Denton v. Valley Tex, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 4, 1997
DocketI.C. No. 488047
StatusPublished

This text of Denton v. Valley Tex, Inc. (Denton v. Valley Tex, Inc.) 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
Denton v. Valley Tex, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 1997).

Opinion

The uncontroverted medical evidence shows that plaintiff suffered from tenosynovitis, a disease or condition deemed by statute to be an occupational disease when "caused by trauma in employment". N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-53(21). Dr. McGinnis treated her for a "trigger thumb" condition, which results when swelling of the flexor tendon prevents normal motion of the thumb, causing it to become "locked" into a very limited range of motion. The condition can be caused or aggravated by repetitive trauma or overuse. Plaintiff testified that her thumb "had been sore, off and on" before going to work with the defendant, and that she had seen a doctor about the problem 11 months before her referral to the surgeon, but that pinching and holding the thinner cloth used at Valley Tex caused it to get worse rapidly. After working there only seven days, she visited Dr. Kessel, who referred her to the hand surgeon. Dr. McGinnis first treated it with an injection but later resorted to release surgery to relieve the condition. In light of her medical history, both Drs. Kessel and McGinnis testified that the condition was not initially caused by her employment with the defendant, but was aggravated by it. On cross-examination, defendants elicited this answer from Dr. McGinnis, with a hypothetical question stressing her prior symptoms: "In light of that other information, a job probably did not aggravate it any more than it was with the history of previous locking on multiple occasions." (Emphasis ours.) Even taking this statement as literally true, the employment in which plaintiff experienced the last injurious "exposure which proximately augmented the disease to any extent, however slight" bears the compensation liability. Barber v.Babcock Wilcox Constr. Co., 101 N.C. App. 564,400 S.E.2d 735 (1991); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-57.

Upon review of all of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding good ground to reconsider the evidence, the Full Commission REVERSES the decision under review, and makes findings and conclusions as follows:

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following stipulations, which were entered into by the parties in the Pre-Trial Agreement filed on July 26, 1995.

STIPULATIONS

1. The parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act, and the employment relationship existed between the parties at the relevant time.

2. Harleysville Insurance Company was the carrier on the risk.

3. The issue for determination is whether the plaintiff contracted a compensable occupational disease to her right hand, and if so, to what benefits may she be entitled to receive under the Act.

4. The parties stipulated the following into evidence:

a. Employee's Interrogatory Answers, eighteen pages;

b. Records of Dr. Wayne Boyles and Dr. John Kessel, ten pages;

c. Records of Dr. Mark McGinnis, five pages;

d. Form 22, one page;

e. Records of Betty's Toe Seaming and Southwood Furniture, two pages; and

f. Defendant's Exhibit No. 1, Plaintiff's Application to Southwood Furniture Company.

5. The plaintiff's average weekly wage was $163.88, which yields a weekly compensation rate of $108.93.

* * * * * * * *

Based upon all of the competent evidence adduced from the record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the time of the hearing, the plaintiff was a forty-seven year old right hand dominant female.

2. On November 10, 1993, the plaintiff was seen by her family doctor, Dr. Wayne Boyles, for a triggered right thumb or tendonitis, for which medication was prescribed.

3. The plaintiff worked at Century Furniture as a hand sander in 1994 during which time she experienced some problems with the right thumb. The plaintiff left this job in June of 1994, and thereafter the thumb condition improved.

4. The plaintiff was self-employed as a toe seamer in November of 1993. Thereafter, the plaintiff worked at Betty's Toe Seamers, Edelweiss, and U.S. Hosiery, performing toe seaming for approximately three months prior to the job with the defendant.

5. From September 26, 1994, through October 31, 1994, the plaintiff began working for defendant-employer as a toe seamer. The plaintiff made repetitive use of her hands, grasping and pulling socks for seaming. The plaintiff sewed between 120 and 150 dozen pairs of sock per day, or approximately 2,880 socks. Her job with defendant put more stress on her thumb because it required pinching and pulling on nylon, as opposed to thicker stockings with more cotton content.

6. As a result of the repetitive use of her hands in this employment, the plaintiff began to experience right thumb pain and locking in September of 1994. On or about October 7, 1994, the plaintiff was seen by Dr. John Kessel, who subsequently referred her to hand surgeon Dr. Mark McGinnis.

7. The plaintiff reported her hand problems to her supervisor while working for the defendant.

8. On October 12, 1994, the plaintiff saw Dr. McGinnis who noted the right thumb was locked to twenty percent of normal motion because of stenosing synovitis. On November 3, 1994, Dr. McGinnis performed a right trigger thumb release surgery, following which the plaintiff was restricted to no work through November 7, 1994.

9. Effective November 8, 1994, Dr. McGinnis released the plaintiff to light duty, and the plaintiff telephoned plant manager Eddie Warren, to advise that she could no longer work as a toe seamer with the defendant. The plaintiff did not request other work from Mr. Warren.

10. Dr. McGinnis released the plaintiff to her usual work on November 28, 1994. However, the plaintiff did not contact defendant-employer regarding returning to work.

11. The plaintiff's tenosynovitis and resulting right trigger finger condition was significantly aggravated and accelerated by her toe seaming work with defendant-employer, causing her to become incapacitated to earn wages on November 1, 1994, and necessitating surgery.

12. That, in fact, plaintiff's condition was characteristic of or particular to her employment, in that the repetitive nature of plaintiff's job with defendant-employer, which significantly augmented the condition, exposed her to a greater risk of contracting or exacerbating tenosynovitis than the general run of occupations and the public generally.

13. The plaintiff's occupational disease, tenosynovitis, was proximately augmented during her last injurious exposure to the hazards of the disease in her job with defendant-employer.

14. Following surgery on November 3, 1994, plaintiff was restricted to "no work" through November 7, 1994. On November 8, 1994, Dr. McGinnis said that plaintiff "may work with minimal use of the right hand. She should not lift over 1 lb. with the right hand. Her activities should be severely restricted in regard to the use of the right hand at this time." On November 11, 1994, Dr. McGinnis prescribed ". . .light duty work[,] limited use of the right hand with limited pinching, pulling, and grasping. She is not to lift over 5 lbs. with the right hand." On November 25, 1994, Dr. McGinnis said plaintiff, "May return to her usual work on November 28, 1994" and that ". . . she should not be lifting over 50 lbs.

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

Related

Barber v. Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co.
400 S.E.2d 735 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1991)
Wilkins v. J.P. Stevens & Co.
426 S.E.2d 675 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1993)
Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn
301 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
Gupton v. Builders Transport
357 S.E.2d 674 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)
Crawley v. Southern Devices, Inc.
229 S.E.2d 325 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Denton v. Valley Tex, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denton-v-valley-tex-inc-ncworkcompcom-1997.