Cummings v. Lundy Packing

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 20, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 804728.
StatusPublished

This text of Cummings v. Lundy Packing (Cummings v. Lundy Packing) 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
Cummings v. Lundy Packing, (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 Hoag and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing 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 the plaintiff-employee and defendant-employer at all relevant times herein.

3. At all times relevant to this proceeding, one of either defendant-carrier American Motorists Insurance Company/Kemper Insurance Company or defendant-carrier EBI Companies insured the defendant-employer, pursuant to the requirements of N.C. GEN. STAT. § 97-93. American Motorists Insurance Company/Kemper Insurance Company insured the defendant-employer from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997 and defendant-carrier EBI Companies insured the defendant-employer from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998.

4. The parties stipulated that the plaintiff's average weekly wage was $472.94, yielding a compensation rate of $316.18.

5. The parties stipulated to Industrial Commission Forms 19, 33 and 33R; a letter from Lundy Packing Company, Inc. dated June 24, 1998 and the fact that the plaintiff filed a prior workers' compensation claim.

6. The parties stipulated to the plaintiff's medical records from Paul E. Viser, M.D., Raleigh Neurosurgical Clinic, Inc., Wake Medical Center, Laura A. Jozewicz, M.D., Wayne Neurological Associates, The Bone and Joint Surgery Clinic, and Goldsboro Orthopaedic Associates, P.A.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing, the plaintiff-employee was 61 years old and had completed the 7th grade. The plaintiff-employee worked for the defendant-employer for approximately 25 years as a process boner, trimmer and puller in the defendant-employer's boning department.

2. The plaintiff-employee is right-hand dominant.

3. The plaintiff-employee's job duties included the manual cutting of pieces of meat with a knife. Using a knife held in his right hand, the plaintiff-employee would remove bones from pieces of meat, and discard the bones. Working at peak efficiency, the plaintiff-employee processed as many as 250 pounds of meat per hour. The plaintiff-employee wore a wire mesh glove on his left hand.

4. In addition to the above-described job duties, the plaintiff-employee spent virtually his entire work day, exclusive of two fifteen-minute breaks and one thirty-minute break, standing on a cement floor, in a work environment with a controlled temperature of between 38 and 40 degrees.

5. In 1996, the plaintiff-employee developed a degenerative condition in his lower back resulting from a gunshot wound that he sustained during an altercation with an officer of the North Carolina State Highway Patrol. In 1997, the plaintiff-employee was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease in his cervical spine, and has been receiving ongoing treatment for that condition ever since.

6. In 1997, the plaintiff-employee began experiencing difficulties with his left hand, including numbness, tingling and weakness. Throughout 1997, the plaintiff-employee continued to work at his regular job duties while undergoing treatment for his left hand difficulties with Dr. Paul E. Viser, the plaintiff-employee's primary care physician, Dr. Samuel K. St. Clair, a neurosurgeon, Dr. Laura K. Jozewicz, a neurologist and Dr. Paul B. Burroughs, Jr., an orthopaedic surgeon. The plaintiff-employee lost no compensable time from work until Dr. St. Clair recommended and subsequently performed left-sided carpal tunnel release surgery on January 26, 1998.

7. As a result of the carpal tunnel release surgery, the plaintiff-employee did not work from January 26, 1998 to March 15, 1998, when he returned to work at his full wages, and essentially performing the same job duties that he had performed prior to his surgery.

8. In April of 1998, the plaintiff-employee began efforts to collect benefits in connection with an early retirement program offered by the defendant-employer. In April of 1998, the plaintiff-employee requested and was provided a disability evaluation form, which Dr. Viser completed and signed.

9. In May of 1998, the plaintiff-employee missed time from work due to a family vacation. This lost time was completely unrelated to any injuries or disability that the plaintiff-employee sustained in the course of his employment with the defendant-employer.

10. The disability form indicates that Dr. Viser certified the plaintiff-employee as permanently and totally disabled due to his above-described low back injury and chronic low back pain. This disability explanation form is dated April 14, 1998.

11. By letter dated June 24, 1998, the defendant-employer informed the plaintiff-employee that he qualified for the above-described disability benefit distribution plan. The plaintiff-employee was accordingly released from his employment with the defendant-employer on June 26, 1998.

12. The plaintiff-employee has not returned to work for the defendant-employer, nor has he returned to work any other employer since June 26, 1998.

13. On January 8, 1998, the defendant-employer filed an Industrial Commission Form 19, which noted that the plaintiff-employee injured his left wrist and complained of pain in the left wrist following the performance of his normal job duties.

14. Dr. St. Clair testified that the plaintiff-employee could return to work at the same position that he held prior to the left-sided carpal tunnel release surgery. Dr. St. Clair opined that he did not know whether or not the plaintiff-employee's symptoms in his left hand had worsened or augmented at any time from January 1, 1998 to January 26, 1998.

15. Dr. Laura K. Josewicz treated the plaintiff-employee for both right-sided and left-sided carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Josewicz offered no testimony indicating that the plaintiff-employee is permanently and totally disabled as the result of any disabling condition. Dr. Josewicz further indicated that she did not see or examine the plaintiff-employee during the period of time from January 1, 1998 to January 26, 1998, and thus could not comment on his condition during that span of time.

16. Dr. St. Clair referred the plaintiff-employee to Dr. Paul B. Burroughs, Jr., who evaluated and treated the plaintiff-employee on November 18, 1997. Dr. Burroughs testified that initial radiographs taken of the left hand showed changes in the navicular bone, which "appeared to be consistent with an old injury of some kind, possibly a fracture." Dr. Burroughs further testified that a prior fracture of the navicular bone could lead to the development of symptoms commonly associated with carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Burroughs further testified that he was unfamiliar with the nature of the plaintiff-employee's job duties with the defendant-employer and thus could not comment on the actual cause of the plaintiff-employee's symptoms in the left hand. Dr.

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

Related

Gay v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc.
339 S.E.2d 490 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)
Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, Inc.
181 S.E.2d 588 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn
301 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
McKenzie v. McCarter Electrical Co.
359 S.E.2d 249 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cummings v. Lundy Packing, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-v-lundy-packing-ncworkcompcom-2002.