{
  "id": 8526768,
  "name": "JAMES TRUDELL, Employee, Plaintiff v. SEVEN LAKES HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY, Employer; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier; Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Trudell v. Seven Lakes Heating & Air Conditioning Co.",
  "decision_date": "1981-12-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 8110IC345",
  "first_page": "89",
  "last_page": "91",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 N.C. App. 89"
    }
  ],
  "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": "198 S.E. 2d 8",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549961
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/19/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 S.E. 2d 360",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 N.C. App. 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548849
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/46/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 S.E. 2d 592",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.C. 184",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622633
      ],
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0184-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 S.E. 2d 586",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "588"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 N.C. App. 54",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552160
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "57"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/42/0054-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 865",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "868"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 697",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574378
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "701"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0697-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 S.E. 2d 227",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 N.C. App. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552099
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/30/0094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S.E. 2d 856",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 220",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548650
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0220-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 S.E. 2d 268",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 N.C. App. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170012
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/52/0088-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 381,
    "char_count": 5863,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.825,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1029279043801631e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5687980264486462
    },
    "sha256": "d6ef8b6b1e9911e00bc9f76663f5da8de8ec307ded1731e8ceee6f63dc662500",
    "simhash": "1:333b4c4aadff321e",
    "word_count": 980
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:47.759339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges HILL and WHICHARD concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES TRUDELL, Employee, Plaintiff v. SEVEN LAKES HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY, Employer; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier; Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nPlaintiff\u2019s appeal does not challenge the sufficiency of the Commission\u2019s Findings of Fact. Plaintiff rather challenges its conclusion that his injury was not caused by an \u201caccident.\u201d The issue, therefore, is whether the Commission\u2019s award is justified by its findings. Buck v. Procter & Gamble Co., 52 N.C. App. 88, 278 S.E. 2d 268 (1981). We conclude it is.\nMere injury does not entitle an employee to compensation under North Carolina\u2019s Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. Bigelow v. Tire Sales Co., 12 N.C. App. 220, 182 S.E. 2d 856 (1971). The injury must result from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. G.S. 97-2(6). \u201cAccident\u201d has been defined as (1) an unlooked for and untoward event which is not expected or designed by the injured employee; (2) a result produced by a fortuitous cause. Pulley v. Association, 30 N.C. App. 94, 226 S.E. 2d 227 (1976).\nAn injury which occurs under normal work conditions is not considered an accident arising out of employment. Work conditions may be considered normal despite the presence of changed circumstances. E.g., Jackson v. Highway Commission, 272 N.C. 697, 158 S.E. 2d 865 (1968); Reams v. Burlington Industries, 42 N.C. App. 54, 255 S.E. 2d 586 (1979). In Jackson, the claimant suffered a heart attack while working a snow plow overtime. The Court stated that the \u201cextra hours on call were customary when, by weather conditions, there was need for the use of the machine he operated.\u201d 272 N.C. at 701, 158 S.E. 2d at 868. In Reams, this Court stated \u201c[w]e do not think that the mere fact that the plaintiff was performing a task for his employer which involved a greater volume of lifting than his ordinarily assigned task may be taken as an indication that an injury he sustained while performing the work was the result of an accident. . . .\u201d 42 N.C. App. at 57, 255 S.E. 2d at 588.\nIn the present cause, we also fail to find evidence that plaintiffs injury was caused by an \u201cunlooked for and untoward event\u201d or a \u201cfortuitous cause.\u201d The uncontradicted evidence is that plaintiff had performed similar work for two and a half years prior to his employment with Seven Lakes Heating and Air Conditioning Company. Although plaintiff testified that the Seven Lakes Condominium was the lowest unit under which he had ever worked, there is no evidence that plaintiff\u2019s task involved unusual exertion or twisting. See generally Edwards v. Publishing Co., 227 N.C. 184, 41 S.E. 2d 592 (1947); Porter v. Shelby Knit, Inc., 46 N.C. App. 22, 264 S.E. 2d 360 (1980). His location underneath the building was normal for air duct installation. Compare with Dunton v. Construction Co., 19 N.C. App. 51, 198 S.E. 2d 8 (1973). At times he was required to lie on his back but there is no finding that that position was an unusually cramped one from which to work.\nPlaintiff worked for at least one week and possibly two weeks under such conditions before experiencing the pain of which he presently complains. We agree with the Commission that by that time, the low crawl space had become part of plaintiffs normal work routine. There was, therefore, no accident causing his back injury. The award order is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges HILL and WHICHARD concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pollock, Fullenwider, Cunningham and Patterson, by Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Johnson, Patterson, Dilthey and Clay, by Richard T. Boyette, for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES TRUDELL, Employee, Plaintiff v. SEVEN LAKES HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY, Employer; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier; Defendants\nNo. 8110IC345\n(Filed 1 December 1981)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 55.1\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014injury not caused by accident \u2014 denial of claim proper\nPlaintiffs claim for compensation for a lower back strain was properly denied where he was installing air ducts in the crawl space underneath a building and worked for at least one week and possibly two weeks under the same conditions before experiencing the pain of which he complained. The low crawl space had become part of plaintiffs normal work routine; therefore, there was no \u201caccident\u201d causing his back injury.\nAppeal by plaintiff from the North Carolina Industrial Commission opinion and award of 13 January 1981. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 November 1981.\nIn October of 1978, plaintiff was employed with Seven Lakes Heating and Air Conditioning Company to do service installments. He began work at the Seven Lakes Condominium site around 1 December 1978. In order to install air ducts, he had to work in the crawl space underneath the building. The crawl space of this unit was lower than any other under which plaintiff had previously worked. After two weeks of such labor, he began to feel pain in his lower back. On 22 December 1978, the pain became so intense that he left work. Plaintiff was hospitalized from 2 January 1979 to 9 January 1979 and diagnosed as suffering from acute lumbosacral strain.\nOn 1 May 1980, a Deputy Commissioner entered an opinion which contained the following pertinent finding of fact:\n\u201c5. During the week prior to December 22, 1978, plaintiff sustained an injury, but at the time complained of, he did not sustain an injury by accident. Plaintiff had been doing the same type of work under the same circumstances or work conditions for at least one, and perhaps two weeks, when he began feeling the pain in his back. Additionally, plaintiff could not remember a specific occasion when his back began to hurt. These facts do not constitute an interruption in the plaintiff\u2019s normal work routine. The low crawl space under the condominiums had become a part of his normal work routine by the time he began to experience the back pain.\u201d\nShe concluded that plaintiff had not sustained an injury by accident and denied his claim to compensation. The Full Commission affirmed the denial on 13 January 1981.\nPollock, Fullenwider, Cunningham and Patterson, by Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nJohnson, Patterson, Dilthey and Clay, by Richard T. Boyette, for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0089-01",
  "first_page_order": 121,
  "last_page_order": 123
}