Carringer v. Coca-Cola Bottling

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 25, 2002
DocketI.C. NOS. 866245, 919042
StatusPublished

This text of Carringer v. Coca-Cola Bottling (Carringer v. Coca-Cola Bottling) 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
Carringer v. Coca-Cola Bottling, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

***********
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the award, except for some modifications, the Full Commission MODIFIES AND AFFIRMS 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 as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer on all relevant dates herein.

3. Continental Casualty Company is the carrier on the risk for workers' compensation purposes.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage on both 17 August 1998 and 16 February 1999 was $744.72. This yields an applicable compensation rate of $496.50.

5. Plaintiff contends that he sustained injuries to his back on 17 August 1998 (the subject of I.C. No. 866245) and again on 16 February 1999 (the subject of I.C. No. 919042). By order filed on 24 August 2000, the Executive Secretary consolidated these two cases for hearing purposes.

6. Plaintiff worked for defendant-employer and was paid his regular wages for the following periods of time: 17 August 1998 through 2 October 1998, and 1 February 1999 through 16 February 1999.

7. Plaintiff received short-term disability benefits in the weekly amount of $481.70 for the period of time from 15 October 1998 through 31 January 1999, for a total amount of $7,500.76. Plaintiff received a second period of short-term disability benefits at the same weekly rate for a total of $14,313.37 from 3 March 1999 through 26 September 1999.

8. This claim was the subject of a mediation on 27 November 2000, after which defendants paid in full the mediator's fee of $675.00 to mediator Neill S. Fuleihan.

9. In addition to the deposition testimony and the exhibits attached to the transcripts of the depositions, the parties stipulated into evidence a 7 March 2001 letter from the human resources manager of defendant-employer to counsel, and 101 pages of medical records. Plaintiff's exhibits 1 through 10, and defendants' exhibits 1 through 6 were also received into evidence at the Deputy Commissioner hearing.

10. The issues to be determined by the Commission are whether plaintiff sustained compensable injuries by accident on 17 August 1998 and/or 16 February 1999, and, if so, to what benefits is he entitled. Defendants allege that if plaintiff's claim or claims are found to be compensable, that defendants are entitled to a credit or offset for short-term disability benefits paid to plaintiff and/or for paying the full mediator's fee.

***********
The Full Commission adopts the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner with some modifications and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On the date of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 33 years old and resided in Georgia. Plaintiff has a high school diploma and in early 2000 he earned a residential appraiser's certificate after going to a real estate appraisal school. Plaintiff was working full-time for North Georgia Appraisal Service at the time of the Deputy Commissioner hearing.

2. Plaintiff worked for defendant-employer for eleven and a half years and initially was hired in May 1987. Plaintiff's job was to deliver soft drinks. As part of this delivery job, plaintiff drove a tractor trailer. This was a physically strenuous job in that plaintiff also had to lift and move the crates of drinks off the truck, place the crates on buggies, and then push the buggies into the stores, and stock the shelves with the drinks. Plaintiff's job required lifting of 20 to 70 pounds. Plaintiff worked 11-12 hours per day delivering 500-700 cases of drinks per day.

3. Defendant-employer required regular physical examinations for its delivery employees. Plaintiff's physical examination reports of 4 June 1996 and 9 June 1998 revealed no health concerns, problems with his back or other part of his body. For six months to a year preceding August 1998, plaintiff experienced intensifying back pain. Plaintiff attributed the development of this back pain to his job. Despite his increasing pain, plaintiff missed no work due to back pain prior to August 1998.

4. On 17 August 1998 plaintiff was doing his normal job duties of lifting and loading cases of drinks onto a buggy. As plaintiff lifted a case of drinks and turned to place them on the buggy, he felt an unusual, painful pop in his middle back. Plaintiff reported the incident that same day to his supervisor and completed an accident report.

5. Plaintiff went to a family physician, Dr. Steven S. Crider, on 17 August 1998, where he reported a one-year history of back pain that gradually increased in intensity and significantly worsened over the past six months. The pain was worse at night and on weekends when plaintiff was not working and was worse when he bent over. Dr. Crider's notes indicate that plaintiff continued working but that the pain was very distracting at night after he got home from work. Dr. Crider's notes also indicate that this was a chronic as opposed to an acute problem, but the medical notes corroborate that plaintiff's back pain increased on 17 August 1998 while he was working. Plaintiff treated with this family practice for several months, including having x-rays done and obtaining prescriptions for medication and physical therapy. The physical therapy notes confirm plaintiff's increase in symptoms following an incident of lifting drinks at work on 17 August 1998.

6. An MRI done on 5 September 1998 revealed mild disc bulging at T7-8 and T8-9 with associated bone spur formation at those levels.

7. Plaintiff next went to see Dr. Michael J. Kordus on 1 October 1998 for continuing complaints of back pain. Dr. Kordus took plaintiff out of work and prescribed anti-inflammatory medication and possible epidural injections.

8. Plaintiff saw Dr. Mark H. Moriarty at Peachtree Orthopaedic Clinic on 19 October 1998, who recommended a bone scan. Like Dr. Kordus, Dr. Moriarty also took plaintiff out of work and referred plaintiff to Dr. James Hoski. Plaintiff went out of work as of 2 October 1998.

9. Plaintiff began treating with Dr. Hoski on 17 December 1998. Dr. Hoski noted that plaintiff developed back pain over the course of his employment, with an increase in his symptoms when he felt a pop in his back while lifting at work in August. Dr. Hoski interpreted the MRI to read that plaintiff has Schmorl's nodes in the thoracic region, which is a preexisting, developmental abnormality. Herniated discs are often associated with Schmorl's nodes, and this developmental abnormality is the probable explanation for plaintiff's small herniated discs.

10. Dr. Hoski took plaintiff out of work from 17 December 1998 through 1 February 1999. In addition, at his first evaluation of plaintiff, Dr. Hoski discussed the nature of plaintiff's developmental condition, particularly plaintiff's progressive complaints of pain, and recommended that plaintiff pursue a different job that did not require the heavy physical demands of his current job with defendant-employer.

11.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31(23)
§ 97-42
North Carolina § 97-42

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Carringer v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carringer-v-coca-cola-bottling-ncworkcompcom-2002.