{
  "id": 8554435,
  "name": "ALICE S. BULLARD (LOCKLEAR), Widow; ALICE S. BULLARD (LOCKLEAR), Guardian Ad Litem for JENNINGS WADNEY BULLARD, Minor Son, and JULIETTE BULLARD, Minor Daughter of JENNINGS BULLARD, DECEASED, Employee Plaintiffs v. JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION Employer and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY Carrier Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bullard v. Johns-Manville Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1979-07-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 7810IC910",
  "first_page": "370",
  "last_page": "372",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 N.C. App. 370"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 333,
    "char_count": 6340,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.794,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7531354144585264
    },
    "sha256": "f022bc92909461968d3a5578e4d344ca9c0ba2241270093d84c5d27221dc6088",
    "simhash": "1:80f7c49aeb96c3d8",
    "word_count": 1009
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:09.609845+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ALICE S. BULLARD (LOCKLEAR), Widow; ALICE S. BULLARD (LOCKLEAR), Guardian Ad Litem for JENNINGS WADNEY BULLARD, Minor Son, and JULIETTE BULLARD, Minor Daughter of JENNINGS BULLARD, DECEASED, Employee Plaintiffs v. JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION Employer and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY Carrier Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendants argue that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the cancer which caused Bullard\u2019s death resulted from his work environment. We agree.\nEvidence was presented that the decedent worked in the Johns-Manville plant from 1966 through October 1971. The decedent was exposed there to asbestos fibers in the air ie.g., one fiber per cubic centimeter in 1970 according to a survey made by an industrial hygenist). Dr. Philip Pratt, an anatomic pathologist, testified that \u201cexposure to asbestos is associated with a substantial increase and risk of having primary carcinoma in the lung.\u201d However, Dr. Pratt examined autopsy slides of the interior surface of decedent\u2019s lung and found \u201cno particles of asbestos bodies\u201d there. There is a more effective way to find asbestos bodies in the lungs, but it was not used. Dr. Pratt also testified that \u201ca contraction of lung cancer by a forty-two year old male is a rare occurrence in the absence of cigarette smoking and exposure to asbestos.\u201d It is stipulated by the parties that plaintiff would testify that the decedent smoked ten or less cigarettes a day on the average. According to Dr. Pratt, \u201cthe amount of smoking is related to the risk of cancer and . . . ten cigarettes a day is in the range that would show an increased incidence.\u201d He testified that \u201cit is probable that the asbestos exposure contributed to the risk\u201d of developing cancer, but that he could not say what was the cause of decedent\u2019s cancer; smoking and the inborn susceptibilities of a particular person also contribute to the development of such a tumor. Decedent\u2019s tumor was not a mesothelioma, which is always associated with exposure to asbestos, but a broncogenic carcinoma, the risk of which is increased by exposure to asbestos.\nDr. Marvin Kushner, a professor of pathology, also examined autopsy slides and found \u201cno visible evidence of inhalation of asbestos bodies nor . . . evidence of the kind of scarring that might be produced by such inhalation.\u201d No evidence of asbestos bodies in the lungs appeared in the autopsy report. He was \u201cunable to tell . . . what the origin of that cancer was. It was his . . . opinion that the decedent\u2019s death was not caused by or related to his occupational exposure to asbestos.\u201d It was also Dr. Kushner\u2019s opinion that a person would not develop a tumor like decedent\u2019s without sufficient exposure to asbestos to cause scarring of the lung, and no such scarring was present.\nDr. Jacob Churg, a professor of pathology, testified that \u201cthere have been considerable medical opinions that scarring is necessary before cancer can occur as a result of asbestos exposure,\u201d but that \u201cthere is a fair amount of evidence that it does occur without significant scarring.\u201d Asked in a hypothetical question whether there was a causal connection between the decedent\u2019s exposure to asbestos and his development of cancer, Dr. Churg testified, \u201cI would say that there may be a possible connection, based on the fact that there was asbestos present in the air, the individual worked in and undoubtedly inhaled such air, that individuals exposed to asbestos do have a higher incidence of carcinoma of the lung.\u201d Either the smoking or the exposure to asbestos \u201cwas a possible contributing cause.\u201d\nThere is ample evidence in the record that as a general matter exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing cancer. However, none of the evidence specifically related to the decedent indicates that his cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos. No asbestos bodies were found in his lungs, and there was no scarring. No expert gave an opinion that decedent\u2019s cancer was caused by asbestos; Dr. Pratt said he did not know the cause, Dr. Kushner said that he did not think asbestos was the cause, and Dr. Churg said only that either smoking or asbestos could have been a \u201cpossible contributing cause.\u201d\nWe hold that this evidence is insufficient to support the commissioner\u2019s finding. The order of the Industrial Commission is\nReversed.\nJudges Hedrick and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moses, Diehl & Pate, by Warren L. Pate, for plaintiff ap-pellees.",
      "Gene Collinson Smith for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALICE S. BULLARD (LOCKLEAR), Widow; ALICE S. BULLARD (LOCKLEAR), Guardian Ad Litem for JENNINGS WADNEY BULLARD, Minor Son, and JULIETTE BULLARD, Minor Daughter of JENNINGS BULLARD, DECEASED, Employee Plaintiffs v. JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION Employer and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY Carrier Defendants\nNo. 7810IC910\n(Filed 17 July 1979)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 67.2\u2014 workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 exposure to asbestos \u2014 subsequent death from cancer \u2014 no causal relation shown\nEvidence was insufficient to support the conclusion of a deputy commissioner of the Industrial Commission that deceased employee\u2019s death resulted from cancer caused by asbestos which the employee encountered while working for defendant, though there was ample evidence in the record that as a general matter exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing cancer, since none of the evidence specifically related to decedent indicated that his cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos; no asbestos bodies were found in his lungs; there was no scarring of his lungs; and'no expert gave an opinion that decedent\u2019s cancer was caused by asbestos.\nAPPEAL by defendants from the Industrial Commission. Opinion and award filed 31 May 1978. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 June 1979.\nJennings Bullard, the husband and father of the plaintiffs, died in April 1974 of cancer. The parties stipulate that they are bound by the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, and that the issue for determination by the Industrial Commission is whether there was a causal relationship between Bullard\u2019s death and the environment in which he was employed, an environment in which asbestos was used as part of the manufacturing process. Deputy Commissioner Roney heard evidence and found as fact that \u201c[t]he carcinogenic agent that caused the [cancer] was asbestos,\u201d and that \u201c[djecedent encountered the carcinogenic agent that caused the [cancer] while working for defendant employer.\u201d He awarded the plaintiffs compensation of $20,000 at $56 per week, and medical and burial expenses.\nDefendants appealed to the full commission, which affirmed the deputy commissioner\u2019s order. Defendants appeal.\nMoses, Diehl & Pate, by Warren L. Pate, for plaintiff ap-pellees.\nGene Collinson Smith for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0370-01",
  "first_page_order": 398,
  "last_page_order": 400
}