Dancy v. Abbott Laboratories

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 26, 1999
DocketI.C. No. 318961
StatusPublished

This text of Dancy v. Abbott Laboratories (Dancy v. Abbott Laboratories) 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
Dancy v. Abbott Laboratories, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1999).

Opinion

Upon review of all 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 to amend the award, the Full Commission AFFIRMS and ADOPTS with minor modifications, the Opinion and Award of the deputy commissioner as follows:

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following which were entered into by the parties in the Pre-trial Agreement and at the hearing before the deputy commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company is the administrator for Abbott Laboratories, Self-insured.

2. The employee contracted an occupational disease, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, arising out of and in the course of employment on September 21, 1992.

3. The average weekly wage of the employee, including overtime and all allowances is $340.00

4. The employer paid compensation to the employee at the rate of $226.25 per week for the period beginning March 8, 1993 and continuing through June 21, 1993 pursuant to the Agreement for Compensation for Disability (I.C. Form 21) entered into by the parties on March 16, 1993.

5. All I.C. forms previously filed in this action are stipulated as evidence.

6. The parties further stipulate that the only issue before the Commission is to what benefits, if any, is the plaintiff entitled under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act after June 21, 1993.

***********
Based on the competent, credible evidence of record, the Full Commission adopts the findings of fact of the deputy commissioner with minor modifications and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of hearing plaintiff was 48 years old and had a high school diploma. She was hired by Abbott Laboratories on April 4, 1976, where she worked as a production operator until June 21, 1993.

2. Around May 15, 1991, plaintiff experienced pain and numbness in both hands, but more prominently in the right hand. Dr. Margaret Sowerwine, Abbott's company doctor, started treating her at that time with ibuprofen and splints on her hands. Over the next year, plaintiff occasionally returned to Dr. Sowerwine with complaints of bi-lateral wrist pain.

3. On September 21, 1992, plaintiff's bilateral wrist pain had become more pronounced and was not responding to conservative treatment. Dr. Sowerwine ordered a second NCV test, which was done on February 18, 1993. The test revealed that plaintiff had a significant delay of the right distal latency for the right median sensory nerves. She also had significant delay in all sensory components for the right median sensory nerve. The diagnosis was right carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Sowerwine noted that plaintiff had a right median motor distal latency of 6.88 which was past the point that Abbott's employees were normally referred for surgery.

4. Dr. Sowerwine arranged an appointment for plaintiff with Dr. J. Greg Nelson, an orthopedic surgeon, for March 8, 1993. The referral was made for Dr. Nelson to perform a right hand carpal tunnel release for plaintiff. Dr. Nelson injected the right carpal tunnel with Aristocort and Marcaine rather than proceeding with surgery. On follow-up plaintiff's wrist symptoms were not improved. On March 19, 1993, Dr. Sowerwine decided that Dr. Nelson was going to do the right carpal tunnel release, or she was going to send plaintiff to another surgeon. Dr. Nelson did the surgery on March 30, 1993.

5. At post-operative follow up on April 2, 1993, plaintiff had no pain on flexion or extension of her right hand, less numbness and negative Tinel's and Phalen's signs. However, her left wrist was extremely painful. Dr. Nelson injected the left wrist with Triamcinolone and Marcaine and referred plaintiff to Nash Day Hospital Physical Therapy for fluidotherapy. When plaintiff returned to Dr. Nelson on April 22, 1993, her left wrist was still painful. Dr. Nelson summarily dismissed her complaints of left hand pain saying that his examination, x-rays, EMG and nerve conduction tests revealed no abnormality in her left hand.

6. After examining plaintiff on April 22, 1993, Dr. Nelson recommended that she participate in a work hardening program for 2 — 3 weeks and then return to her normal work duties. When Nash Day Hospital Physical Therapy received the prescription for work hardening, the therapist recommended postponement of right hand therapy for two weeks so that the surgical incision could heal. Dr. Nelson looked at the incision and said it was primarily healed without evidence of dehiscence.

7. On May 13, 1993, Nash Day Hospital Physical Therapy reported that plaintiff was "dying of right arm, as well as left arm pain . . . and it would be pointless to restart work hardening." Dr. Nelson discussed plaintiff's progress with an occupational therapist on May 14, 1993, and was told that the therapist could not work with plaintiff because of her pain. Dr. Nelson discontinued the physical therapy. Dr. Nelson was of the opinion that plaintiff might be suffering form reflex sympathetic dystrophy. He sent her to Nash Day Hospital for a cervical ganglion block, which provided relief for only about an hour.

8. On May 21, 1993, Dr. Nelson wrote a letter, releasing himself as treating physician for plaintiff. In the letter, he concurred with Dr. Sowerwine's proposed treatment plan of May 13, 1993 which recommended that plaintiff continue with tricyclics and passive physical therapy, and that she be referred to a psychologist. Dr. Nelson persisted in his opinion that the plaintiff should return to her normal work activities without restrictions.

9. Beginning on May 13, 1993, Dr. Sowerwine assumed sole responsibility for plaintiff's treatment. She disagreed with Dr. Nelson's opinion that plaintiff was capable of returning to full work duties, without restrictions. Dr. Sowerwine continued plaintiff on physical therapy and tricyclics. Dr. Sowerwine was convinced that there was a psychological component to plaintiff's pain, so she referred her to Deborah Burnett, the company psychologist, and made an appointment for plaintiff to see Samuel J. Moon, M.D., at Duke Hospital, on June 29, 1993. Dr. Moon is a professor of family medicine who, through practice and experience, has become a specialist in hand problems and industrial problems causing disability.

10. On June 10, 1993, Dr. Sowerwine felt pressured by defendant to send plaintiff back to work, because there were no significant physical findings to explain her pain, and Abbott Laboratories was aware that Dr. Nelson had released plaintiff to return to work. Dr. Sowerwine was familiar with production line work and knew that the speed and demands of the work are controlled collectively by the line workers. The "line" cannot accommodate the physical disabilities of an injured employee. Nevertheless, on June 11, 1993, Dr. Sowerwine modified Dr. Nelson's return to work with no restrictions by limiting plaintiff to four hours per day for two weeks.

11. Plaintiff returned to work on Monday, June 14, 1993. She worked for about an hour, then reported to Employee Health with a burning pain and swelling over the radial volar wrist on both sides. Dr. Sowerwine sent plaintiff home with instructions to take Elavil and soak her hands in cold water every one to two hours for the remainder of the day. Dr.

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

Related

Kisiah v. W.R. Kisiah Plumbing, Inc.
476 S.E.2d 434 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, Inc.
181 S.E.2d 588 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
Fayne v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.
282 S.E.2d 539 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1981)
State v. Johnson
478 S.E.2d 16 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Franklin v. Broyhill Furniture Industries
472 S.E.2d 382 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dancy v. Abbott Laboratories, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dancy-v-abbott-laboratories-ncworkcompcom-1999.