 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jarrett v. McCreary Modern12/7/2004
tion" exposed to a greater risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome through her employment than members of the general public.
Our examination of the record reveals that findings of fact numbers 14 and 20 are supported by competent record evidence, specifically the deposition testimony of plaintiff's two treating physicians. Dr. McGinnis testified at his deposition that " n my estimation, this particular job may place [plaintiff] at a mildly increased risk [of developing carpal tunnel syndrome] compared to the general population." Moreover, Dr. DeFranzo testified at his deposition that in his opinion, plaintiff's job "without question" exposed her to a higher risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome than the general public. Since findings of fact numbers 14 and 20 are supported by competent record evidence, they are conclusive on appeal. Hardin, 136 N.C. App. at 353, 524 S.E.2d at 371. Because we conclude that these findings in turn support the Commission's conclusion that " laintiff's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is not an ordinary disease of life to which the general public . . . not so employed is equally exposed[,]" plaintiff has carried her burden of proving the first two elements of the Rutledge test. Robbins, 151 N.C. App. at 521, 566 S.E.2d at 142.
Defendants therefore correctly assert in their brief that "this case hinges primarily on the issue of whether there is competent evidence to support the findings and conclusions that Plaintiff's job as a sewer caused her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome[,]" i.e., the third element of the Rutledge test.
An employee seeking workers' compensation benefits can establish the third element of the Rutledge test by showing that the job was a significant causal factor in, or significantly contributed to, the development of the occupational disease. Locklear v. Stedman Corp., 131 N.C. App. 389, 393, 508 S.E.2d 795, 798 (1998). In the context of determining the relationship between workplace exposure and development of an occupational disease, our Supreme Court has stated as follows:
Significant means "having or likely to have influence or effect: deserving to be considered: important, weighty, notable." . . . Significant is to be contrasted with negligible, unimportant, present but not worthy of note, miniscule, or of little moment. The factual inquiry, in other words, should be whether the occupational exposure was such a significant factor in the disease's development that without it the disease would not have developed to such an extent that it caused the physical disability which resulted in claimant's incapacity for work.
Rutledge, 308 N.C. at 101-02, 301 S.E.2d at 370. "Although it is not necessary for doctors to use the exact wording of `significantly contribut ,' there must be some indication of the degree of contribution such as `more likely than not' to meet the Rutledge test." Hardin, 136 N.C. App. at 355, 524 S.E.2d at 372.
Here, the Commission made the following finding of fact regarding the degree to which plaintiff's employment contributed to plaintiff's development of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome:
26. The Full Commission finds the greater weight of competent credible evidence in the record supports a finding that plaintiff's employment was a significant contributing factor the development of plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome.
Once again, our examination of the record reveals that finding of fact number 26 is supported by competent evidence, specifically the deposition testimony of Dr. DeFranzo. At his deposition, Dr. DeFranzo testified as follows:
Q: Dr. Defranzo, I'm going to be asking you some opinion questions. And, in forming
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|