William R. Cross v. Mahle, Inc.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that his heart attack was not a compensable injury by accident under the workers' compensation laws of Tennessee. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Cross, was injured in an automobile accident in 1994 and left with a partial disability. In order to accommodate that disability, the employer placed him in a light duty position as a security guard, where he worked in an air conditioned guard shack. He would leave the shack from time to time to check the identity of a vehicle driver, a distance of twenty to twenty-five feet from the shack. In July of 1995, he was prescribed nitroglycerin for chest pain. On the evening of August 17, 1995, he experienced slight chest pain at home. The next day, a very hot one, he felt chest pain at work. The pain gradually increased in severity and did not subside for several hours, although he did not engage in any unusual physical exertion or stress. He left work and went home, then to the hospital, accompanied by his wife. Dr. Kenneth Allum treated the claimant. He testified that the claimant had suffered a minor heart attack and that going in and out of the guard shack in hot weather could have been the cause. Dr. Alfred Beasley disagreed on both counts, from medical records. Both doctors are board certified in internal medicine. Dr. Beasley is also a cardiologist. The medical records reflect the claimant as having poorly controlled diabetes, as being overweight and a heavy smoker and having a family history of coronary artery disease. The trial judge prepared and filed an exhaustive opinion in which he found that the claimant had failed to carry the burden of proof as to causation, and dismissed the claim. Appellate review is de novo upon the record 2