Crumbley v. Waste Mgmt.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 7, 2004
DocketI.C. NOS. 115210, 115211, 122761
StatusPublished

This text of Crumbley v. Waste Mgmt. (Crumbley v. Waste Mgmt.) 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
Crumbley v. Waste Mgmt., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2004).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Holmes. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence; therefore, the Full Commission REVERSES the decision 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 and 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 Employer-Defendant.

3. Waste Management, Inc. (hereinafter "WMI") was self-insured at all times relevant to the claims herein and Gallagher-Bassett Services was the Third-Party Administrator.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $1,100.00, yielding a compensation rate of $588.00 per week.

5. A videotape of the job duties of a front-end loader at WMI's Gastonia location was stipulated into evidence at the hearing in this matter.

6. The depositions of Dr. Kathryn Caulfield and Mr. Alan Gorrod are a part of the evidentiary record in this case.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was thirty-seven years old at the time of the deputy commissioner hearing in this matter. Plaintiff completed the eleventh grade and can read and write. Defendant-employer hired plaintiff on October 12, 1989 and has employed him continuously since that date.

2. WMI operates a garbage disposal service wherein employees perform a variety of tasks and job positions which include that of "front-end loader" and "swing driver". A written job description of a front-end loader commercial driver was introduced into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 during the deputy commissioner hearing. Front-end loaders are primarily responsible for operating garbage trucks along certain routes to pick up and dispose of waste that is deposited in bins outside of commercial establishments. The garbage trucks, until approximately 1994, had manual transmission and a variety of levers which the front-end loaders operated in order to move the arms on the truck to load the bins and empty the waste. Since 1995, most of the garbage trucks at WMI in Gastonia are automatic and equipped with controls designed for easier use. Front-end loaders operate the garbage trucks and the controls within, empty the refuse from the compactor at the back of the truck by releasing the chain and turnbuckle to open the compactor, and frequently dispose of the remaining garbage in each truck by hand. While operating the trucks along the commercial routes each day, front-end loaders spend most of their time driving the trucks, as opposed to operating the levers.

3. In late 1993 or early 1994, plaintiff was transferred from his job as a front-end loader commercial driver to the swing driver position. Swing drivers have numerous responsibilities besides driving front-end loaders including assisting supervisors with establishing or re-doing routes; "navigating" or riding along with new, inexperienced truck drivers, scheduling routes for truck drivers, and occasionally filling in for truck drivers if they are sick or on vacation. Despite these additional job duties, plaintiff still spent a majority of his time as a swing driver since 1994 driving front-end loaders just as he did prior to his transfer.

4. The videotape introduced into evidence at the deputy commissioner hearing depicted two different employees driving two types of trucks, an automatic and manual drive truck. The videotape illustrated that to manipulate the front forks that picked up the garbage containers, the drivers would use a joystick with their right hand.

5. Plaintiff's front-end driver position required him to manipulate the forks using either levers or joysticks and exclusively using joysticks over the last three or four years. Plaintiff performed the dumping mechanism of his job between seventy-five (75) and two hundred twenty-five (225) times per day depending upon driving distances between various stops on his route. Plaintiff was required to climb in and out of the trucks by pulling himself up with his right arm approximately 15-40 times per day to open corrals to enable him to reach the dumpsters. When plaintiff was using the joy sticks at a particular dumpster, he moved the joy sticks for three to four minutes at a time, back and forth and side to side, to dump the garbage out of the dumpster.

6. Plaintiff worked as a swing driver an average of approximately five days per week and occasionally six days per week. Plaintiff's average work week was forty-eight to fifty-eight hours per week; however, plaintiff sometimes worked up to eighty hours per week.

7. In 1997, plaintiff began feeling tingling, numbness, and pain in his right wrist. These same symptoms advanced to plaintiff's elbow after approximately three to four months.

8. Plaintiff presented to Dr. Benson Timmons at Southeastern Hand Center on May 26, 1998. Plaintiff was diagnosed with cubital tunnel syndrome and ulnar nerve entrapment. Plaintiff's medical records from this date reflect that plaintiff informed Dr. Timmons during his first visit that his right wrist and elbow pain bothered him the most when he was working on his truck.

9. On October 8, 1998, plaintiff underwent a right carpal tunnel release and release of the ulnar nerve at Guyon's canal. Plaintiff missed approximately one week of work and then rode in a truck without driving for approximately six to eight weeks. Plaintiff continued treating with Dr. Timmons until December 1, 1998.

10. Plaintiff's wrist pain recommenced approximately six to eight months following his first surgery, and he continued to experience elbow pain as well.

11. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Timmons on September 19, 2000, complaining of continued pain in his elbow and his right wrist to his thumb. Dr. Timmons referred plaintiff to his associate, Dr. Kathryn Caulfield, an orthopedic surgeon with a specialty in hand surgery.

12. Dr. Caulfield initially treated plaintiff on September 26, 2000. Dr. Caulfield indicated in her notes from this visit that plaintiff suffered a right lateral epicondyle abrasion when he was thirteen years old and broke his wrist when he was seventeen years old. Dr. Caulfield further noted that plaintiff complained that his wrist pain was "especially bothersome when he has to do a lot of pushing and changing gears because he operates the joystick with his right hand on his truck." Dr. Caulfield diagnosed plaintiff with a scapholunate ligament tear, right dorsal wrist syndrome, and persistent symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome.

13. On October 19, 2000, plaintiff underwent surgery by Dr. Caulfield who performed a right carpal tunnel release and right dorsal wrist exploration including an injection of the right lateral epicondyle. During the carpal tunnel release, Dr. Caulfield freed up more of the scar tissue that had formed and took more of the transverse carpal ligament out of plaintiff's hand. During the surgery, Dr. Caulfield observed a one-third to one-half scapholunate ligament tear and some osteophytes on the scaphoid bone which she shaved down.

14. Following his surgery, Dr.

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

Related

§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31
§ 97-42
North Carolina § 97-42
§ 97-53
North Carolina § 97-53(13)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Crumbley v. Waste Mgmt., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crumbley-v-waste-mgmt-ncworkcompcom-2004.