Farris v. Homelite, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedApril 30, 1999
DocketI.C. Nos. 575023, 654853.
StatusPublished

This text of Farris v. Homelite, Inc. (Farris v. Homelite, 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
Farris v. Homelite, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 1999).

Opinion

The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Pamela T. Young and the briefs and arguments on appeal. The appealing party has not shown good ground to receive further evidence or to amend the prior Opinion and Award. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms and adopts the Deputy Commissioner's decision and enters the following Opinion and Award.

**********

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered by the parties at the hearing on February 19, 1998 as:

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

2. An employment relationship existed between plaintiff-employee and defendant-employer at all relevant times herein.

3. The carrier on the risk for defendant-employer, Homelite, Inc., is John Deere Insurance Company and the carrier on the risk for defendant-employer, Olsten Temporary Service, is ITT Specialty Risk Services, Inc.

4. The average weekly wage of plaintiff-employee while employed by Olsten Temporary Service was $220.00, yielding a compensation rate of $146.67 per week.

5. The date of the alleged occupational disease contracted while employed by Homelite, Inc., was April 28, 1995. The date of the alleged occupational disease contracted while employed by Olsten Temporary Service was August 7, 1995.

6. The parties stipulated to plaintiff's payroll records.

7. The parties stipulated to plaintiff's medical records from Mercy Medical Emergency Room; Oweida Orthopaedic Associates; Mercy Rehabilitation Clinic; Charlotte Radiology Diagnostic Imaging Center; and The Diagnostic Center.

8. The issues presented are:

a. Whether plaintiff contracted an occupational disease?

b. Whether plaintiff's employment for defendant-employer, Olsten Temporary Service, aggravated plaintiff's occupational disease?

c. Whether plaintiff's last injurious exposure occurred while she was employed with defendant-employer, Olsten Temporary Service?

d. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any benefits under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act?

9. Plaintiff's average weekly wage while working for defendant-employer Homelite, Inc. was $414.68.

***********

The Full Commission adopts the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was 49 years old at the time of the hearing on February 19, 1998 and had completed the eighth grade. Plaintiff is right hand dominant.

2. Plaintiff's work history consists of employment as a cashier, box inspector at Old Dominion Box Company, housekeeper, security guard, certified nursing assistant, and a machine operator for approximately 10 months at Sparco Yarns in Lincolnton, North Carolina.

3. Plaintiff was hired by defendant-employer, Homelite, Inc. on March 20, 1995. Plaintiff initially performed the job of inspecting weed eater motors for about one week.

4. Plaintiff's second job for defendant-employer, Homelite, Inc., was building mufflers on weed eaters. This job required plaintiff to screw the mufflers onto the weed eaters using air guns which required that plaintiff reach up and pull them down with her right arm. Plaintiff performed this job for approximately one week.

5. Plaintiff's third job for defendant-employer, Homelite, Inc., was that of the clutch drum builder. Plaintiff performed this job standing at a table which was approximately waist high. Plaintiff used three air guns which required that she reach up with her right hand and pull them down to screw a cover into the clutch drum using four separate screws. Plaintiff would then screw the clutch drum plate in a similar manner and would then apply pressure to the screws for approximately two to three seconds. Plaintiff did this repeatedly all day long. Plaintiff worked on a production line.

6. Plaintiff performed the job of clutch drum builder for about three weeks when she first noticed her right hand swelling. Her wrist would tingle and her arm became painful up to her right shoulder. Plaintiff had never experienced these symptoms prior to working at defendant-employer, Homelite, Inc.

7. Plaintiff reported her painful condition to Brenda Gordon, her supervisor. Ms. Gordon supplied plaintiff with a wrist brace which did not help relieve her symptoms. The second time plaintiff reported her painful condition to Brenda Gordon, plaintiff-employee was moved to another position. This position required plaintiff to build cardboard boxes. Plaintiff testified that she was required to build them at a rapid rate and that this exacerbated her painful right arm and shoulder condition. Plaintiff again reported this to Brenda Gordon, who moved plaintiff-employee to a final "packing" position. Final packing required plaintiff to put batteries and tapes into clear plastic bags and to push the plastic bag into a packing machine. Plaintiff testified that she was required to perform this job at a rapid rate and that it exacerbated and aggravated her painful right arm and shoulder condition.

8. Plaintiff was laid off by defendant-employer, Homelite, Inc. on June 3, 1995.

9. Plaintiff presented to Dr. G. M. Yearta at Mercy Medical on May 10, 1995. Dr. Yearta documented plaintiff's right arm pain, prescribed a sling and referred her to Dr. Humble, an orthopaedic surgeon.

10. Plaintiff presented to Dr. Humble on May 11, 1995. Dr. Humble's initial impression was cubital tunnel and carpal tunnel syndrome of the right arm as well as mild right shoulder impingement. Dr. Humble prescribed medication and wrote plaintiff out for light duty, restricting her from using her right hand.

11. Dr. Humble's notes from May 24, 1995 indicate that her carpal tunnel symptoms were resolving but that her shoulder impingement symptoms were increasing. Dr. Humble opined that plaintiff's symptoms seem to be work related.

12. On June 17, 1995, Dr. Humble further opined that while plaintiff had been laid off, her right shoulder impingement was symptomatic.

13. On August 7, 1995, plaintiff again returned to Dr. Humble complaining of right shoulder pain. Dr. Humble believed that all of plaintiff's pain and problems stemmed from her shoulder. Dr. Humble ordered an MRI scan and it revealed a significant bursa accumulation and severe impingement with decreased supraspinatus outlet. Dr. Humble recommended surgery.

14. Plaintiff remained under Dr. Humble's care, but was unable to undergo surgery until October 1, 1996, because this workers' compensation claim was denied and plaintiff was financially unable to pay her medical costs.

15. On March 5, 1997, Dr. Humble noted that plaintiff had a poor outcome from her initial arthroscopy and subacromial decompression, and he ordered an MRI. The MRI revealed that a prominent bone spur at the AC joint was causing ongoing impingement and partial rotator cuff tear and recommended further surgery which he performed on March 29, 1997. On June 16, 1997, Dr. Humble referred plaintiff into physical therapy.

16. Plaintiff testified that she attempted to work after being laid off by defendant-employer, Homelite, Inc. She sought employment through defendant-employer, Olsten Temporary Service, who found her a job at National Fruit as a packer. Plaintiff worked at National Fruit from July 21, 1995 until September 17, 1995. This job required her to take bottles, jars and cans and pack them into boxes and to lift boxes. These activities were painful to plaintiff's right arm and shoulder.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Farris v. Homelite, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farris-v-homelite-inc-ncworkcompcom-1999.