Court Opinion

ID: 9847550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:02:07.906106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:20.050267
License: Public Domain

Judge Martin
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Although there can be no dispute that plaintiffs condition has changed since he last received compensation for his initial compensable heart attack, there is absolutely no evidence that the compensable heart attack produced his subsequent heart attacks or his continued coronary occlusions that cause his angina. Plaintiff has simply failed to prove that his change in condition is a direct and proximate result of his initial compensable injury.
Although stating that the “direct and natural result of the compensable primary injury” test is not applicable to this case, nowhere does the majority opinion articulate what alternative standard should be applied. In my opinion, both the Commission and the majority have applied, without saying as much, the “significant contribution” test of Rutledge v. Tultex Corp., 308 N.C. 85, 301 S.E. 2d 359 (1983) to the facts of this case. Unlike Rutledge, this case does not involve an occupational disease. Even if Rutledge is applicable, however, there has been no evidence that plaintiffs original compensable heart attack “significantly contributed to” his present condition.
Because the Commission’s findings and conclusion do not support an award of compensation for plaintiffs present disability, the question of apportionment of disability under Morrison v. Burlington Industries, 304 N.C. 1, 282 S.E. 2d 458 (1981), also an *438occupational disease case, does not arise. I vote to reverse the Opinion and Award of the Full Commission.