Belch v. Delhaize America

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedAugust 6, 2010
DocketI.C. Nos. 093568 793827.
StatusPublished

This text of Belch v. Delhaize America (Belch v. Delhaize America) 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
Belch v. Delhaize America, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

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

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

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. *Page 2

2. An employer-employee relationship existed between Defendant-Employer and Plaintiff on the respective alleged injury dates of August 30, 2007, and June 1, 2008.

3. Defendant-Employer is self-insured for its workers' compensation coverage.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage for purposes of these claims is $612.89.

***********
EXHIBITS
The following documents were accepted into evidence as stipulated exhibits:

• Exhibit 1: Executed Pre-Trial Agreement

• Exhibit 2: Industrial Commission Forms for I.C. No. 793827 (date of injury 8/30/07)

• Exhibit 3: Industrial Commission Forms for I.C. No. 093568 (date of injury 6/1/08)

• Exhibit 4: Form 22 and wage information

• Exhibit 5: Plaintiff's discovery responses for I.C. No. 793827

• Exhibit 6: Plaintiff's discovery responses for I.C. No. 093568

• Exhibit 7: Plaintiff's medical records

• Exhibit 8: Dr. Getz records review dated 7/28/08

• Exhibit 9: Employment file

Transcripts of the depositions of the following were also received into evidence by the Deputy Commissioner:

• Robert Bruce Wynn

• Elaine Marie Little

• Dr. Wan Chung (with Defendants' Exhibit 1)

*Page 3

• Dr. Ira Hardy

• Dr. Phillip Perkins (with Exhibit 1)

• Dr. David Miller

• Dr. David Dalsimer

• Dr. Divya Patel

• Dr. Donald Getz

***********
ISSUES
1. Whether Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury to his low back by specific traumatic incident on August 30, 2007;

2. Whether Plaintiff suffered the onset of a compensable occupational disease on or about June 1, 2008; and

3. To what compensation, if any, is Plaintiff entitled.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was 61 years old at the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, with a date of birth of November 1, 1948.

2. Plaintiff began working with Defendant-Employer at its Robersonville, North Carolina, store in August 2006.

3. Before starting at the Robersonville Food Lion store, Plaintiff worked for a barbecue restaurant for about four years. While working with that restaurant, Plaintiff sustained *Page 4 two injuries to his back, in June 2005 and again on July 12, 2006. Both injuries occurred while Plaintiff was unloading a truck.

4. Plaintiff underwent a laminectomy at L5-S1 in 1984.

5. Following his July 12, 2006 injury, Plaintiff treated on three different dates in July 2006 with Pamlico Urgent Care, with a diagnosis of chronic back pain. He was taken out of work for a time for said injury. He was last treated for said injury on July 27, 2006.

6. While Plaintiff was out of work for the July 2006 injury, he learned of a job opening with Defendant-Employer. He applied and was hired as a meat cutter, and that was the job Plaintiff started in August 2006 at the Robersonville Food Lion store.

7. Plaintiff's job as a meat cutter required him to spend between two and a half and five hours out of every eight-hour workday retrieving beef from the cooler, cutting it and wrapping it for display.

8. When he cut the beef, Plaintiff held the knife in his right, dominant hand and held the meat with his left hand. With each cut, Plaintiff would lay the cut piece to the side with his left hand.

9. To wrap the cuts of beef, Plaintiff would use his thumb, index and middle fingers on both hands to wrap the clear film around the tray and cut of beef, then he would use both hands to wrap the edges of the film under the package and put the price tag on it.

10. Plaintiff also sometimes had to maneuver larger pieces of beef through a meat saw.

11. The other types of meat, such as chicken and pork, came pre-packaged and did not have to be cut. *Page 5

12. From the time he started with Defendant-Employer in August 2006 until August 30, 2007, Plaintiff was entirely physically able to perform all of his job duties as a meat cutter, including unloading trucks without special assistance. He had some right leg pain doing his job, but it did not limit him. He did not miss work for back pain. He took prescription pain medications such as Darvocet to manage his back pain.

13. On August 30, 2007, Plaintiff was stacking 80-pound boxes onto a rack. As he picked up a box, he felt a pop and severe, stabbing pain in his low back and pain into both legs. The pain was similar to what he had experienced in prior back injuries, but "harder."

14. The next day, Plaintiff woke up with 6/10 pain in his legs. He went to his primary care physician, Dr. Chung, who diagnosed Plaintiff with a back strain, wrote him out of work, and referred him to Dr. Miller.

15. Plaintiff presented to Dr. Miller, an orthopedic surgeon, on September 7, 2007. Plaintiff reported the onset of sharp back pain with the August 30, 2007 incident, along with pain radiating into his buttocks and down the backs of both thighs, with numbness and tingling in both thighs, worse on the right. Dr. Miller's physical exam was consistent with Plaintiff's complaints.

16. Dr. Miller recommended a lumbar MRI, which was done on September 19, 2007 and showed problems at L4-5 and L5-S1, including narrowing of the nerve root outlets. The MRI results were consistent with Plaintiff's complaints.

17. Dr. Miller wrote Plaintiff out of work on September 7, 2007 and again on September 26, 2007. *Page 6

18. Plaintiff had improvement of his symptoms with an epidural steroid injection, which bolstered Dr. Miller's impression that Plaintiff's symptoms were related to nerve root irritation in his lower lumbar spine.

19. On November 12, 2007, Dr. Miller released Plaintiff to return to light duty work.

20. Plaintiff returned to work on or about November 13, 2007, working light duty for about five days, then returning to full duty.

21. Dr. Miller last saw Plaintiff on February 4, 2008. Dr. Miller discharged Plaintiff from his treatment that day, with the option to return as needed should Plaintiff decide to pursue the surgery that 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)
§ 97-25.1
North Carolina § 97-25.1
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-53
North Carolina § 97-53(13)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Belch v. Delhaize America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belch-v-delhaize-america-ncworkcompcom-2010.