Court Opinion

ID: 9625825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:51:53.396772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:44.733596
License: Public Domain

Hall, Presiding Judge,
dissenting. I dissent to the judgment and rationale of the majority opinion for the reason that it is in direct conflict with Travelers Ins. Co. v. Maddox, 118 Ga. App. 596 (164 SE2d 850) and previous decisions of this Court on the question of causal connection in Workmen’s Compensation cases involving heart attacks.
It is important to remember that there are several different forms of evidence which will authorize a finding of a causal connection between employment and a heart attack. Care must be taken that we do not confuse these forms in our desire to reach a particular result. The first form of evidence is medical opinion testimony which, however slight, will suffice. The second is lay opinion testimony (with proper foundation laid, of course) that the work the employee was performing when his attack began was strenuous. In the absence of either of the above, resort may be had to the test of "natural inference through human experience” as stated in Hoffman v. National Surety Corp., 91 Ga. App. 414 (85 SE2d 784). All of these forms are missing in the present case.
The facts of this case are undisputed. The employee was a truck driver of some 15 years experience and had been driving the same Augusta-Atlanta route for about three years. On the day of his death he had done some chores around his house; had rested for a few hours before being called into work; had made no complaints of feeling ill or had not appeared to his wife to be in pain or discomfort; and had left the Augusta terminal about 8:30 p. m. Two other truck drivers employed by the same company and driving the same route testified that they customarily took a coffee break with the deceased at a particular truck-stop, but that he had unaccountably not stopped that evening. When they reached Atlanta a few hours later, they discovered the deceased’s truck standing in a street with its lights burning and with him slumped behind the wheel. They both also testified that they did not consider driving this type of truck to be a strain.
The autopsy showed that the employee had died of a myocardial *464infarct, secondary to atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. In lay terms, he had a heart attack caused by the plugging of a coronary artery, the plugging itself caused by a gradual narrowing of the artery by the deposit of fatty particles. Two doctors testified, in response to hypothetical questions, on their opinion as to the causal connection between the employee’s work and his death. There was no lay testimony on causation. One of the doctors (Dr. Massee) stated there was no causal connection: "Assuming that all of the above and foregoing facts are true, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the activities of Mr. Jenkins on the date of his death would be a competent producing cause, precipitating cause or contributory cause to his death?” (R-101) His answer: "I do. ” Question: "What is your opinion, Doctor?” Answer: "That there was no causal relationship between his activities and the myocardial infarct which caused his death.” (R-101).
An issue in this case arises from the testimony of the other doctor (Dr. Murray). He was asked a detailed and perfectly proper hypothetical question including many of the facts outlined above. The doctor’s answer to the question was based on several assumptions which were neither facts in evidence nor even included in the hypothetical question. Thus, the answer was legally unresponsive and should not have been considered. Paulk v. Thomas, 115 Ga. App. 436 (154 SE2d 872); Holland Furnace Co. v. Willis, 120 Ga. App. 733 (172 SE2d 149).
There is no favorable lay opinion testimony. The two other truck drivers testified to the contrary — that driving was not a strain. This leaves the record with no testimony concerning any exertion which might have caused the employee’s attack. In this situation, the employee’s work must be shown to be of such a strenuous nature that "it raises a natural inference through human experience that the exertion contributed toward the precipitation of the attack.” Hoffman v. National Surety Corp., 91 Ga. App. 414, supra. This court has held that truck driving (even with strong evidence the employee was very ill) was not such work as would authorize the above inference. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Maddox, 118 Ga. App. 596, supra. See also Brown Transport Corp. v. Blanchard, 126 Ga. App. 333 (190 SE2d 625).
It should be noted that the only precedent that is relevant to the facts in this case is Maddox, supra. The majority opinion completely ignores this authority. Instead it cites cases that are inapposite to the facts here. J. D. Jewell, Inc. v. Peck, 116 Ga. App. 405 (157 SE2d 806) had medical testimony to support the award. *465Fulton Industries v. Knight, 127 Ga. App. 604 (194 SE2d 346), had medical and lay testimony as to causation and the disputed point was over the construction of the findings. Brown Transport Corp. v. Blanchard, 126 Ga. App. 333 (190 SE2d 625), supports this dissent by upholding the ruling that driving a truck 65 miles was not an aggravating cause. The term "any evidence rule” cannot be used as a generality; it must be based upon some form of legal evidence. There is no legal evidence here to support the award.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Eberhardt and Judge Quillian concur in this dissent.