{
  "id": 8524015,
  "name": "ANN H. SNOW, Widow, THOMAS EDWARD SNOW and HEATHER DEEANNE SNOW, minor children of DAVID R. SNOW, Deceased Employee, Plaintiffs v. DICK & KIRKMAN, INC., Employer; BITUMINOUS CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Carrier, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Snow v. Dick & Kirkman, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1985-04-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 8410IC160",
  "first_page": "263",
  "last_page": "268",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.C. App. 263"
    }
  ],
  "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": "92 S.E. 2d 758",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1956,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 N.C. 208",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2219544
      ],
      "year": 1956,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/244/0208-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 S.E. 2d 623",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 841",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616098
      ],
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0841-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 S.E. 2d 465",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 N.C. 763",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622775
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/242/0763-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 762,
    "char_count": 14397,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.824,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6072142376858713e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6849430217746285
    },
    "sha256": "89146090914482e70c85ecb4f3c125c244554386713c93c1f680817769a424a9",
    "simhash": "1:6e734d6c32188aca",
    "word_count": 2341
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:43.207286+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Whichard and Johnson concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ANN H. SNOW, Widow, THOMAS EDWARD SNOW and HEATHER DEEANNE SNOW, minor children of DAVID R. SNOW, Deceased Employee, Plaintiffs v. DICK & KIRKMAN, INC., Employer; BITUMINOUS CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Carrier, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nThe crucial and determinative question raised by this appeal is whether the Commission\u2019s finding that decedent\u2019s death was precipitated by an electrical shock accidentally sustained in his employment is supported by competent evidence. Defendants\u2019 several other assignments of error raise questions that are either subordinate or immaterial to this one, and will be addressed only as the disposition of this question requires. The competent evidence before the Commission was sufficient to support the finding made in our opinion, and we affirm the opinion and award appealed from. The credibility and weight of the evidence was for the Commission to determine and the Commission\u2019s findings, if supported by competent evidence, are conclusive. Watson v. Clay Co., 242 N.C. 763, 89 S.E. 2d 465 (1955). That other findings could have been properly made from the evidence is irrelevant. Fields v. Tompkins-Johnston Plumbing Co., 224 N.C. 841, 32 S.E. 2d 623 (1945). Nor did accident and effect have to be established by eye witnesses or to a mathematical or scientific certainty, as is implicit in defendants\u2019 arguments. Inferences from circumstances when reasonably drawn are permissible and that other reasonable inferences could have been drawn is no indication of error; deciding which permissible inference to draw from evidentiary circumstances is as much within the fact finder\u2019s province as is deciding which of two contradictory witnesses to believe. Blalock v. City of Durham, 244 N.C. 208, 92 S.E. 2d 758 (1956). In this instance the inferences as to accident and effect that the Commission drew from the wealth of competent evidence presented were both factually reasonable and legally permissible in our opinion.\nThe evidence shows that a young man \u2014 with a statutory life expectancy of approximately forty-three years, in vigorous health with no sign or symptom of illness, in a place that contained no hazard whatever except electricity, and definitely did contain that in the uncompleted control panel in which he was working with a screwdriver in his hand and before which he was sitting on a wire reel spool \u2014 suddenly fell over in a cramped, clinched position, with a wildly disorganized and erratic heartbeat and died without ever uttering a sound or a word, which, in one doctor\u2019s opinion, is not characteristic of heart failure. The only medical certainties of any possible significance that evolved from an autopsy of his body were that all of his vital organs were in normal condition except that the coronary arteries were mildly hardened or arterioscle-rotic, the left ventricular area of the heart was mildly enlarged and contained some \u201cfoci of scarring,\u201d and that death resulted from his heart stopping to beat. The autopsy pathologist and the two qualified, experienced medical doctors who testified as to the cause of death unanimously agreed that what caused the heart to cease beating was almost certainly the disorganized, erratic way that it reportedly was beating immediately before death ensued. The two doctors who testified as to the cause of death also agreed that under the evidence recorded the disorganized, erratic heartbeat was caused by one of only two things \u2014 sudden heart failure or an electrical shock. Thus, that an electrical shock could have been the cause of the disorganized, erratic heartbeat which resulted in death was competently testified to by both doctors; their disagreement was only as to whether electric shock or sudden heart failure was the more likely cause. One doctor was of the firm and positive opinion that the chances of Snow having died from an electrical shock \u201care far greater than the chances of sudden death due to fairly minimal coronary arteriosclerosis he had.\u201d Both the Deputy Commissioner who presided at the hearing and the members of the Full Commission who heard the appeal decided that this testimony was more credible than that of the medical expert who was of the opinion that sudden, spontaneous heart failure was the more likely cause of the disorganized heartbeat and Snow\u2019s ensuing death. That was their province and we cannot say that it was error to do so.\nThat no one saw any flash or heard any popping sound or that no burn marks were on Snow\u2019s body or tools is neither surprising nor decisive in our view. As is commonly known, electricity is usually invisible, and it was testified to that electricity of the relatively low voltage involved here often works silently and leaves no telltale clues behind. Furthermore, just before Snow was stricken, Sunbeam\u2019s field representative, Kline Proud, after telling him he was going to energize a part of the panel so that he could check the furnace\u2019s loading table about 15 steps away, reached inside the panel and flipped a breaker switch, and before Proud walked halfway to the furnace loading table Snow was stricken, and very shortly thereafter, in recognition of the hazard known to exist, Proud and Glidden\u2019s engineer, Murphy, closed the doors to the control panel. To reverse the Commission\u2019s decision on this point, we would have to be of the opinion that the only inference that the Commission could reasonably draw from this and the other evidence presented was that at that particular time and in that evidentiary setting Snow\u2019s heart suddenly and spontaneously failed, thereby causing his heart to beat in a disorganized way until it stopped. We hold no such opinion.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Whichard and Johnson concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Douglas S. Harris for plaintiff appellees.",
      "Horton and Michaels, by John A. Michaels, for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ANN H. SNOW, Widow, THOMAS EDWARD SNOW and HEATHER DEEANNE SNOW, minor children of DAVID R. SNOW, Deceased Employee, Plaintiffs v. DICK & KIRKMAN, INC., Employer; BITUMINOUS CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Carrier, Defendants\nNo. 8410IC160\n(Filed 16 April 1985)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 56\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014 electric shock as cause of death \u2014 sufficient evidence\nThe Industrial Commission\u2019s finding that an electrician\u2019s death was caused by an electrical shock accidentally sustained in his employment was supported by evidence tending to show that decedent was twenty-nine years old and in good health and physical condition; decedent was sitting on a wire spool and working on an electrical control panel with a screwdriver when he suddenly fell over in a cramped, clinched position; after falling, decedent had an erratic, disorganized heartbeat and died without uttering a word; and one doctor was of the opinion that electric shock rather than sudden heart failure was the more likely cause of death. Evidence that decedent\u2019s coronary arteries were mildly hardened, that the left ventricular area of his heart was mildly enlarged, and that a second doctor thought sudden, spontaneous heart failure was the more likely cause of death merely presented a question for the Industrial Commission as to the cause of death.\nAppeal by defendants from opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission entered 20 December 1983. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 October 1984.\nOn 28 April 1981, while working for defendant Dick & Kirkman, Inc., an electrical contractor, David R. Snow, a twenty-nine year old electrician, fell over dead. The claim of his widow and minor children for Workers\u2019 Compensation benefits, after being heard by a Deputy Commissioner of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, was approved. Upon defendants appealing to the Full Commission the opinion and award of the Deputy Commissioner was affirmed in all respects and defendants then appealed to this Court. The opinion and award appealed from is based on a finding of fact that Snow\u2019s death resulted from an electrical shock accidentally received during the course of his work, which caused his heart to beat in an erratic, unrhythmical, disorganized way, known as a ventricular fibrillation, and then stop. The evidence relating to this central and controlling finding, when favorably viewed for the plaintiffs, was to the following effect:\nDefendant employer was doing the electrical work on a factory building that was being constructed in Durham County for SCM/Glidden Metals. The project was nearing completion, virtually all the wiring had been done, the production machinery had been installed, and the electrical equipment and facilities were being checked and made ready for productive use. On the morning involved Snow was working on a cabinet-sized Sunbeam control panel that supplied electricity to a furnace and conveyor system. Four wires, which were not then energized, stuck out from the front of the panel and Snow was instructed to put insulating nuts on their ends. The panel had about a hundred screw-type terminals altogether, some of which were energized with 277 volts of electricity as wires from them went to machines that were then being test operated by Kline Proud, a Sunbeam Equipment Corporation field service representative and Tom Murphy, the factory owner\u2019s engineer. Snow was seated on a wire reel spool in front of the panel, William Terry, a co-worker, was working at the panel next to him, and they were talking to each other as they worked. Terry\u2019s view was obstructed and in order to see Snow he had to lean back. Proud and Murphy, the only other people in the room, were not looking at Snow at this time. Terry was talking and when Snow did not respond Terry leaned back and saw Snow on the cement floor in front of the panel; his jaw was clinched tightly and his right leg was drawing up as though he had a cramp. His jaws were clinched so tightly they had to be forcibly pried apart before mouth-to-mouth resuscitation could be administered.\nNo one had seen what Snow was doing immediately before he fell and no one had heard any popping noises or seen a flash of sparks. No burn marks were found on his tools or on his body. Following Snow\u2019s collapse the four wires he had been directed to put insulating nuts on had such nuts on them; and the last tool seen in Snow\u2019s hands by anyone on the scene was a screwdriver, which is not used in putting insulating nuts on wires. Archie Emory, Snow\u2019s foreman, and Doug Overcash, a professional electrician who had worked with Snow for several years before this incident, both testified that it is normal procedure to make sure that wires are labeled and that screws are tight before closing a panel and that Snow, a good worker with initiative, customarily and habitually went on to the next task required after completing the one assigned. Overcash also testified that in operating and testing electrical equipment he had been shocked many times, a few times seriously, without ever being burned, and that on one occasion, although a charge of 277 volts knocked him off a ladder and caused heart palpitations which rendered him immobile and incapable of speech for some fifteen minutes it did not burn him. Dr. Yancey Mebane noted that low-voltage shocks from 110 to 440 volts most commonly do not leave burns.\nAs to Snow\u2019s health, condition, activities and living habits, the evidence was that: He had worked regularly for years but had done no strenuous work that morning. His personal physician, Dr. Walter C. Mahaffee, described his physical condition as \u201cexcellent,\u201d and a fellow worker said that he was in good physical condition and \u201cnever got tired.\u201d But an electrocardiogram of Snow\u2019s heart about six months earlier was \u201cabnormal,\u201d and the autopsy done on his body revealed that his heart was mildly enlarged in the left ventricular area and showed \u201cmiscroscopically some foci of scarring.\u201d A cardiologist consulted by the autopsy pathologist, though expressing the opinion that the probable cause of death was heart disease, testified that such scarring of the heart as was found in Snow\u2019s heart was \u201cfairly mild\u201d compared to the sort of things that are commonly found in the hearts of people who die from heart trouble. Dr. Mahaffee, who had been Snow\u2019s family doctor for ten years, testified that Snow\u2019s blood pressure was on the low side of normal, he did not have diabetes, was a non-smoker, and that he took the electrocardiogram because Snow reported having pain in the lower chest and abdomen for the preceding five weeks, and the electrocardiogram, in his opinion, showed no significant heart condition. He also testified that Snow\u2019s ailment was diagnosed as being a gastric disturbance and treated as such with favorable results almost immediately. The Rescue Squad members who took Snow to the hospital noted that his heart was undergoing ventricular fibrillation, which condition continued until death came shortly after he was taken to the Durham County Hospital. The death certificate by the autopsy pathologist attributed Snow\u2019s death to cardiac arrest caused by disorganized, unrhythmical contractions of the heart muscles, the cause of which was deemed to be unknown; but it was thought significant, according to the report, that \u201cthe investigation of the scene of death does not indicate that he was in contact with electrical current.\u201d Dr. Mebane, plaintiffs\u2019 expert medical witness, attached little significance to the electrocardiogram because, in his opinion, the condition it indicated was mild and could be due to the pain that Snow was then having or to the leads being improperly affixed on his body by the technician. In his view abnormal laboratory tests to have value must be repeated in order to minimize the possibility of such mistakes and verify the indications; but he agreed that the electrocardiogram indicating mild arteriosclerosis was compatible with the autopsy findings. Both in response to a hypothetical question and also in response to various other questions put to him by plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers, Dr. Mebane also testified in substance that: It was much more likely that the disorganized, unrhythmical contractions of Snow\u2019s heart muscles, which resulted in death, were caused by an electrical shock than a diseased heart. His reasons for this opinion included the absence of diabetes, high blood pressure, and of any signs or symptoms of illness immediately preceding his collapse; Snow\u2019s youth, vigor, and good living and working habits; and the wire reel spool that Snow was sitting on and the relatively new concrete floor his feet were on, both of which, in his opinion, enhanced the chances of an electrical shock occurring upon any contact with an energized part of the panel.\nDouglas S. Harris for plaintiff appellees.\nHorton and Michaels, by John A. Michaels, for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0263-01",
  "first_page_order": 295,
  "last_page_order": 300
}
