On July 27, 2011, Gregory Bolles, a foreman at Midwest Sheet Metal Co., suffered a heart attack and subsequently died while on a job site in Harvard, Nebraska. Bolles had a prior history of cardiac issues, including a heart attack in 2008, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and a smoking habit. On the day of his death, he was engaged in physically demanding work under extremely hot and humid conditions.
Bolles' work involved the replacement of a 350 to 400-pound compressor in an air-conditioning unit. The job required him to use hand tools, work in a bent-over position inside the unit, and guide the compressor out of and back into the unit. This strenuous activity was performed under a heat index that exceeded 100 degrees, with little to no airflow and in direct sunlight. Despite taking a break and driving in an air-conditioned vehicle to pick up nitrogen, Bolles returned to the job site, continued working, and collapsed shortly thereafter.
The key issue before the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court was whether Bolles' work activities on that day materially and substantially contributed to his fatal heart attack.
In workers' compensation cases involving heart attacks, Nebraska law requires establishing both legal and medical causation. Legal causation refers to whether the exertion or stress experienced by the employee during employment was greater than that experienced in their non-employment life or by the average person. The compensation court determined that Bolles' work activities met this criterion.
Bolles' life outside of work was largely sedentary, as testified by his family. He did not engage in aerobic activities, nor did he perform physically demanding tasks like mowing the lawn or taking out the garbage. This contrasted sharply with the physically intense work he performed on the day of his death, which involved lifting heavy equipment, working in extreme heat, and using hand tools in awkward positions.
The court found that the exertion Bolles experienced on the job was indeed greater than what he would have encountered in his non-employment life. This finding of legal causation was crucial, as it established the groundwork for addressing the more contentious issue of medical causation.
Medical causation in workers' compensation cases requires demonstrating that the work-related exertion materially and substantially contributed to the employee's injury or death. In this case, both parties presented expert medical testimony with differing conclusions.
Stacy Bolles, the claimant, presented the expert opinion of Dr. Vincent Di Maio, who concluded that the extreme heat and physical exertion on the day in question were significant contributing factors to Bolles' heart attack. Dr. Di Maio emphasized the physiological stress imposed by the high temperatures, which would have placed additional strain on Bolles' heart, aggravating his pre-existing condition and leading to his death.
On the other hand, Midwest Sheet Metal Co. relied on the testimony of Dr. Michael Del Core, who argued that Bolles' pre-existing conditions, including his history of heart disease, poor control of blood pressure and cholesterol, and non-compliance with medication, were the primary causes of his heart attack. Dr. Del Core downplayed the impact of the work-related exertion and environmental conditions, suggesting that they were not sufficient to significantly elevate Bolles' risk of a heart attack on that day.
The compensation court ultimately found Dr. Di Maio's testimony more persuasive. The court noted that Dr. Del Core's focus on Bolles' pre-existing conditions did not adequately account for the additional stress imposed by the extreme work conditions on the day of the incident. The court concluded that the evidence supported a finding of medical causation, affirming that Bolles' work environment was a material and substantial factor in his fatal heart attack.
The case of Stacy Bolles v. Midwest Sheet Metal Co., Inc. serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities involved in workers' compensation claims, particularly when pre-existing conditions are at play. The court's decision underscores the importance of thoroughly analyzing both legal and medical causation to establish a direct link between work conditions and a heart attack.
For those of us practicing in this field, this case highlights the need to meticulously gather and present evidence that clearly delineates the impact of employment-related stressors on an employee's health. The ruling also reinforces the principle that workers' compensation laws are designed to protect employees who suffer injuries or death due to their work, even when pre-existing conditions are a contributing factor.
In this case, justice was served for Stacy Bolles, affirming her husband's right to compensation for the tragic circumstances surrounding his death. As we continue to navigate the complexities of workers' compensation law, cases like this remind us of the critical role we play in advocating for the rights of workers and their families.
For more information or to discuss your workers' compensation case, please contact our office at 402-541-5867 email us at info@ironcladinjurylaw.com.
