Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decedent Tommy Lineberger was employed as a truck driver with defendants Carolina Freight Carriers Corp. and ABF Freight System Inc. from 1971 to 1999. In 2016, Mr. Lineberger was diagnosed with mesothelioma. In February 2018, he passed away.
In May 2019, Mr. Lineberger’s widow — plaintiff Marcella Lineberger — filed a claim for benefits with the Full Commission. The plaintiff alleged Mr. Lineberger’s mesothelioma was caused by his occupational exposure to asbestos while employed with defendants. The Full Commission ultimately found plaintiff’s claim compensable and awarded benefits after a hearing on the matter. An appeal was filed and on appeal, the defendants’ primary contention was the Full Commission erred in awarding plaintiff benefits since the claim was purportedly barred by the governing statute of limitations pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 97-58, et seq.
Under N.C.G.S. § 97-58(b) and (c), a claim for benefits based on an occupational disease must be filed within two years after the employee is first informed by competent medical authority. To trigger the running of the statutory two-year time limit to file a claim for an occupational disease, the information from the “competent medical authority” must be communicated to the employee “clearly, simply and directly that he has an occupational disease and that the illness is work-related.” Terrell v. Terminix Servs. Inc., 142 N.C. App. 305, 308 (2001). The fact that an employee has been informed by a doctor that he has a disease is not enough to trigger the two-year time limit unless the employee is also informed “that his condition arose out of his employment or anything clearly to that effect.” McKee v. Crescent Spinning Co., 54 N.C. App. 558, 562 (1981). A letter from a doctor notifying an employee that his exam revealed “evidence of dust disease” with a recommendation to “be transferred to some other location . . . where the dust hazard would be negligible” is not enough to clearly inform the employee that he was suffering from an occupational disease. Singleton v. D.T. Vance Mica Co., 235 N.C. 315, 321 (1952). See also Autrey v. Victor Mica Co., 234 N.C. 400, 408-10 (1951) (holding that a doctor informing an employee that he might have symptoms of an occupational disease without providing a conclusive diagnosis was insufficient to trigger the two-year statutory time limit to file a claim).
The defendants primarily argued plaintiff’s claim for benefits was barred by the governing statute of limitations because of Mr. Lineberger’s prior civil lawsuit. In that regard, Mr. Lineberger filed a civil lawsuit in late 2016. Mr. Lineberger’s civil lawsuit alleged, among other things, that his mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure because of his employment with defendants. These allegations in Mr. Lineberger’s civil suit underscores the defendants’ contention that Mr. Lineberger was informed more than two years after Plaintiff’s claim for benefits was filed with the Full Commission in 2019. As such, the Full Commission erred in awarding plaintiff benefits since this claim was not filed in a timely manner.
The Court of Appeals did not find the defendants’ argument persuasive. Regarding Mr. Lineberger’s prior civil lawsuit initiated in late 2016, defendants failed to present any evidence where a doctor informed Mr. Lineberger that his disease was caused by his employment with defendants. His civil lawsuit, at best, merely shows Mr. Lineberger suspected that his disease was work-related. Mr. Lineberger’s suspicions are not the same as a clear statement from a doctor that his disease was caused by his employment with defendants. On the contrary, the established evidence presented to the court demonstrated that Mr. Lineberger was first informed definitively that he had mesothelioma — which was caused by his occupation with Defendants — by the Full Commission’s finding in June 2017. This occurred 23 months before plaintiff filed her claim for benefits in May 2019. The plaintiff’s claim was therefore timely, filed pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 97-58, et seq.
In view of the above, plaintiff’s award for benefits was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Read the full decision here.
