Adams v. Triad Medical

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 18, 1997
DocketI.C. No. 332609
StatusPublished

This text of Adams v. Triad Medical (Adams v. Triad Medical) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adams v. Triad Medical, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1997).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner.

The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. Upon much detailed reconsideration of the evidence as a whole, the undersigned reach the same facts and conclusions as those reached by the Deputy Commissioner with some modifications. The Full Commission in their discretion, have determined that there are no good grounds in this case to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, as sufficient convincing evidence exists in the record to support their findings of fact, conclusions of law, and ultimate award.

Accordingly, the undersigned find as fact and conclude as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the initial hearing as

STIPULATIONS

1. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employment relationship existed between the plaintiff-employee and defendant-employer.

3. The employer was insured by Companion Property and Casualty.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $196.00 per week.

5. Dr. Stringfield and Dr. Dray are medical doctors duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of North Carolina. Dr. Stringfield specializes in Family Medicine and Dr. Dray specializes in the Hand and Upper Extremity. If both of the doctors were present and testifying under oath by deposition or in a hearing before the North Carolina Industrial Commission in this case, both doctors would testify in accordance with the contents of the medical reports attached to their respective depositions and received in evidence.

*******************

Based upon all the competent, credible, and convincing evidence of record, the undersigned make the following additional

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the time of the initial hearing, plaintiff was 35 years old and had received her GED. Plaintiff also had some Certified Network Administrator training at Haywood Community College. Plaintiff was not employed at the time of the initial hearing.

2. Plaintiff began working for defendant-employer around January, 1992 and was terminated by defendant-employer on August 17, 1994. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $196.00, yielding a compensation rate of $130.76 per week.

3. In April, 1993, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant-Employer as a "lead folder", where she folded surgical drapes. Plaintiff's job duties were as follows: plaintiff would place surgical drapes in stacks of 20 until there was a stack of 100 on the table, this activity taking 10 to 15 minutes; plaintiff would then fold each individual drape into a fan-type fold, holding the drape with her left hand and folding with her right as fast as she could until the drape was folded into a small square. Plaintiff would fold 20 drapes at a time, box them, and put them on a pallet, taking approximately 7 to 12 minutes to fold a stack of 20. Plaintiff would then fold and box the remaining 80 drapes and, when finished, would repeat the process again for the full work day. Plaintiff worked eight hours a day, five days per week, with two 15-minute breaks per day and 30 minutes for lunch. Plaintiff had been performing this job since she began working at defendant-employer in January, 1992.

4. In February or March, 1993, plaintiff began to have pain and cramps in her right hand and wrist while working. Plaintiff reported this to her supervisor, Brenda Buchanan.

5. Defendant-employer refused to send plaintiff to a doctor, and on April 14, 1993, plaintiff sought medical treatment for the right wrist and hand pain from Dr. John Stringfield, plaintiff's family doctor.

6. Dr. Stringfield noted that plaintiff had had the pain in her wrist for the past one to two weeks with the pain steadily increasing. After noting that plaintiff worked at a job where she did repetitive movements with her right hand and wrist, Dr. Stringfield diagnosed probable carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Stringfield prescribed a splint and Naprosyn, and held plaintiff out of work for two to three days.

7. On April 22, 1993, plaintiff returned to Dr. Stringfield with complaints of numbness and paresthesias in the right hand. An examination revealed a positive Tinel's test, which Dr. Stringfield diagnosed as carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Stringfield authorized plaintiff to return to work but restricted her from repetitive activities of the right wrist.

8. On June 14, 1993, Dr. Stringfield reported that plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome was resolving, however, he noted that plaintiff had not been working.

9. Although Dr. Stringfield did not see plaintiff from June, 1993 until May, 1995, he believed that if plaintiff continued to have the same symptoms in May, 1995 that she had had in June, 1993, then in the meantime, plaintiff would not have been able to perform the repetitive movement job duties.

10. In the Spring of 1993, plaintiff was laid off from her job. Plaintiff received unemployment benefits of $94.00 per week for approximately ten weeks, but plaintiff received no Workers' Compensation benefits.

11. Approximately ten weeks later, plaintiff returned to defendant-employer's employment, working in different jobs at first, and she ultimately returned to the lead folder job. Plaintiff's right hand continued to hurt during this time.

12. On September 27, 1993 plaintiff presented to Dr. Gregory Dray, a hand surgeon at Carolina Hand Surgery Associates. Plaintiff reported worsening nighttime paresthesias. Dr. Dray diagnosed plaintiff with probable mild right carpal tunnel syndrome and injected plaintiff's carpal canal with Dalalone. He also fitted plaintiff with a night-resting splint to also be worn while working.

13. Dr. Dray saw plaintiff again on October 18, 1993, noting that her symptoms were improved from the carpal tunnel injection. Dr. Dray opined that plaintiff's right carpal tunnel syndrome was work-related.

14. On February 9, 1994, Dr. Dray restricted plaintiff to a weight restriction of 10 pounds on the right hand and no use of arm above her shoulder.

15. Defendant-employer sent plaintiff to Dr. Al Osbahr on March 9, 1994. Plaintiff was diagnosed with right shoulder/trapezius muscle chronic strain with possible thoracic outlet syndrome and possible carpal tunnel syndrome. Plaintiff was limited to working with her left arm only.

16. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Osbahr's office on March 16, 1994 due to continued numbness and tingling in plaintiff's fourth and fifth fingers of her right hand that appeared to be worse with movements of the shoulder and certain positions of plaintiff's wrist.

17. Plaintiff continued to experience pain in her right wrist and hand, and her productivity decreased. Plaintiff also received a warning slip from defendant/employer regarding her frequent absenteeism. Defendant/employer terminated plaintiff on August 17, 1994. Plaintiff received unemployment of $105.00 per week until it expired in February, 1995.

18. On July 11, 1995, almost a year after her termination, plaintiff presented to Dr. Lipsey for the continuing pain in her right wrist and hand, right shoulder and minimally in plaintiff's neck. Upon examination the Tinel's sign and Phalen maneuver tests were negative, but Dr. Lipsey stated that his findings were not definitive.

19. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Dray on September 13, 1995 complaining again of symptoms in her right hand including night-time paresthesias. Plaintiff had a positive Tinel's sign. Dr. Dray believed plaintiff was likely suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome and he gave her another injection.

20. On October 30, 1995, plaintiff returned to Dr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Booker v. Duke Medical Center
256 S.E.2d 189 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Adams v. Triad Medical, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-triad-medical-ncworkcompcom-1997.