Court Opinion

ID: 9583636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:40:45.774659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:27.347275
License: Public Domain

WYNN, Judge
dissenting.
“It is the duty of the Commission to consider all of the competent evidence, make definitive findings, draw its conclusions of law from these findings, and enter the appropriate award. In making its findings, the Commission’s function is to weigh and evaluate the entire evidence and determine as best it can where the truth lies.” Harrell v. J.P. Stevens & Co., 45 N.C. App. 197, 205, 262 S.E.2d 830, 835 (1980). Moreover, in workers’ compensation cases, it is a “general principle that the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act should be construed liberally so that benefits are not denied to an employee based on a narrow or strict interpretation of the statute’s provisions.” Grantham v. Cherry Hosp., 98 N.C. App. 34, 37, 389 S.E.2d 822, 823 (1990). In this case, because I believe the Commission did not consider all of the competent evidence and did not base its decision *644upon a fair and liberal construction of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-53(13), I respectfully dissent.
The record indicates the Commission was presented with evidence of blood-borne pathogen regulations implemented by OSHA, with which the Town of Ayden had to comply.1 Under OSHA standard 1910.1030, after reviewing all of the evidence in the rulemaking record, OSHA “determined that employees face a significant health risk as the result of occupational exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials (OPIM) because they may contain blood-borne pathogens. These pathogens include but are not limited to HBV, which causes hepatitis B; HIV, . . ., hepatitis C virus . . . .” Included in the employees at risk were “employees handling regulated waste, custodial workers required to clean up contaminated sharps or spills of blood or OPIM, . . . maintenance workers, such as plumbers.” Therefore, OSHA required certain standards to be implemented to minimize the risk of infection. Therefore, even though both experts testified they were not aware of any literature indicating sewer maintenance workers were at a greater risk of contracting Hepatitis C than the general public, there was competent evidence in the record indicating sewer maintenance workers were indeed at a greater risk than the general public. Accordingly, finding of fact 10, which states in part: “there was no scientific evidence to support the theory that sewer workers were at an increased risk of acquiring the infection” is not supported by the record.
Moreover, the Commission based its decision upon an improper inference from the evidence presented. In Findings of Fact 11-12, the Commission described the testimony of Dr. John Campbell and Dr. Douglas F. Newton. Dr. Newton, a licensed physician for 26 years and a board-certified expert specialist in gastroenterology and internal medicine, treated plaintiff, analyzed plaintiffs medical records and questioned plaintiff about his medical history, any possible history of risky behaviors, and his employment. In contrast, Dr. Campbell had been licensed in North Carolina for 13 years and had never treated plaintiff. Although Dr. Campbell had worked for two years with the Center for Disease Control, he did not conduct any research in Hepatitis C and has never published on the subject. Rather, Dr. Campbell’s worked in epidemic intelligence at the CDC. In order to render an opinion, Dr. Campbell researched medical literature and reviewed plaintiffs medical and employment records.
*645In rendering its finding on Dr. Newton’s testimony, the Commission stated: “Dr. Newton was too quick to attribute plaintiff’s condition to his exposure to sewage. Not only did Dr. Newton not have scientific authority to support his opinion, he could not base his opinion on his own experience in medical practice since he had not treated another sewer worker for Hepatitis C.”
A close analysis of the depositions indicate the doctors provided essentially the same testimony regarding Hepatitis C. Both doctors testified that Hepatitis C is a blood-borne pathogen that infects the liver and can possibly lead to death. They both testified that most people get it through direct exposure through cuts or injections and that IV drug use was the most common method. They also testified that people could get it through blood transfusions but that it was rare to get it through sexual conduct. Finally, they both testified that they were unaware of any medical literature linking Hepatitis C to sewer maintenance workers or indicating Hepatitis C could be transmitted through sewer water and neither doctor had treated another sewer worker for Hepatitis C.
Based upon a complete history of plaintiff’s behaviors, employment and medical care, Dr. Newton attributed plaintiff’s Hepatitis C infection to workplace exposure. However, .without the benefit of plaintiff’s complete history and based upon his assessment of the medical literature, Dr. Campbell testified that plaintiff did not contract it from workplace exposure and could not state a cause of his Hepatitis C.
Disregarding the OSHA standard and the similarities in the testimony, the Commission based Findings of Fact 11 and 12 solely upon the doctors’ testimony that they were unaware of any medical literature indicating Hepatitis C could be transmitted through sewer water or that sewer workers were at a greater risk of contracting the disease. Notably, neither doctor testified that there was no scientific evidence of such a connection.
Finally, the Commission, disregarding plaintiff’s work environment and behavioral history, neglected its duty to apply a fair and liberal construction to the statute. As plaintiff explained to his doctor and the Commission, he began working for the Town of Ayden as a water and sewer maintenance and lift station technician in 1980. From 1980 until 1986, he worked on a daily basis for an average of 4-5 hours in untreated, raw sewage that contained needles, syringes, *646blood, urine, feces, feminine hygiene products, prophylactics and any other thing people flushed down a toilet. Because he was working with metal and rough surfaces, he would frequently get cuts and abrasions which he treated with antiseptic and covered with a band-aid. Plaintiff also had a condition where his nose would bleed easily and it was not unusual for plaintiff to come out of the sewer with a nosebleed. While unclogging sewer mains and pipes, it was not unusual for plaintiff to be showered with raw, untreated sewage and it was not uncommon for sewage to enter his eyes and mouth. His rain suit and clothes would become saturated with sewage and would come into contact with his skin. His gloves would puncture and tear and raw sewage would seep into his gloves and rubber boots. Dr. Newton testified that given this exposure to blood and raw sewage and after eliminating all other possible causes of infection, he opined that plaintiff contracted Hepatitis C at work because there was no other source of exposure.
Ignoring plaintiffs workplace exposure to blood, plaintiff’s testimony indicating he had not participated in any behaviors that could have been another potential source of Hepatitis C infection, Dr. Newton’s expert opinion, and OSHA regulations indicating sewer maintenance workers were at an increased risk of contracting Hepatitis C, the Commission chose to rely upon the doctors’ lack of knowledge regarding medical literature on the subject. In my opinion, the Commission failed to consider all of the competent evidence, did not fulfill its duty to apply a liberal construction to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-53(13), and did not try to determine as best it could where the truth lay. See Harrell v. J.P. Stevens & Co., 45 N.C. App. 197, 205, 262 S.E.2d 830, 835 (1980). As the determination of whether an occupational disease exists is a mixed question of law and fact, I would conclude plaintiff established by a preponderance of the evidence that he did suffer from an occupational disease. See Hobbs v. Clean Control Corp., 154 N.C. App. 433, 436, 571 S.E.2d 860, 862 (2002) (stating “Plaintiff has the burden of proving [an occupational disease] by a preponderance of the evidence”).

. Violation of the standard could result in civil or criminal penalties. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-131, 95-138 and 95-139.