# Hollingsworth v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co.

> North Carolina Industrial Commission · May 9, 2006

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3634890

## Case

- **Full name:** Marlon Ray Hollingsworth, Employee v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. D/B/A Kelly Springfield Tire Co., Employer, Liberty Mutual Group, Carrier
- **Court:** North Carolina Industrial Commission
- **Decided:** May 9, 2006
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent
- **Judges:** OPINION AND AWARD for the Full Commission by LAURA KRANIFELD MAVRETIC, Commissioner, and DISSENT by BUCK LATTIMORE, Chairman, N.C. Industrial Commission.
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3634890

## Opinion text

The undersigned respectfully dissents from the Opinion and Award of the majority finding that plaintiff suffers from a compensable occupational disease. I disagree with the majority's finding that the testimony of Dr. McFarlane and Dr. Dalldorf should be given more weight than that of Dr. Edwards. Dr. Edwards is board certified in orthopedic surgery and hand surgery, and commonly treats Dupuytren's contractures. In fact, Dr. Edwards actually performs two Dupuytren's surgeries approximately every three weeks.
Dr. Edwards testified that for a job function to contribute to Dupuytren's, evidence would have to be presented that a particular type of trauma results from the activity such as lacerations or bruises. No such evidence has been presented in the case at hand. In fact, plaintiff also suffers from Dupuytren's Diathesis, which involves the soles of the feet. Dr. Edwards testified that the presence of Dupuytren's on plaintiff's feet strengthens his belief that manual labor did not cause plaintiff's condition.
I believe that Dr. Edwards' testimony should be given greater weight as he is the expert most qualified to give his opinion as to the complex issue of causation in this case. Further, I believe that the testimony of Dr. McFarlane and Dr. Dalldorf are insufficient to prove causation under Holley v. Acts, 357 N.C. 228 , 581 S.E.2d 750 (2003).
Plaintiff has failed to prove by the greater weight of the competent medical evidence that his condition was caused by his employment. Accordingly, I dissent.
This the ____ day of April, 2006.
S/____________ BUCK LATTIMORE CHAIRMAN

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3634890. Public record. Not legal advice.