Allen v. Hbd Industries, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 2, 2011
DocketI.C. NO. 198348.
StatusPublished

This text of Allen v. Hbd Industries, Inc. (Allen v. Hbd Industries, Inc.) 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
Allen v. Hbd Industries, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Baddour and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties. The Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Baddour and enters the following Opinion and Award:

***********
The Full Commission finds as a fact and concludes as a matter of law the following, which were entered into by the parties as:

STIPULATIONS
1. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant-Employer HBD Industries, Inc. in Salisbury, North Carolina from approximately October 10, 1977. *Page 2

2. New Hampshire Insurance Company is the carrier on the risk, and AIG Claims Services is the servicing agent.

3. The parties are subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $423.03, which yields a compensation rate of $282.16.

5. Plaintiff last worked for Defendant-Employer on February 24, 2009, when he was laid off.

***********
EXHIBITS
The following exhibits were admitted into evidence before the Deputy Commissioner:

Stipulated Exhibit 1: Pre-Trial Agreement

Stipulated Exhibit 2: Indexed Set of Paginated Exhibits

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1: Photographs of Industrial Rolls

***********
As set forth in the Pre-Trial Agreement and Deputy Commissioner Baddour's February 23, 2011 Opinion and Award, the Full Commission addresses the following:

ISSUES
1. Whether Plaintiff suffers from a compensable injury or occupational disease(s), specifically:

a. Is Plaintiff's stenosing tenosynovitis (trigger fingers of the right ring and middle finger) related to his crush injury on 12/16/2008 and/or Plaintiff's job tasks throughout the course of his employment with Defendant-Employer?

*Page 3

b. Is Plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome of the right hand/wrist (median neuropathy at the wrist) related to his crush injury on 12/16/2008 and/or Plaintiff's job tasks throughout the course of his employment with Defendant-Employer?

c. Is Plaintiff's cubital tunnel syndrome of his right elbow related to Plaintiff's job tasks throughout the course of his employment with Defendant-Employer?

2. To what benefits, if any, is Plaintiff entitled?

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees for the unreasonable defense of this matter?

***********
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of hearing before Deputy Commissioner Baddour, Plaintiff was sixty-four (64) years old. He did not graduate from high school and is illiterate. Plaintiff has been working since age sixteen, and his previous work includes painting, brick work, and construction.

2. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant-Employer for approximately thirty-one (31) years, from October 10, 1977, through February 24, 2009, the date of his termination.

3. For the majority of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant-Employer, he was employed as a "Roll Unwrapper," a job which he held for approximately eighteen years (from March 25, 1990, through November 2, 2008). *Page 4

4. On November 3, 2008, Plaintiff was transferred to the 200 foot Utility position. On or about December 18, 2008, after approximately one month in this position, Plaintiff sustained a crush injury to his right middle finger while maneuvering a heavy pole.

5. Plaintiff filed a Form 18 on March 17, 2009, alleging injury to his right middle finger due to the crush injury. Defendants accepted compensability for this injury on a Form 63 filed April 2, 2009.

6. During Plaintiff's medical treatment, a nerve conduction study was conducted, resulting in subsequent diagnoses of carpal tunnel syndrome of the right hand/wrist, stenosing tenosynovitis of the right ring and middle finger, and cubital tunnel syndrome of the right elbow.

7. Plaintiff filed Amended Form 18s on June 23, 2009, for "Right Hand/Fingers CTS" and on October 16, 2009, alleging that Plaintiff's repetitive job tasks as a Roll Unwrapper caused and/or aggravated his right hand and arm injuries/diseases. These additional claims were denied by Defendants on multiple Form 61s filed on June 25, 2009, and October 20, 2009.

8. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant-Employer for eighteen years as a Roll Unwrapper where his job consisted of continuously and manually reaching and pulling multiple layers of nylon and cotton tape off of various sized rolls.

9. Plaintiff primarily used his right hand to complete the reaching, pulling, and tape removal, as he was born with cerebral palsy in his left hand. Plaintiff estimates that he has approximately 20% strength in his left hand, and that he used his right hand to complete 80% of his work for Defendant-Employer.

10. Plaintiff testified, and the Full Commission finds, that Plaintiff had to pull as hard as he could to get the tape rolling, and that he then continued a reaching and pulling motion for six hours of his eight hour workday, for eighteen years. He further testified that it took him less *Page 5 than two hours per shift to put the rolls in order for tape removal, to clean his work space, and to take his lunch and two breaks.

11. Plaintiff testified, and the Full Commission finds, that Plaintiff had been having pain symptoms and difficulty making a fist with his right hand for several months before his December 16, 2008 crush injury; however, he did not inform his supervisors for fear that he would lose his job.

12. A former employee of Defendant-Employer and co-worker of Plaintiff, Johnny Pickeral, corroborated Plaintiff's testimony regarding his repetitive job tasks. Mr. Pickeral testified that his work station was approximately ten feet from Plaintiff's and that he had the opportunity to observe Plaintiff perform his work daily. Mr. Pickeral testified that for six hours out of Plaintiff's eight hour workday, Plaintiff was at his work station, walking back and forth, and manually reaching and pulling tape off of rolls. Mr. Pickeral testified that he considered this job task to be repetitive and to involve continuous use of Plaintiff's right hand and arm.

13. Kenny Aldridge, supervisor of Plaintiff in the roll stripper position, testified that he did not believe the motion Plaintiff performed to be repetitive; however, his opinion is given less weight than that of Plaintiff and Mr. Pickeral. Mr. Aldridge only performed the Roll Unwrapper position as a "floater" on and off for a non-specific number of years. Mr. Aldridge never consistently performed the Roll Unwrapper position as a part of his daily job tasks for multiple, consecutive eight hour shifts, for a consecutive number of years, or for the eighteen years that Plaintiff spent employed in this job task.

14. Dr. Thomas Ginn, an orthopedic surgeon, is Plaintiff's treating physician. Dr.

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

Related

Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn
301 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Allen v. Hbd Industries, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-hbd-industries-inc-ncworkcompcom-2011.