Butler v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours Company

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJanuary 26, 2001
DocketI.C. No. 746977.
StatusPublished

This text of Butler v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours Company (Butler v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours Company) 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
Butler v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours Company, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2001).

Opinions

The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Theresa B. Stephenson and the briefs and arguments on appeal. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. Having reconsidered the entire record of evidence, the Full Commission reverses the holding of the Deputy Commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
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 admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #1, at the hearing on 14 July 1998 and subsequent thereto as:

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

2. On 3 October 1997, an employment relationship existed between plaintiff-employee and defendant-employer.

3. On 3 October 1997, defendant-employer was self-insured with Kemper Risk Management Services as the servicing agent.

4. Plaintiffs average weekly wage on 3 October 1997 was $740.56, subject to verification by an Industrial Commission Form 22, admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #2.

5. Plaintiffs medicals regarding this claim are admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #3. These include the following:

a) Dr. James Koontz;

b) Dr. Laddie Crisp;

c) Lenoir Memorial Hospital;

d) Eastern Radiologist, Inc.;

e) Dr. James Fulghum;

f) Dr. Ira Hardy;

g) Dr. Gregg Hardy;

h) Dr. James Harvell; and

i) Rehabilitation Management, Inc.

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

7. Correspondence from Aetna Healthcare is admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #4.

8. The issues to be determined are: (1) whether plaintiff sustained a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant; and (2) if so, to what, if any, benefits is he entitled; (3) plaintiff has also requested attorney fees.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On 3 October 1997, plaintiff reported to defendant-employers place of work at approximately 8:15 a.m. He had arrived at that time for a meeting in Mr. Gary Scholars office at approximately 8:30 a.m. Mr. Scholar was a supervisor for defendant-employer. The purpose of this meeting concerned plaintiffs future employment with defendant-employer.

2. Mr. Scholars office was located on the second floor of the plant, at the 31 foot level. The meeting ended at approximately 10:00 a.m. Thereafter, plaintiff left Mr. Scholars office, went down one flight of stairs, to the 21 foot level and smoked a cigarette in the smoking area, with Mr. Scholar present.

3. While smoking his cigarette, plaintiff was paged, and indicated to Mr. Scholar that he was going to the maintenance shop to answer the page he had received.

4. Plaintiff then left the smoking area and went to the maintenance shop to use the phone. After completing his call, plaintiff proceeded down the stairs to his office which was located on the 0 foot level.

5. While proceeding down the stairs, plaintiff slipped. As he began to slip, plaintiff was holding onto the railing of the stairs with his right hand and one of his legs went out from underneath him. Plaintiff twisted and almost fell to the ground, but did not. As he twisted, plaintiff grabbed the railing with his left hand, in an attempt to catch himself. There was some worn treads located on the stairs, and some "fluff which appeared to be some scrap or waste material from defendant-employers industrial activities.

6. As plaintiff was slipping and twisting, he experienced immediate onset of sharp pain in his lower back, which radiated down into his right thigh, as well as experiencing pain in his right groin. Plaintiff later developed pain and weakness in his right knee.

7. Immediately after the incident, plaintiff sat on the stairs to collect himself until he thought he was able to walk. Plaintiff then proceeded to his office, printed some papers and left the plant.

8. Plaintiff did not report this incident to defendant-employer on the day in question because he was in the midst of an evaluation period which would determine whether or not he would be dismissed from his job. Plaintiff had been told in the past, when he had medical time off, that he needed to have no further medical problems, or this could effect his employment.

9. Plaintiff spent the weekend of 4 October and 5 October 1997 in bed, and was experiencing pain as the result of his injury.

10. On 6 October 1997, plaintiff again reported to defendant-employers plant for the purpose of continuing the meeting regarding his potential dismissal. Again, plaintiff did not report the injury of 3 October 1997 during this meeting because he was afraid that this would be used against him and cost him his job.

11. Subsequent to the 6 October 1997 meeting, plaintiff was in fact terminated. It was at that point, on the afternoon of 6 October 1997 that plaintiff reported his injury to defendant-employer.

12. Plaintiffs testimony regarding the circumstances of his injury and his reasons for not immediately informing defendant-employer of its occurrence is accepted as credible by the Full Commission.

13. Prior to his work related injury, plaintiff had experienced occasional low back pain. On 18 February 1997, Dr. James Harvell, an orthopaedic surgeon, examined plaintiff and ordered radiographs which revealed degenerative changes at the L5-S1 level and to a lesser extent at L3-L4 and L4-L5 levels. No evidence was noted of a herniated disc, or nucleus pulposus or spinal stenosis. A myleogram and CT scan ordered by Dr. Harvell revealed no abnormality. Plaintiff underwent a period of physical therapy and Dr. Harvell opined that his condition would be resolved within approximately two months.

14. Subsequent to the incident on 7 October 1997, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Jack Koontz whose medical records indicate that plaintiff had slipped down the steps the previous Friday, 3 October 1997.

15. Plaintiff was then referred to an examination by Dr. Ira Hardy who ordered a MRI and CT Scan. The CT scan results revealed a mild right lateral bulge below the level of the nerve root exit. Conservative treatment and physical therapy were ordered for plaintiffs back.

16. While plaintiff was being treated by Dr. Ira Hardy, he was also seeking treatment from his family physician, Dr. Laddie Crisp. In November 1997, because plaintiffs condition was not improving, Dr. Crisp referred plaintiff back to Dr. Harvell. A CT myleogram ordered by Dr. Harvell on 24 November 1997 revealed a small foraminal disc protrusion on the right at L3-L4, and on the left at L4-L5.

17. Plaintiff was also referred by Dr. Crisp to Dr. James Fulghum, who examined plaintiff in January 1998 and diagnosed him with a herniated disk at the L3-L4 level. Dr. Fulghum initially treated plaintiff with epidural steroid injections. When this conservative approach was not successful, Dr. Fulghum recommended surgery.

18. Doctor Fulghum opined that the injury for which he treated plaintiff and recommended surgery was the direct result of the fall that plaintiff had experienced at work on 3 October 1997.

19. Plaintiff underwent surgery for this condition by Dr. Fulghum in the spring of 1998. During this procedure, Dr.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Butler v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-ei-dupont-de-nemours-company-ncworkcompcom-2001.