Fennell v. Piggly Wiggly Stores

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 30, 2006
DocketI.C. NO. 185136
StatusPublished

This text of Fennell v. Piggly Wiggly Stores (Fennell v. Piggly Wiggly Stores) 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
Fennell v. Piggly Wiggly Stores, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2006).

Opinions

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 or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission affirms with minor 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 in a Pre-Trial Agreement and at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The Employee is George Ester Fennell.

2. The Employer is Piggly Wiggly Stores.

3. The carrier on the risk at the time of the onset of the occupational disease was Royal SunAlliance.

4. The Employer regularly employs three or more employees and is bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. The Employer-Employee relationship existed between the Employer and the Employee on the 27th day of May 2000, the alleged date of onset.

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $257.86, which yields a workers' compensation rate of $171.91.

6. Plaintiff's claim is for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, an occupational disease due to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to her employment with Piggly Wiggly, which said claim Defendants have denied as compensable.

7. A set of bound and paginated medical, rehabilitation, and Industrial Commission records was stipulated by the parties into evidence.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based on the foregoing Stipulations and the evidence presented, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The issue before the Full Commission is whether Plaintiff's claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is compensable.

2. Plaintiff was born on May 23, 1951 and has a tenth grade education. She began worked for Defendant-Employer, Piggly Wiggly, from 1990 and worked through 1993 and from 1995 through May 2000.

3. Plaintiff worked as a deli assistant for Piggly Wiggly. She would arrive at work at five o'clock in the morning, five days a week. She began her workday by taking a water hose, attaching the hose to the kitchen sink and then pulling the hose to the steam table. She then filled the steam table with water. When Plaintiff finished filling the steam table she would take the water hose back into the kitchen and unscrew the hose from the kitchen sink. Plaintiff then returned to the steam table and turned on each of the six nozzles on the steam table. At some point the steam table was changed, and Plaintiff no longer had to use the hose to fill the steam table.

4. Plaintiff's next daily task was to prepare biscuits by lifting the five to ten pound bag of biscuits out of the freezer. She would then open the bag and place each biscuit onto a cookie sheet, twenty-five to thirty biscuits per sheets, and place the biscuits in the oven. She would repeat this process for four to six sheets.

5. After Plaintiff prepared the biscuits, she made coffee. She would carry water from the sink to fill up the coffeepot. Plaintiff would hold the opening of the coffeepot open with her left hand. With her right hand, Plaintiff would pour the water in the top of the machine. She would then slide out the coffee filter basket. She then would take a coffee filter and place it in the basket. She would put a pack of coffee atop the filter, slide the basket back into the coffeepot and would turn the coffeepot on. Plaintiff repeated this four to five times every morning.

6. When Plaintiff finished making the first pot of coffee, she would check to see if she had enough catsup, forks, cups, plates, bags and napkins. If there were not enough supplies, she would take a cart to the supply shelf in order to fill it with supplies. Many times, Plaintiff was unable to reach the supplies, so she would take a mop or broom and utilize the handle to knock the bagged supplies down. Plaintiff would then take the bagged supplies, place them onto the cart, and take the supplies to the counter. She then would arrange them on the counter. Plaintiff would keep extra supplies underneath the counter.

7. Plaintiff's next task was to check the dining room to ensure it was clean and the salt and pepper containers were filled. If the salt and pepper containers were not filled, she would take the tops off the container, get a box of salt and pour it into the salt container and do the same for the pepper container. Plaintiff then had to check the trash cans in case they were not emptied the previous night. She would have to pull the plastic liner bags out of the cans with both hands, load the plastic bag of trash onto a cart, and push the cart to the back of the store and out the back door. Plaintiff would then lift the plastic bags off the cart with both hands and place them into the garbage dumpster.

8. Plaintiff next would return to the dining room. If the ice machine in the dining room was not working properly, Plaintiff would go to the back of the deli, get a five-gallon bucket and using her right hand, dip ice out of the ice machine using an ice scoop. She would then take the five-gallon bucket filled with ice back to the dining room, and pour the ice into the ice machine. The ice machine held approximately twenty gallons of ice. Even when the machine was operating, Plaintiff would have to fill the drink machine with ice from the ice machine. To accomplish this task, she had to use her hands to hold an ice scoop and dip ice out of the ice machine into a five-gallon bucket. Plaintiff would then take the five-gallon bucket filled with ice to the drink machine, and pour the ice into the drink machine while standing on a stool. If the drink containers were empty, Plaintiff had to go to the back of the deli, get a filled container, bring the filled container to the front, unhook the empty container's nozzle using her right hand to unscrew the container nozzle with a wrench-like mechanism, hook the filled container with her right hand using the wrench-like mechanism to screw in the nozzle of the filled container tightly, and lift the container and set it into the drink cabinet.

9. Plaintiff would then go back to the bakery. She would remove her biscuits from the oven and brush melted butter on top of each biscuit with her right hand. She would then set each biscuit on the steam table onto another pan by using a spatula with her right hand. This process would take a few minutes to complete.

10. Plaintiff would then go to the kitchen and assist the cook by helping the cook prepare breakfast. Plaintiff would drop bacon and sausage into a deep fryer using her right hand. She would also dip grits by using a small pot to dip grits out of a big pot onto a metal serving tray with her right hand. After the grits were dipped on the tray, Plaintiff would pick up the tray and carry the tray to the steam table. Plaintiff would also help load the other breakfast foods such as eggs, bacon, sausage, ham, gravy and liver pudding onto the steam table. The steam table was a long counter with seven sections. In order to set up the steam table, Plaintiff would have to put pans in place in each section using both hands. Each pan would be filled with trays of food.

11. Plaintiff started serving food at six o'clock in the morning. If a person scheduled to begin work at six o'clock did not arrive, Plaintiff would have to work the cash register and the serving line. She would prepare the customer's order.

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

Related

Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn
301 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fennell v. Piggly Wiggly Stores, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fennell-v-piggly-wiggly-stores-ncworkcompcom-2006.