Cannon v. Century Furniture Industries

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 29, 1999
DocketI.C. No. 555339.
StatusPublished

This text of Cannon v. Century Furniture Industries (Cannon v. Century Furniture Industries) 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
Cannon v. Century Furniture Industries, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1999).

Opinion

Upon review of all the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good ground to receive further evidence, or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence MODIFIES AND AFFIRMS 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 at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner and in the Form 21 Agreement as:

STIPULATIONS
1. On the date of plaintiff's alleged injury, April 15, 1995, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. On that date, an employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant.

3. Defendant is an approved self-insured, with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company acting as the servicing agent of its workers' compensation insurance coverage at all the relevant times herein.

4. Plaintiff sustained an injury by accident or contracted an occupational disease arising out of and in he course of employment with defendant and that disability began on May 24, 1995.

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $410.00 per week at all relevant times herein.

6. The issues to be determined by the Commission are as follows:

a. Whether plaintiff sustained an injury to her shoulder and neck as a result of the accident on April 15, 1995, while in the course and scope of her employment with defendant-employer?

b. Whether plaintiff has developed fibromyalgia and psychological problems as a result of her accidental injury of April 15, 1995?

c. If so, what, if any, benefits is plaintiff entitled to receive?

***********

Based upon the competent evidence of record herein, the Full Commission modifies the findings of fact by the Deputy Commissioner and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On or about August 15, 1995, the parties entered into a Form 21 Agreement wherein the parties stipulated that plaintiff sustained an injury by accident or contracted an occupational disease arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment with defendant. The parties also agreed that plaintiff contracted tendonitis in her left shoulder and arm; that her average weekly wage at the time of her disability was $410.00 per week, subject to verification, yielding a compensation rate of $273.35; that her disability began on May 24, 1995; that she returned to work May 31, 1995, and that compensation was due beginning July 3, 1995, and continuing for necessary weeks. The Form 21 Agreement was approved by the Industrial Commission on November 8, 1995.

2. Plaintiff's date of birth is April 24, 1947. Plaintiff worked as a sewer of leather furniture upholstery for defendant continuously from late October, 1994 until her work-related injury April 15, 1995. She had previously worked for defendant for about fifteen months.

3. Plaintiff had been a sewer for thirty years. Plaintiff's job with defendant required the repetitive use of both hands and arms to grip, push and pull leather being sewn. On a typical day, plaintiff would sew seventy-five pieces of leather to be used in the covering of executive chairs. She was required to work with her arms at shoulder height for several hours.

4. On or about April 15, 1995, while plaintiff was sewing leather, she elevated her left arm in order to pull a strip of leather and felt a "popping" sensation in her left shoulder and neck area. Shortly after this incident, plaintiff began to experience a great deal of pain in her left shoulder, extending up into the trapezium and the left side of her neck. This is the medical history plaintiff gave Drs. Alfred Geissele, John dePerczel, Mark Faruque, and Dennis Payne.

5. On May 2, 1995 plaintiff was examined by the company physician, Dr. Mark Faruque at Harts Industrial Clinic and diagnosed with a rotator cuff strain and tendonitis/adhesive capsulitis of the left shoulder. Dr. Faruque initially treated plaintiff with medication and physical therapy, then later gave her a corticosteroid injection to the left shoulder. When plaintiff failed to improve after the course of treatment provided by Dr. Faruque, he referred her to Dr. John L. dePerczel, an orthopaedic surgeon.

6. Plaintiff presented to Dr. dePerczel on May 26, 1995, complaining of severe pain in her left shoulder, headaches, loss of sleep at night due to pain, and numbness and tingling along the C-6 distribution, extending to the thumb and index finger of her left hand. Dr. dePerczel made three tentative diagnoses: (1) strain of the left neck and shoulder; (2) tendonitis in the left neck and shoulder; and/or (3) mild carpal tunnel syndrome. He informed plaintiff that she might have a slipped disc irritating the nerve and that he did not recommend she undergo surgery for her mild carpal tunnel syndrome.

7. Dr. dePerczel took plaintiff out of work May 26, 1995 and continued to treat her with medication and physical therapy. Plaintiff was allowed to returned to work May 30, 1995 on a restricted basis. Plaintiff was advised to avoid any vigorous use of the right arm. Thereafter, plaintiff was unable to work during several periods through July 24, 1995. Plaintiff worked from July 24, 1995 until August 29, 1995 when she was taken out of work by Dr. dePerczel because her condition had deteriorated and she had begun to show signs of C-6 numbness and was experiencing dysesthesia into the left hand. Plaintiff has not worked since August 29, 1995.

8. When plaintiff failed to respond to Dr. dePerczel's course of treatment, he referred her to Dr. Alfred E. Geissele. On November 14, 1995 plaintiff presented to Dr. Geissele complaining of headaches and left upper extremity pain paralleling what would be the C-6 nerve root distribution. Dr. Geissele tried to differentiate how much of the pain came from the shoulder versus plaintiff's neck. Dr. Geissele placed plaintiff on anti-inflammatory medication and discussed with her surgery to decompress her C-6 nerve root.

9. Dr. Geissele diagnosed plaintiff as having a C-5/C-6 disk herniation, C-6 radiculitis due to her C-5/C-6 disk herniation, and subacromial impingement syndrome in her left shoulder, caused or aggravated by trauma, and possibly caused by and probably aggravated by plaintiff's "incident at work" in April, 1995.

10. On November 27, 1995, Dr. Geissele performed surgery to fuse two vertebrae and correct plaintiff's C-5/C-6 disk herniation. Thereafter, he referred her for some rehabilitation. The parties stipulated that the cervical fusion surgery was authorized by the carrier. Plaintiff responded well initially, but thereafter her condition again began to deteriorate. A repeat injection into the shoulder was of little benefit. Plaintiff underwent more physical therapy and had an MRI done. No clear abnormalities were discovered in the shoulder, but plaintiff was noted to have problems with pain and stiffness in the neck and the cervical MRI revealed degenerative disease of the disks and cervical spine.

11. On March 22, 1996, plaintiff presented to Dr. Sarah Peters, a psychiatrist at the Hickory Psychiatric Center, suffering from anxiety and depression. She complained of the following symptoms: low energy, inability to sleep, loss of interest in things, constant pain, inability to raise shoulder or arm, numbness in both arms and legs, feelings of helplessness and worthlessness, occasional feelings of shakiness, difficulty in breathing, headaches, nausea, and occasional feelings that life is not worth living.

12. Dr.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cannon v. Century Furniture Industries, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannon-v-century-furniture-industries-ncworkcompcom-1999.