Bostick v. Kinston Neuse Corporation

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 13, 2000
DocketI.C. NO. 492474.
StatusPublished

This text of Bostick v. Kinston Neuse Corporation (Bostick v. Kinston Neuse Corporation) 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
Bostick v. Kinston Neuse Corporation, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2000).

Opinion

Upon review of all of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence MODIFIES IN PART and AFFIRMS IN PART the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties in a Pre-Trial Agreement as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission and are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant in June 1994.

3. In June, 1994 plaintiff suffered a compensable occupational disease to his right elbow. The defendant accepted compensability for this occupational disease pursuant to a Form 21 Agreement which was approved by the Industrial Commission 10 January 1995.

4. The defendant is self-insured with Key Risk Management Services as the servicing agent.

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage reflected on the Form 21 was $394.80, yielding a compensation rate of $263.21 per week.

6. Plaintiff's tax records are admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #1.

* * * * * * * * * * *
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RE-OPEN
_____Plaintiff's motion to re-open this case for additional evidence is DENIED.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In June, 1994 plaintiff was a 32-year old male employed by defendant as a hydraulic brake press operator. Plaintiff began working in that capacity for defendant in November, 1991. This position consisted of lifting pieces of metal with an electronic hoist, manually adjusting the piece of metal placed on the press, and programming the press so the metal is shaped into forks for electric pallet trucks which defendant manufactures.

2. Plaintiff has a high school equivalency education and also received extensive military training in electronics and hydraulics during his more than sixteen (16) years in the National Guard. Additionally, plaintiff is certified as an emergency medical technician.

3. In June, 1994 plaintiff began experiencing right elbow discomfort. On 5 July 1994 plaintiff sought treatment from Dr. Richard Huberman of Kinston Orthopedic. Dr. Huberman diagnosed right lateral epicondylitis, or what is commonly referred to as right tennis elbow, and administered a series of steroid injections and conservative treatment.

4. When conservative treatment failed, Dr. Huberman performed a right lateral release on 7 December 1994. Plaintiff's right elbow improved and Dr. Huberman released plaintiff to return to light duty work on 19 January 1995 with the restriction of no heavy lifting.

5. On 14 December 1994 the parties entered into a Form 21 Agreement with respect to the right elbow epicondylitis, which was approved by the Commission on 10 January 1995. Defendant paid plaintiff temporary total disability benefits at a compensation rate of $263.21 per week from 7 December 1994 through 18 January 1995.

6. On 19 January 1995, plaintiff returned to work. Defendant accommodated plaintiff's restrictions by significantly modifying his position so that he was only required to program the computer and not move heavy pieces of metal.

7. Plaintiff stopped working for defendant on 24 January 1995. Plaintiff's testimony that he stopped working due to pain from his compensable injury on advice of Dr. Huberman is not found to be credible. Dr. Huberman did not suggest that plaintiff stop working. Plaintiff told Dr. Huberman that he quit his job with defendant voluntarily. Additionally, plaintiff enrolled in a course and received his emergency medical technician certificate on 11 February 1995. Plaintiff's brother had started a company, Better Health Ambulance Service, and plaintiff went to work for his brother's company on 12 February 1995. Plaintiff continued working as a full-time EMT for his brother's ambulance service through November, 1995.

8. Plaintiff's testimony that the EMT position was not a true job and that he only worked on some occasions in his brother's company is not accepted as credible. Dr. Huberman personally observed plaintiff performing the full duties of an EMT on several occasions, using both of his arms. Based upon the greater weight of the evidence, plaintiff's EMT duties not only aggravated plaintiff's compensable right elbow problems, but also substantially contributed to the development of plaintiff's subsequent left elbow problems as well.

9. From February, 1995 through June, 1995 while working as an EMT, plaintiff's right elbow continued to improve. Plaintiff participated in a work hardening program during much of this time. On 24 July 1995 plaintiff returned to Dr. Huberman complaining of increased pain in his right elbow.

10. During the summer of 1995, plaintiff was on active duty with the National Guard in Germany. Plaintiff's duties in Germany required him to remove, replace, manufacture and repair engines in a factory setting as part of military support. Plaintiff did not perform heavy lifting during this tour of duty, but he did have to pass a physical prior to going to Germany.

11. In addition to plaintiff's tour of duty in Germany in 1995, plaintiff spent three (3) days a month on military duty sixty-five percent (65%) of the year, and two (2) days a month for the remaining thirty-five percent (35%) of the year. Plaintiff only went on two drills in 1996 and none in 1997. The record is incomplete as to the exact dates that plaintiff participated with the National Guard.

12. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Huberman on 25 September 1995 with complaints of increasing pain in his right elbow. Plaintiff informed Dr. Huberman that this pain arose due to increased activity. Dr. Huberman causally related plaintiff's increased pain to plaintiff's work as an EMT. It is also noteworthy that plaintiff's pain increased after plaintiff's summer tour with the National Guard. An MRI administered 2 October 1995 showed no neurologic basis for plaintiff's pain and Dr. Huberman referred plaintiff to Dr. Andrew Siekanowicz for soft tissue pain.

13. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Siekanowicz on 19 October 1995, less than five (5) weeks after Dr. Siekanowicz received his North Carolina Medical License. Dr. Siekanowicz had recently joined Kinston Orthopedic with Dr. Huberman and Dr. Cooper. Dr. Siekanowicz diagnosed plaintiff with right salvage tennis elbow, prescribed one month of conservative treatment, and then performed salvage tennis elbow surgery on 5 December 1995. Defendant paid plaintiff temporary total disability compensation from 7 December 1995 through 24 April 1996. Plaintiff returned to work as an emergency medical technician in his brother's ambulance business on or about 26 April, 1996 earning diminished wages. Defendant paid plaintiff partial disability compensation from 25 April 1996 through 19 May 1996 for the difference in his average weekly wage at defendant and what he made at his brother's ambulance business.

14. Dr. Siekonowicz referred plaintiff to Dr. Nirschl, a doctor in Maryland, in April, 1996 when it became apparent that plaintiff's 5 December 1995 right salvage tennis elbow surgery failed. On 20 May 1996 Dr. Nirschl performed another right salvage tennis elbow procedure.

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

Related

McAninch v. Buncombe County Schools
489 S.E.2d 375 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bostick v. Kinston Neuse Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bostick-v-kinston-neuse-corporation-ncworkcompcom-2000.