Daniel v. Food Lion

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedDecember 4, 2007
DocketI.C. NOS. 481733 526186.
StatusPublished

This text of Daniel v. Food Lion (Daniel v. Food Lion) 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
Daniel v. Food Lion, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Deluca, and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence in this matter. Having reconsidered the evidence of record, the Full Commission hereby reverses the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award 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 as: *Page 2

STIPULATIONS
1. At the time of the alleged injuries giving rise to these claims, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Worker's Compensation Act.

2. At such time, an employment relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant-Employer.

3. Plaintiff alleges an injury to the back occurring on April 10, 2004. This denied claim has been assigned Industrial Commission File #526186.

4. Plaintiff sustained a repetitive bilateral hand injury on September 2, 2004. This accepted claim has been assigned Industrial Commission File #481733.

5. By Administrative Order of the Commission filed January 5, 2006, Plaintiff's alleged back claim and repetitive bilateral hand injury claims were consolidated for hearing purposes.

6. During all relevant times, Defendant-Employer was a self-insured entity. Risk Management Services, Inc. was the workers' compensation claims administrator for Defendant-Employer.

7. The Industrial Commission has jurisdiction of this matter.

8. Plaintiff contends her average weekly wage, as stated on the Form 60 filed November 18, 2004, is $482.72, yielding a compensation rate of $321.83. Defendant-Employer contends the Plaintiff's average weekly wage, as stated on the Form 22 dated May 9, 2005, is $458.47, yielding a compensation rate of $305.66.

9. Plaintiff received short-term benefits paid by Defendant-Employer pursuant to a Defendant-Employer funded short-term disability plan. Plaintiff received such benefits in *Page 3 connection with the alleged back injury of April 10, 2004. Plaintiff received a total of $4,017.44 in benefits paid from May 12, 2005 to February 20, 2006.

10. Plaintiff returned to work for Defendant-Employer on February 21, 2006.

11. Plaintiff is receiving her full pre-injury wages.

12. Documents stipulated into evidence include:

a. Medical records of Seagrove Medical Clinic;

b. Medical records of The Johnson Neurological Clinic;

c. Medical records of Randolph Hospital;

d. Medical records of Hand Rehabilitation Specialists of North Carolina;

e. Medical records of Greensboro Orthopaedic Sports Rehabilitation Center;

f. Medical records of Millennium Neuroscience;

g. Medical records of CompRehab;

h. Medical records of HealthSouth;

i. Recorded statement of Eva Daniel;

j. Selected documents from Plaintiff's personnel file;

k. Selected documents pertaining to the amount of short-term disability benefits paid to Plaintiff under Defendant-Employer's short-term disability plan;

l. A copy of a check paid to Plaintiff for short-term disability;

m. Copies of the Interrogatories and Request for Production served on the Defendant-Employer on February 21, 2006;

n. Plaintiff's Responses Answers to Interrogatories;

o. Medical expenses related to treatment of Plaintiff's back; and

p. North Carolina Industrial Commission forms and pleadings.

*Page 4

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon all the competent evidence of record, and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was 59 years old at the time of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. She completed the seventh grade, and did not have any vocational training. Plaintiff had been employed as a deli worker by Defendant-Employer for approximately 12 years prior to the initial injury giving rise to these claims.

2. Plaintiff's claim for back and neck injury is premised on her contention that she sustained an injury to her back while working in Defendant-Employer's freezer. She testified at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner that while taking a box off the shelf, she "lost it" and felt a pull in her back.

3. Debbie West, the deli manager, heard that box fall and asked Plaintiff is she was all right. Plaintiff responded that she was all right, and continued working the remainder of the shift. Ms. West testified that Plaintiff told her not to report the incident. Plaintiff was able to finish her work that day, and testified that she did not miss any work due to pain or problems with her neck or back between April 10, 2004, and May 5, 2005. Plaintiff further testified that she never spoke with her supervisors regarding her back treatment following the April 10, 2004 incident.

4. Wanda Smith, who was a co-worker of Plaintiff at the time of the alleged injury, testified that employees are trained to report injuries to management. Ms. Smith further testified that although she witnessed Plaintiff taking Tylenol the day after the alleged incident, Plaintiff *Page 5 never said anything further about an alleged back injury after that day or that the medical treatment she was having was related to any incident of April 10, 2004.

5. Brett Lewis, the store manager on the day of the alleged injury, testified that he could not recall Plaintiff reporting any incident involving her back. He further testified that he could not recall Plaintiff ever requesting that Defendant provide her with medical treatment or other compensation for a back condition. He testified that plaintiff did report her carpal tunnel syndrome to him, and that she made no report of a back injury at that time.

6. Plaintiff claims to have first sought treatment for her back and neck pain on April 20, 2004 with Seagrove Medical Clinic. However, the April 20, 2004 medical record of Marty Mortimer, physician assistant to Dr. Kaur, references only a complaint of "joint pain in different joints off and on," and notes osteoporosis. There is no mention in the record of a specific complaint of neck or back pain, or of a work-related incident on April 10, 2004. Plaintiff was eventually diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and was referred to William Gramig, M.D., a board-certified orthopedic surgeon specialty-trained in hand and microvascular surgery, for treatment.

7. Plaintiff treated with Dr. Gramig on August 12, 2004. Dr. Gramig, in his evaluation of Plaintiff for carpal tunnel syndrome, examined Plaintiff's cervical range of motion. He noted that Plaintiff had intact cervical range of motion that was pain free and without radicular symptoms.

8. On September 2, 2004, Dr. Gramig, while treating plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome, again performed an examination of Plaintiff's neck and back. He noted Plaintiff's neck and back to be non-tender. Dr. Gramig recommended Plaintiff proceed with a left carpal tunnel release. Dr. Gramig performed the left carpal tunnel release on October 1, 2004. *Page 6 9.

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

Related

Holley v. Acts, Inc.
581 S.E.2d 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Daniel v. Food Lion, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-v-food-lion-ncworkcompcom-2007.