability arose from the small-vessel disease. According to Dr. Kramer, it was \u201cnot likely.\u201d Dr. Gualtieri similarly testified that the injury to the right hemisphere of plaintiff\u2019s brain \u2014 occurring in the November 1996 accident \u2014 is \u201cmore likely\u201d the cause of plaintiff\u2019s problems than the small-vessel disease. He repeated that plaintiff\u2019s disability was \u201cprobably\u201d related to the head injury in November 1996 and that the disability was \u201cmore probably a result of this injury.\u201d\nDr. Manning\u2019s testimony was more equivocal. Yet, even he testified:\nWith Mr. Martin, I\u2019ve got a number of signs that are fairly strong indications that the right hemisphere is being affected to a significant degree more than the left hemisphere. So because of that lateralized finding, I think I said in my report, that this may be an indication of the traumatic brain injury that he had. He had a sub-dural hematoma that affected the right side of the brain. These lingering findings here, this lateralized finding, may be some evidence that, indeed, there is still an [e]ffect of that traumatic brain injury present that is \u2014 that overlays the diffuse [small-vessel disease] process that was also there.\nDr. Manning further testified that \u201c[i]t\u2019s clearly possible\u201d that the accidents in November 1996 and April 1997 \u201ccould have accelerated [plaintiffs] deterioration\u201d and that \u201cit would seem more likely than not that it accelerated that.\u201d Later, he clarified that it was \u201clikely\u201d that the injury \u201caggravated\u201d the progress of plaintiffs small-vessel disease. While he would not testify that the aggravation was more likely than not, he did confirm that \u201c[t]here is a possibility that the traumatic brain injury did play a role in what I\u2019m seeing.\u201d\nDefendants point to the testimony of Dr. Livingston and Dr. Burdette to support their claim that plaintiff failed to prove that his accidents and not his small-vessel disease caused his disability. While Dr. Livingston does provide support for defendants\u2019 contention, Dr. Burdette, who reviewed plaintiffs MRI, does not. Dr. Burdette stressed that he is not an expert on post-concussive syndrome and that although his review of the MRI did not reveal a \u201cgross abnormality,\u201d that fact \u201cdoes not entirely exclude a traumatic postconcussive-type episode\u201d because \u201cpostconcussive syndrome is . . . more on a cellular level in the brain, and these findings might not be seen, in fact, usually are not seen on a brain MRI.\u201d\nIt was the responsibility of the Commission to weigh all of this expert testimony and determine whose opinion was most persuasive. On appeal, defendants seek to undermine plaintiff\u2019s evidence by arguing that the doctors did not testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and by suggesting that the evidence merely establishes that plaintiffs condition is possibly related to his work injuries. Defendants\u2019 contentions have been rejected by this Court. As this Court most recently held in Johnson v. Piggly Wiggly of Pinetops, Inc., 156 N.C. App. 42, 49, 575 S.E.2d 797, 802 (2003):\nNo longer is testimony inadmissible for its failure to state it was based on \u201creasonable medical probability.\u201d The degree in which an expert testifies as to causation, be it \u201cprobable\u201d or \u201cmost likely\u201d or words of similar import, goes to the weight of the testimony rather than to its admissibility.\nApplying this principle, this Court upheld reliance on expert testimony that it was \u201cpossible\u201d that the incident at issue caused plaintiffs condition. Id. See also Peagler v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 138 N.C. App. 593, 599, 532 S.E.2d 207, 211 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (\u201c[W]e note that the expert testimony need not show that the work incident caused the injury to a \u2018reasonable degree of medical certainty.\u2019 \u201d); Buck v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 52 N.C. App. 88, 94-95, 278 S.E.2d 268, 272-73 (1981) (expert\u2019s opinion that accident \u201ccould\u201d have caused disc protrusion competent although also testified on cross-examination that it was \u201cequally possible\u201d that the defect was degenerative in nature).\nAs Johnson stresses, whether the doctors in this case testified that it was \u201cpossible,\u201d \u201cprobable,\u201d or \u201clikely\u201d that plaintiffs\u2019 accidents caused his disability, the level of their certainty went to the weight of the testimony and not its competence. The decision regarding what weight to give each piece of expert evidence is a task for the Commission and not this Court. Adams, 349 N.C. at 681, 509 S.E.2d at 414. Since there exists competent evidence that plaintiff\u2019s work injury or injuries proximately caused his disability, we affirm the Commission\u2019s Opinion and Award.\nAffirmed.\nJudges WYNN and BRYANT concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GEER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Crumley & Associates, P.C., by Daniel L. Deuterman and Pamela W. Foster, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Young Moore and Henderson, PA., by J. D. Prather and Zachary C. Bolen, for defendants-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BOBBY MARTIN, Employee, Plaintiff v. MARTIN BROTHERS GRADING, Employer, and N.C. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Administrator, Defendants\nNo. COA02-381\n(Filed 17 June 2003)\nWorkers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 weight of evidence \u2014 discretion of Industrial Commission\nA workers\u2019 compensation finding that plaintiffs disability was proximately caused by head injuries suffered while he worked for his son\u2019s grading company was supported by the evidence. Although defendant pointed to plaintiffs pre-existing small vessel disease, the Industrial Commission was entitled to rely upon medical testimony that it was \u201cpossible,\u201d \u201cprobable,\u201d or \u201clikely\u201d that plaintiff\u2019s accidents caused his disability. The level of the witnesses\u2019 certainty went to the weight of their testimony and not its competence.\nAppeal by defendants from the Opinion and Award filed 23 October 2001 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 January 2003.\nCrumley & Associates, P.C., by Daniel L. Deuterman and Pamela W. Foster, for plaintiff-appellee.\nYoung Moore and Henderson, PA., by J. D. Prather and Zachary C. Bolen, for defendants-appellants." }, "file_name": "0503-01", "first_page_order": 533, "last_page_order": 538 }