03-07679-H-7827. Harbin vs. Outokumpu Heatcraft USA, LLC.
Case Date | November 01, 2005 |
Court | Mississippi |
Mississippi Worker Compensation
2005.
03-07679-H-7827.
Harbin vs. Outokumpu Heatcraft USA, LLC
OSCAR HARBIN, DECEASED CLAIMANT VS. OUTOKUMPU HEATCRAFT USA, LLC
EMPLOYER AND ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. CARRIER
MISSISSIPPI
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION MWCC NO. 03-07679-H-7827Representing Claimant: Vanessa J. Jones, Esquire,
Hattiesburg, MS Representing Employer and Carrier: Phillip P.
Embry, Esquire, Jackson, MS
FULL COMMISSION ORDER
The above styled claim was heard by the Commission on October 10,
2005 pursuant to the Employer's and Carrier's Petition for Review of Decision
of Administrative Judge. The Administrative Judge issued an Order dated April
1, 2005 finding that Oscar Harbin's death on Tune 5, 2003 was compensable, and
awarded benefits accordingly. We reverse.
I.
On June 5, 2003, Oscar Harbin suffered sudden cardiac death at
the age of 62 while on the premises of his employer, Heatcraft. Mr. Harbin had
been an employee of Heatcraft for approximately 3 7 years, in the paint
department. He was, by all accounts, a dedicated employee who consistently
reported to work without fail or complaint. He was a former smoker who had
kicked the habit in 1996, other than an occasional drag, and had no known
family history of hypertension or other cardiovascular problems. However, Mr.
Harbin himself began treatment for hypertension about five years prior to his
death, but had no significant problems due to hypertension.
As noted, he worked in the paint department as a paint sprayer.
The area in which he worked was ventilated, but not air conditioned or heated.
Heatcraft also provided personal fans at individual work stations, including to
Mr. Harbin. Undoubtedly, the temperature inside the paint area fluctuated from
hot to cold with the changing of the seasons, and on June 5, 2003, the
temperature inside the paint area was estimated to be between 70 and 75 degrees
due to a wind draft that kept the area reasonably comfortable.
On the day in question, Mr. Harbin and a co-worker, Annie
Carodine, began work as usual at 7:00 a.m. doing painting on an assembly line.
Mr. Harbin's wife testified that her husband appeared normal and made no
complaints that morning before leaving for work. By about 11:00 a.m., Harbin
and Carodine had finished their work in the paint department, and they were
given the choice to either quit work for the day, or receive training in
another department. Mr. Harbin and Ms. Carodine chose to receive training in
another part oftheplant, and after a 20 minute lunch break, the two met Mr.
Herman Moore for training in the tubing department.
In the tubing department, Mr. Harbin stood and watched while Ms.
Carodine received training from Mr. Moore. While awaiting his turn to undergo
instruction by Mr. Moore, Mr. Harbin fell dead. Ms. Carodine testified that Mr.
Harbin did not perform any workout o f the ordinary while in the paint
department earlier that morning, and had not performed any work in the tubing
department prior to his fatal collapse. Mr. Moore also testified that Mr.
Harbin had not physically performed any work in the tubing department prior to
his collapse. Mr. Harbin was officially pronounced dead at 12:27 p.m.
II.
The Supreme Court of Mississippi has, over the years, recognized
a presumption of causal connection in cases where an employee suffers a fatal
injury which appears to bear some relation to work, even if only coincidental.
Such a presumption is common place in other jurisdictions, at least with regard
to unexplained deaths.
The theoretical justification is similar to that for unexplained falls and other neutral harms: The occurrence of the death within the course of employment at least indicates that the employment brought the deceased within range of the harm, and the cause of the harm, being unknown, is neutral and not personal. The practical justification lies in the realization that, when the death itself has removed the only possible witness who could prove causal connection, fairness to the dependents suggests some softening of the rule requiring claimant to provide affirmative proof of each requisite element of compensability.Larson's Workers' Compensation, Desk Edition §7.04[2] (2004). When this presumption makes its appearance in a given case, it has the effect of establishing that the workers' death was work related, unless the employer is able to rebut the presumption with sufficient, credible proof that the death was in fact not work related. This presumption "is a rule allocating the burden of production of evidence under which the employer and carrier may well escape liability upon proof that the workers' death was wholly unrelated to his work activities." Road Maintenance SuNlv, Inc. v. Dep. of Maxwell, 493 So.2d 318, 322 (Miss. 1986). In Mississippi, however, the Supreme Court has applied this presumption in circumstances other than those involving a true, unexplained death. The circumstances which have given rise to this presumption include, in addition to cases where the worker was "found dead", those cases where the worker "falls dead" in the presence of witnesses, or where the "onset" of the fatal injury occurred on the job even though death did not occur until later. U. S. Rubber Reclaiming Co., Inc. v. Dependents of Stampley, 508 So.2d 673 (Miss. 1987) ("fell dead"); Johnston v- Hattiesburg Clinic, P_A., 423 So.2d 114 (Miss. 1982) ("onset" on the job); Washington v. Greenville Manuf. and Machine Works, 223 So.2d 642 (Miss. 1969) ("found dead"). The dependents of Mr. Harbin...
To continue reading
Request your trial