Baker v. Sam's Club

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 20, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 736361
StatusPublished

This text of Baker v. Sam's Club (Baker v. Sam's Club) 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
Baker v. Sam's Club, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

***********
Given the circumstances of this case, the undersigned filed an order on 16 June 2000 ordering the plaintiff to undergo an independent medical examination. The plaintiff initially selected Dr. Moore. Defendants denied this choice. Defendants in turn suggested Drs. Markworth or Carter. The plaintiff declined these choices. On 12 December 2000, the undersigned filed an order directing the plaintiff to undergo an independent medical examination by an unspecified Doctor at the Southeastern Orthopaedic Clinic. The examination was thereafter scheduled with Dr. Landon B. Anderson. In May 2001, before the examination was to take place, Dr. Anderson received a letter from counsel for defendant to which the plaintiff objected. The plaintiff furthermore made a motion to remove Dr. Anderson as the examining physician. Dr. James A. Nunnely was thereafter named by the Commission to conduct the IME. The plaintiff underwent an examination by Dr. Nunnely on 12 July 2002. Dr. Nunnely's records from this examination are HEREBY ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.

This matter was reviewed by the Full Commission based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Taylor along with the briefs and arguments on appeal, as well as the additional medical evidence. The appealing party has not shown good ground to receive further evidence or to amend the prior Opinion and Award. Accordingly, the Full Commission adopts and affirms, with some modification, the Deputy Commissioner's holding and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

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

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

3. An employee-employer relationship existed between the parties on or about May 24, 1996.

4. The plaintiff was injured by accident on or about May 24, 1996. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

5. The plaintiff's average weekly wage is $428.00, yielding a compensation rate of $285.35.

6. The parties stipulated into evidence the following Industrial Commission forms: 18, 19, 33, 33R and 60.

7. The parties stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 1, without need for further authentication or verification, Defendants' Answers to The plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.

8. The parties stipulated into evidence, without need for further authentication or verification, medical records from the following providers:

• Wilmington Orthopaedic Group;

• New Hanover Regional Medical Center;

• Coastal Orthopaedics;

• Cape Fear Memorial Hospital;

• Carolina Sports Medicine; and

• Concentra Managed Care, Inc.

***********
Based upon the evidence of record, the Full Commission enters the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the plaintiff was a 53-year-old female born August 5, 1944.

2. On May 24, 1996, the plaintiff was employed with defendant-employer as an outside marketing representative and had been so employed for three years. On that date, the plaintiff was working in Shallotte and while making a cold call at the Food Lion, her right foot slipped and she fell down on her left knee and right arm. The plaintiff finished with her visit and left as quickly as possible because she was embarrassed. The plaintiff returned to defendant-employer and reported her injury to her supervisor. The plaintiff completed an Associate Statement, indicating that she had slipped and fallen and struck her arm and reported the parts of her body injured as knee and back.

3. The plaintiff presented at Cape Fear Hospital Occupational Health Services on May 29, 1996, where Dr. Sue Nelson treated her conservatively.

4. On July 3, 1996, the plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Sutton at the Wilmington Orthopaedic Group, who continued the conservative treatment.

5. On referral from Cape Fear Occupational Health Services, the plaintiff presented to Dr. Kevin Scully on October 15, 1996, complaining of left knee pain. The plaintiff was diagnosed with a medial meniscus tear, which was surgically repaired by Dr. Scully on November 11, 1996.

6. The plaintiff did not miss any time from work between her May 24, 1996 fall and her November 11, 1996 surgery. The plaintiff did not return to work after her November 11, 1996 surgery until September 9, 1997.

7. On January 17, 1997, the plaintiff first presented to a medical care provider complaining of right shoulder pain. She was given a steroid injection for these symptoms, and on January 31, 1997, was diagnosed by Dr. Scully as having radicular symptoms with a possible ruptured cervical disc and subscapular bursitis.

8. The plaintiff remained out of work due to continuing problems with her left knee, and on April 10, 1997 underwent a second knee surgery.

9. The plaintiff was referred by Dr. Scully to Dr. Mark Rodger and Dr. Rodger saw her on April 17, 1997, complaining of neck, shoulder and arm pain. The plaintiff was diagnosed by Dr. Rodger as suffering from impingement syndrome or bursitis in the shoulder and degenerative disc disease in the neck.

10. On or about September 5, 1997, the plaintiff was released by Dr. Scully to return to work. Because the plaintiff continued to complain of pain and giving way in her knee, the plaintiff was released to return to light duty work. The plaintiff returned to work on or about September 9, 1997 working at the credit desk. The plaintiff was unable to return to her outside marketing job because that job required getting in and out of the car and because a replacement had been hired during her absence. At the end of December, the credit table job was phased out and the plaintiff was moved to the demonstrator job. The plaintiff began as a cooking demonstrator and was required to stoop, squat, kneel, bend to clean and sterilize the cooking table, pull out the cart and perform demonstrations. In January 1998, the plaintiff's knee gave out as she was stooping down, and she spilled the food on the floor. Thereafter, the plaintiff was transferred to a non-cooking demonstrator position.

11. The plaintiff testified that her job as a non-cooking demonstrator exceeded her physical limitations and light duty restriction. However, the plaintiff was offered help by the preparation people to assist her in tearing down and setting up for her demonstrations. There are generally two prep people available. The plaintiff declined this help indicating that she did not want to be a strain on the team and that if the 60-year-old prep person could do it, she could do it.

12. The plaintiff testified that she has missed certain days from work due to knee pain. However, no evidence was presented as to which days were missed or as to how many such days there were and consequently the plaintiff has failed to prove the extent and existence of her disability.

13. The plaintiff continued to have problems with her knee and on February 6, 1998, the plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement and retained a 7% permanent partial disability of the left leg. On that date, Dr.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31(15)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Baker v. Sam's Club, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-sams-club-ncworkcompcom-2002.