{ "id": 8957160, "name": "VIVIAN S. KNIGHT, Employee, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Employer, SELF-INSURED (KEMPER RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Servicing Agent), Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Knight v. Abbott Laboratories", "decision_date": "2003-10-07", "docket_number": "No. COA02-1486", "first_page": "542", "last_page": "548", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "160 N.C. App. 542" } ], "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": "414 S.E.2d 771", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "774" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 N.C. App. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524766 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "638" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/105/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "508 S.E.2d 831", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "834" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 N.C. App. 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11203821 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "653" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/131/0649-01" ] }, { "cite": "509 S.E.2d 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "413", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "414", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 676", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571666 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "680", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "552 S.E.2d 202", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211-12", "parenthetical": "Martin, J. dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 N.C. App. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11355398 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201-02", "parenthetical": "Martin, J. dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/146/0187-01" ] }, { "cite": "562 S.E.2d 422", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220142 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 S.E.2d 104", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "106" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2543161 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "71" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "519 S.E.2d 61", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "63", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 N.C. App. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11239310 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "115", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/135/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "566 S.E.2d 807", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "811", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "811" }, { "page": "811" }, { "page": "811-12" }, { "page": "811" }, { "page": "810" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. App. 641", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9081725 ], "weight": 5, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "644", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "645" }, { "page": "645-46" }, { "page": "645-46" }, { "page": "644" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/151/0641-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 S.E.2d 676", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "678" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 329", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561147 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "331" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0329-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 674, "char_count": 16152, "ocr_confidence": 0.74, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.961721986493818e-08, "percentile": 0.53724251877233 }, "sha256": "98c827481dffc1d26190b5725dfce6b5762a64ea6d4a686a6476f86c801a24aa", "simhash": "1:8f21c89b0a19c306", "word_count": 2462 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:23.823025+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and ELMORE concur." ], "parties": [ "VIVIAN S. KNIGHT, Employee, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Employer, SELF-INSURED (KEMPER RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Servicing Agent), Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUNTER, Judge.\nVivian S. Knight (\u201cplaintiff\u2019) appeals from an opinion and award filed 12 July 2002 of the Full Commission of the North Carolina Industrial Commission (\u201cthe Commission\u201d) denying her workers\u2019 compensation benefits for alleged psychological injury resulting from a confrontation with her supervisor. We affirm the portion of the Commission\u2019s decision related to plaintiff\u2019s injury by accident claim and remand in part for the Commission to rule on plaintiff\u2019s occupational disease claim.\nPlaintiff was employed by Abbott Laboratories (\u201cdefendant\u201d) from 1980 to 1994. Only one person from plaintiff\u2019s work crew was permitted to take vacation at any one time. On 25 March 1994, after learning that a co-worker with less seniority had received a vacation day that plaintiff had requested, plaintiff went to the office of her supervisor, Fred Fuller (\u201cFuller\u201d). Fuller, a large man, became upset when plaintiff asked about her vacation request, rose from his desk, and began talking to plaintiff in a loud, angry voice waving his hands and fingers in plaintiffs face. After the confrontation, in which both parties raised their voices, ended abruptly, plaintiff returned to her workstation in tears. Fuller subsequently approached plaintiff and granted her the vacation day, but plaintiff remained emotionally upset. Since the confrontation, plaintiff is totally disabled and is unable to work.\nFollowing the confrontation, plaintiff had broken out in hives and sought medical attention after her shift ended. Plaintiff was treated by her family doctor, Dr. James Bryant, who referred her to Dr. Soong Lee, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Victor Mallenbaum, a psychologist. Dr. Mallenbaum testified that he was plaintiffs treating psychologist. Following plaintiffs first visit on 27 June 1994, Dr. Mallenbaum diagnosed her with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and recurrent major depression. Although, plaintiff had a prior history of depression, Dr. Mallenbaum opined that the confrontation caused plaintiffs symptoms or substantially aggravated any pre-existing condition, and that plaintiff was permanently and totally disabled.\nDr. Thomas Gualtieri, a neuropsychiatrist, testified for the defense that he conducted an independent medical examination of plaintiff on 10 August 1994. Dr. Gualtieri began by taking a patient history, which revealed that plaintiff had been involved in an automobile accident in 1993, which potentially caused a brain injury. Plaintiff was unable to recall past incidents of her medical history, but could remember in detail the confrontation with Fuller. She was also unable to complete forms normally given to patients with head injuries. Furthermore, although plaintiff performed poorly on a memory test in which she was required to remember three words in five minutes such as \u201chat,\u201d \u201criver,\u201d and \u201ctree,\u201d she was able to remember in detail issues surrounding her disability insurance and compensation. Dr. Gualtieri performed physical, neurological, and mental exams. He was, however, not really able to perform tests as plaintiff was not cognitively testable, and would not cooperate with the testing. Dr. Gualtieri concluded that although it was possible plaintiff suffered from any of a number of psychiatric conditions, which could include severe anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, severe anxiety or depression, or could even be malingering, in his opinion there was no credible evidence plaintiff suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. His opinion was based on the lack of a credibly traumatic event, the lack of normal symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and her presentation in his office.\nThe Commission found \u201c[a]fter reviewing the medical records, the testimony of witnesses[,] and the depositions of medical experts, the Commission gives greater weight to the testimony and opinions of Dr. Gualtieri . . . .\u201d The Commission further found the greater weight of the evidence showed that the 25 March 1994 confrontation did not cause plaintiff\u2019s psychological problems, and that the evidence showed plaintiff had initiated the meeting with Fuller and \u201c[t]he confrontation . . . did not constitute an unexpected, unusual[,] or untoward occurrence; nor did it constitute an interruption of the work routine and the introduction thereby of unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences.\u201d Based upon its findings, the Commission concluded that plaintiff did not sustain an injury by accident arising out of the course of her employment and was not entitled to workers\u2019 compensation benefits.\nThe issues are whether: (I) plaintiff suffered an injury by accident; (II) there is sufficient evidence to support the Commission\u2019s finding that the confrontation was not the cause of plaintiff\u2019s psychological problems; (III) this Court should supplement the Commission\u2019s evidentiary findings; and (IV) the Commission erred in failing to address plaintiff\u2019s occupational disease theory.\n\u201cIn reviewing an order and award of the Industrial Commission in a case involving workmen\u2019s compensation, [an appellate court] is limited to a determination of (I) whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and (2) whether the conclusions of law are supported by the findings.\u201d Barham v. Food World, 300 N.C. 329, 331, 266 S.E.2d 676, 678 (1980).\nI.\nPlaintiff first contends the Commission erred by concluding that she did not suffer injury by accident. The North Carolina Workers\u2019 Compensation Act does not provide for compensation simply for injury, but rather only for \u201c \u2018injury by accident.\u2019 \u201d Pitillo v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Envtl. Heath & Natural Res., 151 N.C. App. 641, 644, 566 S.E.2d 807, 811 (2002) (citation omitted).\nAn accident under the workers\u2019 compensation act has been defined as \u201c \u2018an unlooked for and untoward event which is not expected or designed by the person who suffers the injury,\u2019 \u201d and which involves \u201c \u2018the interruption of the routine of work and the introduction thereby of unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences.\u2019 \u201d\nId. at 645, 566 S.E.2d at 811 (quoting Calderwood v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., 135 N.C. App. 112, 115, 519 S.E.2d 61, 63 (1999) (citation omitted)). An injury is not an injury by accident \u201cif the relevant events were \u2018neither unexpected nor extraordinary,\u2019 and it was only the \u2018[claimants\u2019] emotional response to the [events that] was the precipitating factor.\u2019 \u201d Pitillo, 151 N.C. App. at 645, 566 S.E.2d at 811 (quoting Cody v. Snider Lumber Co., 328 N.C. 67, 71, 399 S.E.2d 104, 106 (1991)).\nIn Pitillo, this Court concluded that a plaintiff who had allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and stress induced anxiety brought on by a meeting with her supervisor about a performance review was not an injury by accident. Pitillo, 151 N.C. App. at 645-46, 566 S.E.2d at 811-12. Determinative in that case were findings of fact that the plaintiff had initiated the meeting, and the meeting was not out of the ordinary and everyone involved was treated courteously. Id.\nIn this case, although plaintiff initiated the meeting with Fuller, she contends his behavior toward her was unexpected and traumatic. The Commission found, however, and the evidence shows that both plaintiff and Fuller raised their voices and both were participants in the argument initiated by plaintiff\u2019s complaint that she had improperly been deprived of her desired vacation day. The Commission also recognized that while such confrontations may be infrequent, disagreements between an employee and a supervisor are not uncommon and found that the confrontation between plaintiff and Fuller \u201cdid not constitute an interruption of the work routine and the introduction thereby of unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences.\u201d We agree with the Commission\u2019s findings. The evidence shows that plaintiff deliberately initiated the meeting with Fuller to voice her disagreement with his decision to award the vacation day to another employee. It is not unexpected that this would lead to a heated discussion involving raised voices on both the part of the supervisor and employee. Furthermore, in an analogous case, our Supreme Court, in an occupational disease claim, by a per curiam decision has indicated that exposure to an abusive supervisor is a risk shared by any employee in any profession or even outside the workplace in an abusive relationship. See Woody v. Thomasville Upholstery, Inc., 355 N.C. 483, 562 S.E.2d 422 (2002) (per curiam) (adopting the dissent in Woody v. Thomasville Upholstery, Inc., 146 N.C. App. 187, 201-02, 552 S.E.2d 202, 211-12 (2001) (Martin, J. dissenting)). Therefore, the heated confrontation with plaintiffs supervisor was not so unusual such as to constitute an interruption in the normal work routine.\nAs in Pitillo, the evidence at most reveals the events themselves did not result in injury, but rather that it was plaintiffs emotional response to the meeting, which she had initiated, that resulted in her psychological harm. See Pitillo, 151 N.C. App. at 645-46, 566 S.E.2d at 811. Thus, we conclude the Commission\u2019s findings of fact support its conclusion that plaintiff did not suffer a compensable injury by accident.\nII.\nPlaintiff also challenges the Commission\u2019s finding that the greater weight of the evidence shows the confrontation did not cause plaintiff\u2019s psychological problems.\n\u201c \u2018The Commission is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.\u2019 \u201d Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 680, 509 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1998) (citation omitted). As a result, this Court \u201c \u2018does not have the right to weigh the evidence and decide the issue on the basis of its weight. . . .\u2019 \u201d Id. at 681, 509 S.E.2d at 414 (citation omitted). Instead, this Court must only determine whether there is any evidence tending to support the Commission\u2019s finding of fact. Id.\nThe Commission expressly found that the testimony and opinions of defendant\u2019s expert, Dr. Gualtieri, carried greater weight than the testimony of plaintiff\u2019s experts, in particular because he performed psychological testing, which plaintiffs experts had not done. The Commission then went on to find that the evidence of record showed the confrontation between plaintiff and her supervisor did not cause plaintiff\u2019s psychological problems. Dr. Gualtieri testified that based on his evaluation of plaintiff he found no credible evidence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder related to the confrontation. This opinion was grounded in a lack of what he termed a \u201ccredibly traumatic\u201d event, symptoms inconsistent with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and her presentation in his office. He also testified that a subsequent review of her medical records did not change his initial evaluation. Dr. Gualtieri indicated that a number of other \u201cstressors\u201d existed in plaintiff\u2019s life that would contribute to psychological problems. He did conclude that plaintiff may suffer from one of a number of other psychological conditions, but those would have pre-existed the confrontation with Fuller and would not have been caused by it. Furthermore, he stated that aggravation of a pre-existing psychological condition as a rule resulted in only a temporary exacerbation of the previous psychological condition and would not lead to total and permanent disability. Thus, the record in this case contains evidence to support a finding that the confrontation between plaintiff and Fuller was not the cause of her psychological conditions.\nIII.\nPlaintiff further argues that the Commission erred by not making certain evidentiary findings of fact. However, \u201c \u2018[t]he Commission chooses what findings to make based on its consideration of the evidence [, and this] [C]ourt is not at liberty to supplement the Commission\u2019s findings].]\u2019 \u201d Pitillo, 151 N.C. App. at 644, 566 S.E.2d at 810 (quoting Bailey v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 131 N.C. App. 649, 653, 508 S.E.2d 831, 834 (1998)). Thus, we decline to review this assignment of error.\nIV.\nPlaintiff finally contends the Commission erred by failing to address her occupational disease claim. We agree.\n\u201c[W]hen [a] matter is \u2018appealed\u2019 to the full Commission ..., it is the duty and responsibility of the full Commission to decide all of the matters in controversy between the parties.\u201d Vieregge v. N.C. State University, 105 N.C. App. 633, 638, 414 S.E.2d 771, 774 (1992). In this case, the parties agree that plaintiff alleged she suffered from an occupational disease and the Commission failed to address this allegation. Accordingly; we must remand this case to the Commission for consideration of plaintiff\u2019s occupational disease claim.\nAffirmed in part, remanded in part.\nJudges TIMMONS-GOODSON and ELMORE concur.\n. Plaintiff stipulated to the expertise of Dr. Gualtieri.\n. All three members on the panel of the Commission cited Woody, an occupational disease case, in their respective opinions but did so only in the context of plaintiff\u2019s injury by accident claim, and did not specifically apply Woody to plaintiffs separate occupational disease claim.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUNTER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Law Offices of George W. Lennon, by George W. Lennon and Michael W. Ballance, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Brooks, Stevens & Pope, P.A., by Michael C. Sigmon and Matthew P. Blake, for defendant-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "VIVIAN S. KNIGHT, Employee, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Employer, SELF-INSURED (KEMPER RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Servicing Agent), Defendant\nNo. COA02-1486\n(Filed 7 October 2003)\n1. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 injury by accident \u2014 verbal confrontation with supervisor\nThe Industrial Commission did not err in a workers\u2019 compensation case by concluding that plaintiff employee did not suffer an injury by accident when she confronted her supervisor about her vacation request in which both parties raised their voices, plaintiff became emotionally upset, and thereafter claimed she suffered psychological problems as a result of the incident, because: (1) plaintiff deliberately initiated the meeting with her supervisor to voice her disagreement with his decision to award the vacation day to another employee, and it was not unexpected that this action would lead to a heated discussion involving raised voices by both individuals; and (2) exposure to an abusive supervisor is a risk shared by any employee in any profession or even outside the workplace in an abusive relationship, and therefore the heated confrontation with plaintiff\u2019s supervisor was not so unusual such as to constitute an interruption in the normal work routine.\n2. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 verbal confrontation \u2014 psychological problems\nThe Industrial Commission did not err in a workers\u2019 compensation case by finding that the greater weight of the evidence shows the verbal confrontation between plaintiff employee and her supervisor did not cause plaintiff\u2019s psychological problems, because: (1) the Commission is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony; and (2) the Commission expressly found that the testimony and opinions of defendant\u2019s expert that the confrontation did not cause plaintiff psychological problems carried greater weight than the testimony of plaintiff\u2019s experts based on the fact that defendant\u2019s expert performed psychological testing which plaintiff\u2019s experts had not done.\n3. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 evidentiary findings of fact\u2014 discretion of Commission\nAlthough plaintiff employee contends the Industrial Commission erred in a workers\u2019 compensation case by failing to make certain evidentiary findings of fact, the Commission chooses what findings to make based on its consideration of the evidence and the Court of Appeals is not at liberty to supplement the Commission\u2019s findings.\n4. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 occupational disease \u2014 failure to address issue\nThe Industrial Commission erred in a workers\u2019 compensation case by failing to address plaintiff employee\u2019s occupational disease claim and the case is remanded to the Commission for consideration of this issue.\nAppeal by plaintiff from an opinion and award entered 12 July 2002 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 August 2003.\nLaw Offices of George W. Lennon, by George W. Lennon and Michael W. Ballance, for plaintiff-appellant.\nBrooks, Stevens & Pope, P.A., by Michael C. Sigmon and Matthew P. Blake, for defendant-appellees." }, "file_name": "0542-01", "first_page_order": 572, "last_page_order": 578 }