Dolley v. Food Lion, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMay 6, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 540004
StatusPublished

This text of Dolley v. Food Lion, Inc. (Dolley v. Food Lion, 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
Dolley v. Food Lion, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

***********
Upon review 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 amend the award, except for minor modifications, the Full Commission AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner with some modification.

***********
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. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. There was an employer-employee relationship between plaintiff and employer-defendant Food Lion, Inc., on May 2, 1995.

3. Defendant-employer is self-insured with Risk Management Services, Inc., as the servicing agent.

4. The parties stipulate to an average weekly wage of $146.52, which yields a compensation rate of $97.68.

5. Defendant-employer Food Lion, Inc. employed plaintiff on May 2, 1995.

6. Plaintiff, Marilyn Dolley, was injured in the course and scope of her employment with Food Lion, Inc.

7. The medical records are authentic.

8. A black index of medical records was marked as stipulated exhibit 1 and received into evidence.

9. Plaintiff has been totally disabled since September 12, 2000 to the present and continuing.

***********
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS
A photograph marked as plaintiff's exhibit 1 was received into evidence.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the deputy commissioner hearing, plaintiff was a sixty-three year old female who had been employed by defendant-employer as a cashier since 1986. Plaintiff is currently attempting to earn a GED.

2. Plaintiff had pre-existing degenerative osteoarthritis with varus deformities in her right knee prior to May 2, 1995. As a result of the pre-existing condition in her right knee, plaintiff was bowlegged. No evidence was presented that this pre-existing condition was disabling to the extent that plaintiff was unable to work prior to May 2, 1995.

3. On May 2, 1995, plaintiff tripped on a rolled up carpet underneath her workstation and twisted her right knee.

4. The Full Commission takes judicial notice that on June 22, 1995, the Industrial Commission approved a Form 21 Agreement whereby defendant-employer agreed to pay compensation in the amount of $97.68 per week for necessary weeks for the injury to plaintiff's right knee sustained on May 2, 1995.

5. On May 12, 1995, plaintiff began a course of treatment for her right knee with Dr. Michael Romash, an orthopedic surgeon. At this initial examination, plaintiff complained of pain in both the medial and lateral sections of her right knee. Dr. Romash suspected that an arthritic condition was the cause of plaintiff's pain in the medial region of her right knee. He suspected a meniscus tear was the cause of the pain in the lateral region of plaintiff's right knee.

6. At the second examination by Dr. Romash on June 5, 1995, plaintiff reported significant pain in the medial region of her right knee and minimal problems with pain in the lateral region of her right knee. Dr. Romash recommended that the plaintiff undergo an osteotomy on her right knee.

7. On August 10, 1995, plaintiff underwent both an arthroscopy of her right knee and a proximal osteotomy. As a result of the arthroscopy, Dr. Romash removed damaged tissue in the lateral meniscus of plaintiff's right knee. The purpose of this surgery was to reduce the pain in plaintiff's lateral region of her right knee. As a result of the osteotomy, Dr. Romash cut plaintiff's tibia just below the patellar tendon and placed an external fixator inside the cut bone. The purpose of this surgery was to reduce the pain in the medial region of plaintiff's right knee.

8. A Form 26 Agreement was approved by the Industrial Commission on December 15, 1995 whereby defendant-employer agreed to pay temporary total disability compensation of $97.68 per week for necessary weeks for the time period beginning August 10, 1995. Plaintiff's inability to work during this time period was a direct result of the August 10, 1995 surgery on her right knee.

9. On February 14, 1996, plaintiff underwent a second surgical procedure to have the fixator removed from her right knee.

10. In a letter dated July 3, 1996, Dr. Romash informed Mitzi Patton, claims representative for defendant-employer, that plaintiff's pre-existing condition was exacerbated by her on the job injury. Dr. Romash reported that it was impossible to treat a part of plaintiff's knee without treating plaintiff's whole knee.

11. On August 29, 1996, plaintiff underwent a third surgical procedure to bone graft and fix her tibia in her right knee. This surgery was a direct and natural result of the non-union of the tibia bone that was cut during the August 10, 1995 osteotomy. During this surgery, Dr. Romash implanted an internal bone stimulator.

12. A Form 26 Agreement was approved by the Industrial Commission on January 3, 1997 whereby defendant-employer agreed to pay temporary total disability compensation of $97.68 per week for necessary weeks for the time period beginning August 29, 1996. Plaintiff's inability to work during this time period was a direct result of the August 29, 1996 surgery on plaintiff's right knee.

13. On March 31, 1998, plaintiff underwent a fourth surgical procedure to remove the bone stimulator that was implanted in her right knee on August 26, 1996.

14. On May 26, 1998, the Industrial Commission approved a Form 26 whereby defendant-employer agreed to pay temporary total disability compensation of $97.68 per week for one and two-sevenths weeks. Plaintiff's inability to work during this time period was a direct result of the surgery plaintiff received on March 31, 1998.

15. On January 19, 1999, plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement with regard to the injuries she sustained to her right knee treated by Dr. Romash unless she undergoes a total knee replacement.

16. In the event that plaintiff needs a total knee replacement in the future, that surgical procedure is related to her pre-existing condition and is not a direct and natural consequence of her May 2, 1995 injury by accident.

17. Independent medical evaluations of plaintiff were completed by Dr. Edward Habeeb and Dr. Deanna M. Boyette, orthopedic surgeons. All of the medical experts, including Dr. Romash, the treating orthopedic surgeon, agreed that plaintiff had preexisting osteoarthritis in her knees with varus deformities. The medical experts also are in agreement and the Commission finds that plaintiff's compensable injury by accident on May 2, 1995 aggravated or exacerbated the preexisting condition in her right knee. The expert medical opinions fail to show by the greater weight of the evidence that plaintiff's condition after the four surgeries is unrelated to the compensable injury by accident. The damage to plaintiff's knee as a result of the compensable injury contributed to plaintiff's resulting disability and the right knee must be treated as a whole entity.

18.

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

Related

Hoyle v. Carolina Associated Mills
470 S.E.2d 357 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Parsons v. Pantry, Inc.
485 S.E.2d 867 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)
Kisiah v. W.R. Kisiah Plumbing, Inc.
476 S.E.2d 434 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Moore v. Evans
476 S.E.2d 415 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Weaver v. Swedish Imports Maintenance, Inc.
354 S.E.2d 477 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)
Counts v. Black Decker Corporation
465 S.E.2d 343 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Pittman v. Thomas & Howard
468 S.E.2d 283 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Franklin v. Broyhill Furniture Industries
472 S.E.2d 382 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Reinninger v. Prestige Fabricators, Inc.
523 S.E.2d 720 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1999)
Smith v. Champion International
517 S.E.2d 164 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dolley v. Food Lion, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dolley-v-food-lion-inc-ncworkcompcom-2002.