Crump v. Alcoa Corporation

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 15, 2002
DocketI.C. NOS. 929643 973613
StatusPublished

This text of Crump v. Alcoa Corporation (Crump v. Alcoa Corporation) 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
Crump v. Alcoa Corporation, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Dollar. Plaintiff has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence with regard to the compensability of plaintiff's knee condition. Accordingly, the Full Commission reverses in part and affirms in part the Opinion and Award 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 their Pre-Trial Agreement which was filed on September 25, 2000, and incorporated herein by reference, and at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as

STIPULATIONS
1. The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, the parties are properly before the Commission, and the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act at all relevant times.

2. Defendant was a duly qualified self-insured, with Constitution State Service Company as the servicing agent.

3. The employee-employer relationship existed between the parties at all relevant times.

4. Plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury on January 8, 1999, which is the subject of I.C. File 973613. Plaintiff was out of work from May 12, 1999 to July 18, 1999 and from October 22, 1999 to June 5, 2000. Defendant denies plaintiff's left hip and leg complaints as being compensable consequences of this incident.

5. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained an injury by accident to his lower extremities and hip on or about April 6, 1999, which is the subject of I.C. File 929643. Plaintiff contends this injury was a derivative of the January 1999 injury and defendant disputes this contention.

6. The issues for determination are:

a. Whether plaintiff's hip and lower extremity problems are causally related to the admittedly compensable injury? Or, in the alternative,

b. Whether plaintiff sustained an injury by accident on April 6, 1999, and if so, to what benefits may he be entitled under the Act? And if so, what is plaintiff's average weekly wage?

7. The parties stipulated the following documentary evidence:

a. Company Medical File, thirty-six pages,

b. Stanly Memorial Hospital, thirty-five pages,

c. Albemarle Family medical Center, six pages, and

d. Albemarle Medical Services, fifteen pages.

8. Plaintiff received short-term disability benefits from an employer-sponsored, non-contributory plan for which defendant is entitled to a credit in the amount of $17,078.14.

9. The depositions of Dr. Jonathan Paul, plaintiff's rebuttal testimony, and lay witnesses Forest Davis and Gary Morton are a part of the evidentiary record.

***********
RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE
Upon due consideration, plaintiff's Motion to Strike is GRANTED. The exhibit offered through the deposition testimony of Gary Morton was not a document prepared by Mr. Morton, as such, he is not a competent witness to authenticate the document and no proper foundation has been laid for the admission of this document. Without the testimony of the maker of the document as to its authenticity and how it was prepared, any testimony by Mr. Morton relating to the document is hearsay, and therefore inadmissible.

***********
Based upon the evidence of record, the Full Commission finds as fact the following

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was a twenty-eight year old high school graduate. Plaintiff worked for defendant as a pot servicer from 1992 until 1994 when he was laid off. Plaintiff returned to work for defendant in 1997. He was assigned to work as a pot tenderizer, where his duties included maintaining the aluminum pots. As of the date of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was working as a crane operator and pot servicer.

2. Plaintiff had a history of left knee tenosynovitis in 1992 and a left ankle fracture in 1997 for which he received limited medical treatment.

3. On January 8, 1999, plaintiff was working as a pot servicer, where he was following a block of carbon with his rake. The block was twenty-two inches wide by three to three and one-half feet long, and it weighed over two thousand pounds. A twenty-ton crane was needed to move the carbon block. As the crane operator who was somewhat inexperienced moved the carbon block toward the pots, he did not have the block high enough and the block struck the aluminum rake handle that plaintiff had been using, causing the solid rake head to forcefully strike plaintiff on the inner part of the left knee and thigh. Plaintiff was on the second step preparing to step up onto the deck plate when the rake hit him. The force threw plaintiff off of the second step onto his hand and hip landing in a semi-crouching or squatting position after the impact and then stumbling down the concrete steps off the catwalk to the floor area. Forest Davis, the pot room shift supervisor saw this accident, heard plaintiff cry out, and witnessed him stumble to the floor.

4. Following this incident, plaintiff went to First Aid, where he complained of left thigh and knee pain as a result of the incident. An injury/illness/injury-free form (Triple I) was completed, reflecting plaintiff had a left thigh contusion. Plaintiff was instructed to apply ice to the area and to rest over the weekend.

5. On January 11, 1999, plaintiff was seen for knee and left thigh complaints at Stanly Memorial Hospital and Larry Roediger, P.A. diagnosed plaintiff with a contusion to the left quadriceps and left knee pain. Plaintiff was treated with Ibuprofen, ice and a soft knee splint and was released to light duty to ambulate as tolerated. On January 12, 1999, plaintiff sought medical treatment for the left leg from Dr. Whitman Smith. He released plaintiff to work modified duty for one week and then to return to full duty. On January 15, 1999, plaintiff was again seen at Stanly Memorial Hospital for left knee and leg complaints and was diagnosed with a contusion of the left leg and knee. Plaintiff remained restricted to light duty and was advised to use warm heat to treat his leg and exercise with a return to work on a full duty basis beginning January 21, 1999. Plaintiff's left knee pain improved but he became less physically active and his knee remained painful for a month or a month and a half after his injury.

6. On April 6, 1999, plaintiff experienced severe hip pain which he at first thought was a cramp, a common occurrence when working in the heat. Consequently, plaintiff did not report to First Aid. Instead, plaintiff went home to rest and telephoned that night to report left hip pain to Gary Morton who was the pot room supervisor on duty at the time of the call. Plaintiff explained to Mr. Morton that he did not know if the problem was from the previous fall in January and that he would go to the doctor the next day. Mr. Morton entered plaintiff's call in the logbook of absences and, as a result, a second Form 19 was filled out indicating a hip injury on April 6, 1999, which is the subject of I.C. File No. 929643.

7. On April 7, 1999, Jeffrey Chance, P.A., of Albemarle Medical Services, examined plaintiff for left hip and sciatic pain. Plaintiff was placed on modified duty for one week.

8.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-25.1
North Carolina § 97-25.1
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Crump v. Alcoa Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crump-v-alcoa-corporation-ncworkcompcom-2002.