Applewhite v. Bridgestone-Firestone

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJanuary 10, 2007
DocketI.C. NO. 418306.
StatusPublished

This text of Applewhite v. Bridgestone-Firestone (Applewhite v. Bridgestone-Firestone) 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
Applewhite v. Bridgestone-Firestone, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Baddour and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the opinion of award, except for minor modifications. Accordingly the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Baddour, with modifications.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission, and the North Carolina Industrial Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this action.

2. All parties have been correctly designated, and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

3. On or about August 24, 2003 the defendant employed more than three (3) employees, and it and its employees were bound by and subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Worker's Compensation Act, North Carolina General Statute Chapter 97.

4. On or about August 24, 2003 there existed between Antoinette Applewhite and Bridgestone-Firestone an employee/employer relationship.

5. On or about August 24, 2003, employer was self insured for Worker's Compensation claims with Gallagher Bassett Services as the administrator.

6. On or about August 24, 2003, plaintiff was employed by the employer at an average weekly wage entitling plaintiff to the maximum compensation rate for 2003 of $674.00.

7. On or about August 24, 2003 plaintiff alleges she sustained an occupational injury arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant employer, said occupational disease resulting in an injury to her right leg, foot, ankle and hip and her right hand, wrist, arm and shoulder.

8. The following medical records are authentic as they are maintained in the course of activity of the physicians or institutions identified:

(a) Frank A. Lescocky, DPM,; Greenville, North Carolina; 11 pages of records dated July 22, 2003 through December 10, 2003; (b) Gary Bachara, Ph.D., Wilson, North Carolina; 10 pages of records dated July 12, 2004 through October 11, 2004; (c) Mark Harris, M.D.; Physicians East; Greenville, North Carolina; 25 pages of records dated October 29, 2003 through March 17, 2004; (d) Patricia Hinson, M.D.; Physicians East; Farmville, North Carolina; 44 pages of records dated February 13, 2003 through July 8, 2004; (e) Robert Martin, M.D.; Carolina Regional Orthopaedics; Rocky Mount, North Carolina; 4 pages of records dated July 27, 2004 through August 25, 2004; (f) Jennifer M. Hart, M.D.; Rocky Mount Family Medical Centers; Rocky Mount, North Carolina; 7 pages of records dated July 14, 2004 through January 24, 2005; (g) John B. Winfield, M.D.; UNC Hospitals; Chapel Hill, North Carolina; 3 pages of records dated March 10, 2005.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. As of the date of hearing, plaintiff was 44 years old and had been employed with defendant from January 5, 1987, until her last day of work on August 23, 2003. Sometime in 1998, plaintiff became a "one-to-one" tire builder which job entailed working within a "triangle" consisting of a first-stage tire building station on plaintiff's left, a beading machine in the middle, and a second-stage tire building station on plaintiff's right.

2. Within the first-stage station, plaintiff would cut rubber body ply with a heated knife and piece together a second piece of body ply while depressing a series of pedals with her foot to advance the rubber pieces forward on a drum and to activate the "cycling" of the tire building machine to expand the drum and ply stitch the rubber. Plaintiff would then pick up the tire carcass, weighing approximately 10-15 pounds, and move it to the second-stage station where she would splice steel belts again using the foot pedals to advance the steel belts and to activate the machine allowing the spiral to run on and apply tread. Plaintiff was also called on to load and change out stock carts and occasionally to remove tread jams. Plaintiff built approximately 160-170 medium to large tires a day and pressed the foot pedals approximately 8 to 10 times per tire.

3. Plaintiff presented to her primary care physician, Dr. Patricia Hinson, on April 1, 2003, complaining of right leg and ankle pain.

4. Upon referral, plaintiff saw Dr. Frank Lescosky, a podiatrist, on July 22, 2003 and gave a history of gradual and progressive pain in her right foot over the preceding 7 to 8 years that she attributed to wearing steel-toed boots on a concrete floor. On August 12, 2003, Dr. Lescosky diagnosed plaintiff with anterior tibial tendonitis. Dr. Lescosky took plaintiff out of work on August 26, 2003.

5. On October 16, 2003, plaintiff presented to Dr. Lescosky with new complaints of right hand pain and swelling. At this time, plaintiff had been out of work for almost two months. Dr. Lescosky referred plaintiff to a rheumatologist to rule out any systemic disease. Plaintiff presented to Dr. Mark Harris, a rheumatologist, on October 29, 2003. Tests conducted were negative for any systemic disease and a bone scan was unremarkable. Dr. Harris diagnosed plaintiff with tendonitis in both the right ankle and wrist.

6. Plaintiff was referred for an orthopaedic evaluation with Dr. Gilbert Whitmer on January 29, 2004. Dr. Whitmer noted that plaintiff was diffusely tender everywhere he touched and diagnosed her with fibromyalgia.

7. On March 17, 2004, Dr. Randal White, a rheumatologist, also diagnosed plaintiff with fibromyalgia upon a finding that she had diffuse generalized pain.

8. Dr. Robert Martin, an orthopaedist, saw plaintiff on August 25, 2004 to determine whether surgery would benefit her with respect to her right foot and right upper extremity pain. He noted that the majority of plaintiff's symptoms were related to fibromyalgia. Dr. Martin did not believe further orthopaedic intervention was warranted.

9. Plaintiff underwent an independent medical evaluation by Dr. John Rice on March 18, 2005. Dr. Rice also diagnosed plaintiff with fibromyalgia.

10. Based upon the testimony of Dr. Lescosky and Dr. Harris, the greater weight of the competent evidence of record establishes that plaintiff suffered from right foot tendonitis during the period of time that she treated with Dr. Lescosky and Dr. Harris. This period of time encompasses June 2003, when plaintiff began treating with Dr. Lescosky, through January 2004, when plaintiff last saw Dr. Harris.

11. Based upon the testimony of Dr. Lescosky and Dr. Harris, the greater weight of the competent evidence of record further establishes that plaintiff's work as tire builder placed her at an increased risk for developing her right foot tendonitis as compared with the general public not equally exposed, and additionally made a significant contribution to the development of her right foot tendonitis. On August 12, 2003, plaintiff showed Dr. Lescosky how she used her right foot at work. She put her right foot out in front of her and just had to extend or plantar flex her foot repetitively with her knee and leg extended in front of her.

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)
Applewhite v. Bridgestone-Firestone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/applewhite-v-bridgestone-firestone-ncworkcompcom-2007.