Anderson v. Black and Decker

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedApril 18, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 584214.
StatusPublished

This text of Anderson v. Black and Decker (Anderson v. Black and Decker) 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
Anderson v. Black and Decker, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinions

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award based on the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner; the appealing party has shown no good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission hereby affirms the Opinion and Award with minor modifications.

Plaintiff has requested that the additional evidence be considered while this matter is pending before the Full Commission. Having determined that the evidence is not new and could have been offered at the hearing before the deputy commissioner, the Full Commission hereby denies plaintiff's request to consider the additional evidence.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered by the parties at the 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 plaintiff and defendant-employer at all relevant times herein.

3. ESIS Insurance Company was the carrier on the risk at all times relevant herein.

4. The parties stipulated that plaintiff contracted an occupational disease as previously determined in this matter and the Industrial Commission approved a Form 21 Agreement.

5. The parties stipulated that defendants paid temporary total disability benefits to claimant pursuant to the Form 21 Agreement through and including November 17, 1997.

6. The parties stipulated to plaintiff's medical records from Fayetteville Orthopedic Clinic, Cape Fear Orthopedic Clinic, P.A., ProActive Therapy, Southern Regional Area Health Education Center, Cape Fear Cardiology, Lucas Van Tran, neurologist, Med One Occupational Health Care, Dr. Glen Subin, UNC Hospitals, Raleigh Hand Clinic, Layette Clinic, Richard Keith, Ph.D, Cape Fear Pain Management, Dr. Eddie Powell, and Dr. James E. Lowe.

***********
Based upon all the evidence adduced from the record, the Full Commission makes the following additional

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the evidentiary hearing, plaintiff-employee was a 47 year old high school graduate.

2. Plaintiff-employee was employed by defendant-employer as a production technician. While working for defendant-employer, plaintiff-employee began to develop problems with her wrists and was out of work and paid temporary partial disability from September 12, 1997 through the authorized suspension pursuant to the Commission's order on defendant's Form 24 request to suspend benefits.

3. Plaintiff-employee originally sought medical treatment from Dr. James Whetter, her family doctor, on September 20, 1995. Nerve conduction studies were performed on October 13, 1995, and Dr. Whetter diagnosed plaintiff-employee with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Whetter prescribed physical therapy but plaintiff-employee reported no improvement following the physical therapy.

4. On December 5, 1995, plaintiff-employee sought medical treatment from Dr. Louis Clark, Jr., an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Clark performed surgery on plaintiff-employee's right hand/wrist to release the median nerve at the carpal tunnel on February 16, 1996. After surgery, plaintiff-employee underwent a course of physical therapy and reported to Dr. Clark that her condition had not improved. In his note of April 2, 1996, Dr. Clark stated that the physical therapist had recorded that plaintiff-employee's objective findings did not support her subjective complaints.

5. Plaintiff-employee presented for an independent medical evaluation by Dr. Glenn Subin on August 29, 1996. Dr. Subin noted that there was no physiological explanation for plaintiff-employee's grip strength. Dr. Subin further wrote that he could not explain why plaintiff-employee had failed to improve following adequate surgical intervention. Dr. Subin opined that plaintiff-employee had reached maximum medical improvement, but retained a 10% permanent partial impairment to her right hand.

6. Although the records of Dr. Johnson are not included in the workers' compensation file, his notes are referred to in the notes of Dr. Whetter of December 1996 and January 1997 and Dr. Melton in February 1997. Plaintiff-employee sought medical treatment from Dr. Johnson for her right knee and he performed arthroscopic surgery in October 1996. Following the surgery, plaintiff-employee returned to Dr. Whetter, and reported pain in her right knee and left hip. Plaintiff-employee did not report pain in her wrist. Dr. Whetter referred plaintiff-employee to Dr. Melton.

7. Plaintiff-employee presented to Dr. Melton on February 3, 1997. Plaintiff-employee reported long-standing right knee pain and complained of left hip pain. Although plaintiff-employee's joints appeared normal to Dr. Melton, plaintiff-employee reported widespread and diffuse pain. Dr. Melton diagnosed plaintiff-employee with fibromyalgia. Dr. Melton opined that plaintiff-employee was disabled as a result of the fibromyalgia and that her condition did not change between February 1997 and July 2000. Dr. Melton did not treat plaintiff-employee for carpal tunnel syndrome.

8. On March 24, 1997, plaintiff-employee presented to Dr. Damon Anagnos, plastic and hand surgeon. Plaintiff-employee reported problems with her wrists, but did not report the widespread complaints which she had reported to Dr. Melton one month earlier. In his notes from the first examination, Dr. Anagnos noted that plaintiff-employee's symptoms were out of proportion to his physical findings and that he could find no objective reason to keep plaintiff-employee out of work. Dr. Anagnos allowed plaintiff-employee to return to work with the restriction of not lifting more than 25 pounds, wearing splints to work, and no exposure to hot or sharp objects. Dr. Anagnos' note releasing plaintiff-employee to return to work was changed by marking out 25 pounds and writing five to ten pounds over the note. Dr. Anagnos was not aware of who made this change.

9. Plaintiff-employee continued to complain of left-sided wrist problems, and Dr. Anagnos performed a left carpal tunnel release on May 2, 1997. Following the surgery, plaintiff-employee underwent an additional course of physical therapy.

10. Following the left carpal tunnel surgery, plaintiff-employee underwent medical treatment with Dr. Rhonda Lowry for asthma and Dr. Melton for fibromyalgia.

11. On September 23, 1997, plaintiff-employee underwent an independent medical evaluation with Dr. Jon Kolkin, an orthopedic surgeon with a specialty in treatment of the hands. Dr. Kolkin could not explain plaintiff's complaints on an anatomical basis, and he recommended no further medical treatment.

12. In October 1997, defendant-employer had three jobs available. Pete Hocamp, the rehabilitation specialist assigned to the case, observed each of the jobs with defendant-employer and prepared a written job description. The written job description was provided to Dr. Anagnos and Dr. Kolkin, and two of the jobs were approved by both physicians as falling within plaintiff-employee's restrictions.

13. On October 31, 1997, defendant-employer offered these two positions to plaintiff-employee by certified mail, which was sent by Mr. Hocamp. The mail was received by plaintiff-employee on November 4, 1997 and she was to return to work on November 10, 1997.

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

Related

Adams v. AVX Corp.
509 S.E.2d 411 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1998)
Doggett v. South Atlantic Warehouse Co.
194 S.E. 111 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Anderson v. Black and Decker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-black-and-decker-ncworkcompcom-2002.