Credle v. Injection Technology Corp.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 30, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 200785
StatusPublished

This text of Credle v. Injection Technology Corp. (Credle v. Injection Technology Corp.) 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
Credle v. Injection Technology Corp., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission has reviewed the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission hereby REVERSES the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Phillips.

* * * * * * * * * * *
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 as:

STIPULATIONS
1. At the time of the alleged injury giving rise to this claim, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. At such time, an employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendants.

3. Federated Mutual Insurance Company was the carrier on the risk.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $348.18, which yields a compensation rate of $232.12.

5. The parties entered the following into the evidence of record at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

a. Stipulated Exhibit No. 1: medical records

b. Stipulated Exhibit No. 2: I.C. Forms

c. Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1: job description

d. Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2: performance evaluation

e. Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3: interrogatories

6. The issues for determination by the Commission are whether plaintiff sustained an injury by accident in the course and scope of her employment on August 4, 2001 and, if so, to what compensation is plaintiff entitled.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon all of the evidence produced at the hearing, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 61 years old. She has an eighth grade education but earned her GED.

2. Plaintiff's work experience was in manufacturing jobs requiring production. She worked for defendants as a plastic mold machine operator for five years. Her job required her to remove, inspect, and package custom-made plastic items from metal molds.

3. Plaintiff has a medical history of right carpal tunnel release surgery in 1993. After the surgery she was assigned a 15% permanent partial disability rating to her right hand. Plaintiff has also had high blood pressure since 1993. In 1998 she had a stroke which caused some generalized right-sided weakness.

4. On August 14, 2001, plaintiff was removing plastic parts from a metal mold. When a part stuck in the mold, plaintiff tried to forcefully remove the part from the mold. As plaintiff reached into the machine to pull the part off, her right hand flew back, she almost lost her balance, and her hand hit the metal mold. After she struck her hand, plaintiff experienced pain in her arm and neck, numbness in her arm, swelling and numbness in her hand, and tingling in her fingers.

5. Defendants accepted the claim as medical only and initially provided medical treatment to plaintiff.

6. Plaintiff continued working for the employer on August 14, 2001 and for approximately three additional weeks before seeking any medical treatment.

7. On September 8, 2001, plaintiff presented to the Emergency Department at Memorial Mission Hospital complaining of right wrist and hand pain. X-rays were taken of plaintiff's right wrist that revealed degenerative changes but no acute pathology. Plaintiff was instructed to wear a splint and referred for followup to Carolina Hand Center. Plaintiff was not written out of work.

8. On September 10, 2001, plaintiff presented to Dr. Lacy E. Thornburg of Carolina Hand Surgery Associates in Asheville. Dr. Thornburg diagnosed plaintiff with right cubital tunnel syndrome and possible left carpal tunnel syndrome, prescribed a right wrist splint, and ordered nerve conduction studies.

9. Dr. Thornburg restricted plaintiff to light duty, which the employer provided.

10. On October 8, 2001, plaintiff presented to Dr. Cecil Durham of Mountain Neurological Center in Asheville. Dr. Durham performed nerve conduction studies that revealed the possibility of mild medial nerve dysfunction at the right wrist.

11. On October 22, 2001, plaintiff returned to Dr. Thornburg. After reviewing the results of the nerve conduction studies, Dr. Thornburg noted that plaintiff's symptoms did not seem to correlate with nerve compression.

12. Dr. Thornburg further noted that plaintiff was working and wearing her wrist splint at work and recommended that she continue to wear her wrist splint as needed to work.

13. On December 19, 2001, plaintiff presented to Dr. Thornburg complaining for the first time of lateral elbow pain. Dr. Thornburg diagnosed plaintiff with right lateral epicondylitis and possible mild carpal tunnel syndrome and recommended physical therapy. Thereafter, defendants filed a Form 61 indicating that while the blow to plaintiff's right hand was accepted as compensable, further medical treatment was denied as unrelated to the trauma to plaintiff's right hand.

14. Dr. Thornburg testified that it was unlikely that the injury on August 14, 2001 caused, aggravated, accelerated, exacerbated, or contributed to the elbow problems for which he treated plaintiff. Dr. Thornburg explained that plaintiff did not complain of elbow pain until December of 2001 and that if plaintiff's elbow problem had been caused by an acute injury, he would have expected the elbow to hurt right away. Under further questioning by plaintiff's counsel, Dr. Thornburg admitted that it was possible that the type of trauma plaintiff sustained when she hit the metal mold could have caused an injury to her elbow.

15. Although plaintiff continued working, she was unable to meet production after her hand injury and neck aggravation. On March 14, 2002, plaintiff quit the employment after a confrontation with her supervisor about her productivity level. The following day she returned to the employer to explain that she was working in pain and had delayed having surgery while trying to work the best that she was able. Plaintiff asked the owner of the employer to re-hire her but he told her that he did not hire workers who quit.

16. On March 18, 2002, after having quit the employment, plaintiff returned to Dr. Thornburg complaining of lateral elbow pain. Dr. Thornburg decided to proceed with a right lateral epicondyle debridement and radial tunnel release. On March 28, 2002, plaintiff underwent the recommended surgery.

17. From March 28, 2002 through May 7, 2002, plaintiff was restricted to left-handed work using the right hand only as an assist. On May 8, 2002, plaintiff was released to return to work at light duty for a period of three weeks. Thereafter, in June 2002 plaintiff was released to return to work at full duty.

18. On August 12, 2002, Dr. Thornburg released plaintiff to return to work with no restrictions.

19. When plaintiff returned to Dr. Thornburg on November 4, 2002, Dr. Thornburg noted that although plaintiff was not working outside the home, she was caring for her grandchildren.

20. On February 26, 2003, plaintiff presented to Dr. Thornburg with complaints of neck and posterior shoulder pain down to her elbow in her right upper extremity. Dr. Thornburg's office visit notes do not document any prior complaint of neck and shoulder pain. Dr. Thornbrug did not recommend any further surgical treatment and suggested that plaintiff follow-up with her primary care physician.

21.

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

Related

§ 92-2
North Carolina § 92-2(6)
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-32
North Carolina § 97-32

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Credle v. Injection Technology Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/credle-v-injection-technology-corp-ncworkcompcom-2005.