Dietrich v. Winston-Salem Indus. for the Blind

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 6, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 145591.
StatusPublished

This text of Dietrich v. Winston-Salem Indus. for the Blind (Dietrich v. Winston-Salem Indus. for the Blind) 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
Dietrich v. Winston-Salem Indus. for the Blind, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Stanback. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence or rehear the parties or their representatives. The Full Commission AFFIRMS with some modifications the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are bound by and subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

3. An employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.

4. Defendant-employer is self insured with Cunningham Lindsey Claims Management, Inc. as the third-party administrator.

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $240.00, yielding a compensation rate of $160.00 per week.

6. Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident or an occupational disease of his right arm by on or about September 1, 2000.

7. The depositions of Anthony J. DeFranzo, M.D., James Dallis, M.D., Stephen D. Carpenter, M.Ed., Tracey H. Weaver, and Robert Garrett Griffin are a part of the record.

8. Documents stipulated into evidence include the following:

a. Stipulated Exhibit #1 — Plaintiff's medical records.

b. Stipulated Exhibit #2 — Industrial Commission forms and filings.

c. Stipulated Exhibit #3 — Plaintiff's physical therapy records.

d. Stipulated Exhibit #4 — Plaintiff's answers to defendant's interrogatories and defendant's answers to plaintiff's interrogatories.

9. Test report dated January 24, 2005 from ErgoScience is received into evidence over plaintiff's objection.

***********
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 Deputy Commissioner's hearing, plaintiff was 48 years old and received a business administration and retail marketing degree in 1986 from Pitt Community College. Plaintiff has been blind since childhood and is right-hand dominant.

2. From 1974 through 1999, plaintiff worked for various employers and was also self-employed, performing unskilled labor involving the use of both hands.

3. In or about March 2000, plaintiff was employed as a mattress assembler by Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc. Plaintiff's normal and usual duties consisted of using a staple gun to attach felt covers to each side of mattresses and/or box springs. Plaintiff usually covered 80 to 130 mattresses per workday, depending on the mattress size, and he worked five days a week. Plaintiff stacked mattresses weighing 30 pounds or more onto a pallet, in stacks of 30. Plaintiff frequently lifted box springs over his head and threw the box springs onto the stack.

4. On September 1, 2000, plaintiff lifted a box spring over his head and threw it onto the top of a stack of approximately 30 items when he felt a sharp burning pain in his right shoulder and right arm. Plaintiff immediately reported his right arm injury to his supervisor, Greg Lambert.

5. Plaintiff continued to perform his work duties to the best of his abilities for the next three months, but his right shoulder and arm pain continued to slowly get worse. By late November 2000, plaintiff was barely able to use his right arm. In October and November 2000, defendant assigned plaintiff lighter duties, but plaintiff's right arm continued to get worse.

6. On December 1, 2000, plaintiff sought medical treatment from his family physician, Dr. Shama R. Mittal, to whom plaintiff gave a history of three months of right arm pain following an injury to his right arm while lifting a mattress at work. Dr. Mittal diagnosed a right biceps tendon tear and limited plaintiff to left hand work only. Later that day, plaintiff was evaluated at PrimeCare, which also diagnosed a right biceps tendon tear, limited the use of plaintiff's right arm, and referred plaintiff to an orthopedist.

7. On December 13, 2000, Dr. Thomas Spangler, an orthopedist at Winston Bone Joint Surgical Associates, P.A., evaluated plaintiff's right arm and diagnosed a long head right biceps tendon tear and chronic right shoulder impingement. Plaintiff continued to work at light duty for defendant through January 15, 2001.

8. On January 16, 2001, Dr. Gregory Holthusen, orthopedist, evaluated plaintiff and felt plaintiff's right arm pain was a result of rotator cuff tendonitis and possibly a rotator cuff tear. Dr. Holthusen felt that surgery would not help the torn biceps tendon, but noted that he would be willing to refer plaintiff to another physician for a second opinion.

9. On January 25, 2001, Dr. Holthusen's partner, board-certified orthopedic surgeon Dr. James Dallis, evaluated plaintiff and prescribed physical therapy, in which plaintiff participated during February and March 2001. The physical therapist felt plaintiff suffered from right shoulder impingement.

10. In the period March 20, 2001 through March 25, 2001, plaintiff tried to return to work for defendant, but was unsuccessful due to his right arm pain.

11. On March 26, 2001, plaintiff returned to Dr. Dallis and complained of more shoulder and biceps pain. A right shoulder MRI was performed on April 30, 2001, which revealed that plaintiff suffered from a complete tear of his right rotator cuff, as well as right shoulder impingement syndrome. On May 17, 2001, Dr. Dallis diagnosed plaintiff as also suffering from right tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis. Dr. Dallis planed to do a subacromial decompression of the rotator cuff tendon as well as a lateral epicondylar release.

12. On June 21, 2001, Dr. Dallis operated on plaintiff's right shoulder and found "a massive rotator cuff tendon defect" or tear, which was greater than five centimeters. Plaintiff's biceps tendon was also ruptured. Dr. Dallis also operated on plaintiff's right elbow to remove chronically inflamed tissue at the extensor carpi radialis brevis, as well as in the lateral epicondylar region. Plaintiff's right arm was placed in a shoulder immobilizer.

13. Beginning at least by June 21, 2001, plaintiff used his left hand to compensate for not being able to use his right hand to perform activities of daily living. Plaintiff was restricted from work following his surgery.

14. On July 11, 2001, defendant admitted that on September 1, 2000, plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident, namely, "right shoulder and elbow tendon tears" and effective January 16, 2001 began paying temporary total disability compensation benefits to plaintiff at a compensation rate of $160.00 per week.

15. In the period from August to December 2001, plaintiff participated in another course of physical therapy treatments. Plaintiff was unable to meet the goals of therapy due to right shoulder pain and weakness.

16. In August and November 2001, plaintiff exhibited swelling, skin discoloration and temperature changes in his right arm, which Dr. Dallis characterized as RSD or reflex sympathetic dystrophy symptoms. On November 8, 2001, Dr. Dallis authorized plaintiff to try to return to work at light duty, using only his left-hand. Dr.

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
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-32
North Carolina § 97-32

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dietrich v. Winston-Salem Indus. for the Blind, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dietrich-v-winston-salem-indus-for-the-blind-ncworkcompcom-2005.