Bramlett v. Craven Regional Medical Center

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedApril 18, 1997
DocketI.C. No. 341645
StatusPublished

This text of Bramlett v. Craven Regional Medical Center (Bramlett v. Craven Regional Medical Center) 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
Bramlett v. Craven Regional Medical Center, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1997).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before former Deputy Commissioner Pittman. 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 and Award.

* * * * * * * * * * *

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

STIPULATIONS

In addition to the stipulations contained in the aforementioned Pre-Trial Agreement, the parties furthermore stipulated that the records of Dr. Wilson could be received into evidence following the hearing. Additionally, seventy-one pages of medical records from various medical care providers were received into evidence by way of stipulation.

The Full Commission adopts the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In September of 1992, plaintiff worked as a certified nursing assistant for defendant. Plaintiff had been employed as a certified nursing assistant for defendant for approximately five years prior to September of 1992.

2. During 1992, plaintiff worked mostly evening and night shifts in her position as a certified nursing assistant with defendant. On September 1, 1992, plaintiff worked both the evening shift and the night shift for defendant. Plaintiff began her work at approximately 2:00 p.m. and worked until approximately 7:15 a.m. on the following day, September 2, 1992.

3. During the early morning of September 2, 1992, plaintiff ordered and consumed a breakfast sandwich which consisted of egg, ham, and cheese. Plaintiff ordered this breakfast from the hospital snack shop.

4. Plaintiff usually ate at the hospital snack shop. Plaintiff occasionally brought food from home to eat, as well. The hospital snack shop is open to the public, and both visitors and staff members can eat there. The snack shop is open twenty-four hours per day with the exception of one hour which is used to clean the snack shop.

5. Plaintiff was entitled to one-half hour of her shift to eat her meal. Plaintiff was allowed to leave her assigned floor, as well, at the hospital if she chose to do so. Plaintiff was required to clock out and clock back in if she left the hospital. Plaintiff was not required to eat at the hospital's snack shop. While there are restaurants and grocery stores within a reasonable distance of the hospital which may have been open during plaintiff's work shift, given the hour when plaintiff took her break, plaintiff usually ate in the snack shop if she did not bring food from home.

6. Plaintiff received her breakfast sandwich at approximately 2:30 a.m. and she immediately consumed it. Thereafter, plaintiff began experiencing gastrointestinal symptoms at approximately 6:30 a.m. on September 2, 1992. Plaintiff did not suspect that her symptoms came from the breakfast sandwich.

7. The breakfast sandwich which plaintiff ate on September 2, 1992 consisted of a piece of American Cheese, a freshly cooked egg, and a piece of fully cooked buffet ham. The ham for the breakfast sandwich is ordered fully cooked from a company in Raleigh and arrives in one large piece. The snack shop personnel slice it into two-ounce slices which are wrapped and kept in the freezer. The ham is removed from the freezer and placed in a refrigerator on an as-needed basis. The ham is re-heated or grilled prior to placing it in the breakfast sandwich. The breakfast sandwich is prepared when ordered by a customer.

8. Mr. Dickie Dixon, Food Service Manager at Craven Region Medical Center, was not advised by the County Health Department of any reports of food poisoning in September of 1992. Furthermore, Mr. Dixon did not receive any reports or complaints of tainted food from customers in September of 1992. Mr. Dixon did not receive any complaints about the ham products he was using in September of 1992. According to Mr. Dixon, he received no customer complaints about handling of food in the snack shop in September of 1992.

9. Plaintiff sought treatment at defendant's Emergency Room on September 7, 1992 for abdominal cramping and diarrhea she reported occurred after eating a breakfast biscuit. Plaintiff received appropriate treatment and tests were performed which revealed that plaintiff had a campylobacter jejuni infection. Campylobacter jejuni is a bacteria organism of fecal/oral transmission which can be contracted in a variety of ways and can cause significant gastrointestinal infection characterized by fevers, nausea, vomiting, and diffuse watery diarrhea. Campylobacter jejuni is a bacteria and not a toxin so that there exists a lag time at the least of one day and usually two to four days before one would develop any clinical symptoms. Campylobacter jejuni is a condition which usually treats itself, but if it does not resolve on its own, a course of antibiotics will treat the disorder and the prognosis is excellent. There is no difference in the prognosis whether the antibiotic treatment is begun immediately or at a later time. Therefore, although there was a delay in plaintiff receiving antibiotic treatment, this did not affect her long-term prognosis for an excellent recovery.

10. After being seen in the Emergency Room, plaintiff thereafter sought treatment from Dr. Reese, as well as other multiple care providers. Dr. Bounous, an expert in internal medicine, treated plaintiff in the fall of 1992. Following her evaluation of plaintiff, Dr. Bounous diagnosed plaintiff's condition as recent campylobacter jejuni infection, and possible fibromyalgia. Lab studies were performed which revealed no evidence of active bacterial gastrointestinal disorder. Dr. Bounous was of the opinion that the rapid progression of plaintiff's symptoms were more consistent with staph food poisoning; however, plaintiff had shown no signs or indications of having a staph type infection. Dr. Bounous could not relate plaintiff's campylobacter jejuni infection to eating the breakfast sandwich from defendant's snack shop on September 2, 1992, as it would be extremely unlikely for plaintiff to develop gastrointestinal symptoms related to the campylobacter jejuni infection within four hours after eating the allegedly tainted breakfast sandwich. Also as regards plaintiff's complaints of back pain and other complaints of lumps under her skin, etc., Dr. Bounous could not relate these conditions to plaintiff's campylobacter jejuni infection. While this infection may have triggered plaintiff's muscular complaints (fibromyalgia), a variety of things can "trigger" fibromyalgia including stress. Dr. Bounous noted that plaintiff was undergoing a significant amount of stress due to an injury her son had recently sustained.

11. As Dr. Bounous was unable to ascertain exactly what was causing plaintiff's complaints, she referred plaintiff to Dr. Sexton, an expert in infectious diseases at Duke University Medical Center who also evaluated plaintiff in the fall of 1992. Dr. Sexton concurred with Dr. Bounous and was also unable to relate plaintiff's campylobacter jejuni infection to eating the breakfast sandwich from defendant's snack shop on September 2, 1992. Campylobacter jejuni is an invasive organism and does not have a toxin so that its incubation period is much longer than a few hours. Dr. Sexton could not associate a four-hour incubation period with a campylobacter jejuni infection. Furthermore, Dr. Sexton could not associate plaintiff's campylobacter jejuni infection to plaintiff's muscular skeletal pain, or other complaints.

12. Thereafter, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Chmelewski, an expert in rheumatology who examined plaintiff in December of 1992 and January of 1993. While 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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bramlett v. Craven Regional Medical Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bramlett-v-craven-regional-medical-center-ncworkcompcom-1997.