Cannon v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 24, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 168908
StatusPublished

This text of Cannon v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. (Cannon v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co.) 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. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinions

***********
Upon review 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 affirms with minor modifications the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following which were entered into by the parties through the Pre-trial Agreement and at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

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

2. The employer-employee relationship existed between defendant-employer and plaintiff at all relevant times herein.

3. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company provided defendant-employer with workers' compensation coverage at all relevant times herein.

4. Plaintiff's wages were sufficient to generate the maximum compensation rate for 2001 of $620.00 per week.

5. Plaintiff received sickness and accident benefits pursuant to a fully employer funded plan for 31 weeks in the amount of $300.74 per week for a total of $9,322.94, for the period from 23 April 2001 through 25 November 2001.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was born on 1 July 1955, and was 46 years old as of the date of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. He completed high school, and began working for defendant-employer on 7 September 1976.

2. On 6 April 2001, plaintiff was working his regular job as a stage 1 tire builder, which involved building the carcass of the tire. Plaintiff was changing a drum which had been hooked to a hoist. When plaintiff pulled on the lever to activate the hoist and lift the drum, he experienced a sharp pain at or about his waist and a little lower and a "tingling numbness" in his legs and feet.

3. Plaintiff reported this incident to his supervisor, Harold Brock, who filled out an accident report and sent plaintiff to the dispensary. Plaintiff complained of low back pain, and was given two Tylenols that morning and two ibuprofen and heat that afternoon. On the following morning plaintiff again reported to the dispensary due to continuing back pain with numbness bilaterally from his knees down to both feet. He was given a heat cream for his back and two ibuprofen and sent to Primary Care Plus for treatment.

4. Plaintiff presented to Primary Care Plus on 7 April 2001. He gave a history of a back injury while at work on 6 April 2001. Plaintiff was diagnosed with a "low back/SI strain with no evidence of disc disease at present." Plaintiff was given a prescription for pain and released to return to light duty for the next three days, with restrictions of no lifting more that 20 pounds, from floor to waist or from waist to shoulder.

5. On 12 April 2001, plaintiff presented to Doctor's Urgent Care Center with complaints of numbness from the waist down. Plaintiff had scheduled an appointment with a neurologist on 18 April 2001, and was seeking an out-of-work note until that time.

6. On 18 April 2001, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident while enroute to the neurologist. He sustained injuries to his back and neck. Plaintiff presented to the emergency room of Cumberland County Hospital and was diagnosed with thoracic, lumbar and cervical spine strain. He was treated with medication and discharged home. He was also written out of work for two days and given light duty for an additional five days.

7. On 23 April 2001, plaintiff presented to Dr. Rangas Ramachandran, a neurologist at Health South, with complaints of low back pain, neck pain, and aches and pains below the waist bilaterally. He was treated conservatively and instructed not to push, pull or lift weights over 15 pounds.

8. On 3 May 2001, plaintiff returned to Dr. Ramachandran with complaints of blurring vision and numbness in his legs. MRIs of plaintiff's lumbar and cervical spine and his brain were performed on 10 May 2001. The brain scan showed evidence of sinusitis and the lumbar scan revealed degenerative disc disease at T12-L1, L1-L2 and L2-L3, with loss of normal signal intensity to the intervertebral discs. The degenerative changes were most pronounced at L2-L3. The cervical scan showed a lack of disc space between C4-C5, which Dr. Ramachandran opined may be the result of a partial bony fusion between the C4 and C5 vertebra. At C5-C6 there was "advanced discogenic disease present with marked disc space narrowing and degenerative end plate bony osteophytosis." Dr. Ramachandran opined this may be the result of previous trauma.

9. On 22 June 2001, Dr. Ramachandran performed a nerve conduction velocity study which showed no abnormalities. Plaintiff continued to complain of numbness and tingling in his lower extremities up to his chest level. After examining the various test results, Dr. Ramachandran noted that he was not able to find any clinical reason for plaintiff's numbness and tingling.

10. On 18 May 2001, plaintiff was seen and treated by Dr. Robert Lee Allen, a neurosurgeon. Dr. Allen reviewed plaintiff's MRI scans and diagnosed plaintiff's condition as a kyphotic deformity. He indicated that this is a condition in which plaintiff had a "severe angulation of the spine with at least some partial fusion, an abnormal shape to some of the vertebral bodies the most common causes would be either post-traumatic or there would be some congenital causes." Dr. Allen opined that the condition had been developing for some years and could have been the result of a car accident plaintiff was involved in when he was 16 years old. However, Dr. Allen expressed some surprise at the degree of problems plaintiff was currently having, given that his chronic condition had been going on for so long without symptoms.

11. Dr. Allen opined that the accident at work could have been an exacerbating or aggravating factor in the onset of plaintiff's cervical myelopathy. He further opined that plaintiff's kyphotic deformity caused plaintiff to be more susceptible to injury after a specific traumatic incident. Dr. Allen opined that given the long-standing kyphotic deformity, any trauma such as the work-related injury or the car accident of 18 April 2001 could have been sufficient to create plaintiff's current symptoms. Dr. Allen was unable to apportion plaintiff's current condition between the automobile accident when plaintiff was 16, the work-related accident of 6 April 2001, and the auto accident on 18 April 2001.

12. Plaintiff's pre-existing condition of kyphotic deformity was materially aggravated and/or exacerbated by the work-related specific traumatic incident of 6 April 2001. Plaintiff's back condition was further materially aggravated and/or exacerbated by the automobile accident of 18 April 2001.

13. On 27 July 2001, Dr. Allen performed surgery removing the C4 and C5 verebral bodies and replacing them with a strut from C3 to C6. Plaintiff remained hospitalized for five days and was eventually released to return to work on 26 November 2001, and he returned to work at that time.

14. On the date of his deposition, 20 May 2002, Dr. Allen opined that plaintiff should be rated with a 20% permanent partial disability to his back and that he had reached maximum medical improvement.

15.

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

Related

Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, Inc.
181 S.E.2d 588 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
Roper v. J. P. Stevens & Co.
308 S.E.2d 485 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1983)
Heatherly v. Montgomery Components, Inc.
323 S.E.2d 29 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)
Loflin v. Loflin
186 S.E.2d 660 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cannon v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannon-v-goodyear-tire-rubber-co-ncworkcompcom-2003.