'Did the Chemicals Get You?' – HR's Comment Helps Seal Award for Worker who Fainted, Fell

Monroe, NC (WorkersCompensation.com)–An employer who asserts that a workplace injury arose out of a chronic condition, rather than the worker’s job, better be ready to make its case. 

In Stewart v. Goulston Technologies, Inc., No. COA21-642. (N.C. Ct. App. 06/21/22), despite the employer’s arguments to the contrary, there was evidence that a chemical operator’s fainting episode and plunge down an unforgiving staircase related at least in part to mixing noxious chemicals. 

The operator was combining chemicals as part of his normal duties when the fumes gave off a powerful odor. Feeling nauseous in the warm lab, the employee climbed a set of industrial-type stairs. The next thing he knew, he was at the bottom, having fallen 15 or so steps. 

Doctors concluded that the operator suffered a syncopal (fainting) episode at the top of the stairs—an event which can arise out of many different circumstances and conditions. As a result of the fall, the operator sustained a spinal injury and suffered ongoing pain and weakness. 

The industrial commission awarded the operator worker’s compensation benefits, concluding that the injury occurred during the course of and arose out of his employment. The company appealed, claiming the worker’s chronic conditions—which included hypertension, diabetes, and obesity—caused the injury. 

The state appeals court explained that the fact that an employee has an existing chronic condition does not preclude an injury from arising out of his employment. This is the case even if the condition contributed to the injury in some way—as long as the injury is associated with any risk attributable to the employment. “An injury will be held to arise out of the employment ‘if the idiopathic condition of the employee combines with risks attributable to the employment to cause the injury,’” the court wrote. 

The court acknowledged that the operator’s primary care physician stated that if the worker’s chronic conditions were left uncontrolled, they could cause a syncopal episode. But the court held that the worker showed the injury was caused at least in part by the workplace conditions of his position. 

In reaching that conclusion, the court pointed out that the worker testified that he felt fine before mixing the chemicals, that the chemicals gave off a strong odor, and that he only became sick and nauseated after mixing them. Further, the court noted, the operator was required by his employer to wear heavy protective gear. Because the lab was warm, the court observed, the worker climbed the stairs to find a cooler area.  

The court also noted that after the operator yelled for help, it took at least 15 minutes for someone to arrive. When they did arrive, the court remarked, the human resources manager who was among them approached the operator and asked, "What happened? Did the chemicals get you?" 

The evidence, the court concluded, showed the injury arose at least in part from the operator’s employment duties, which included mixing odorous chemicals in a warm room while wearing heavy gear.  

Accordingly, the court affirmed the commission’s decision.