Frady v. Volvo Construction Equipment

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJanuary 19, 2006
DocketI.C. NO. 644741
StatusPublished

This text of Frady v. Volvo Construction Equipment (Frady v. Volvo Construction Equipment) 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
Frady v. Volvo Construction Equipment, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2006).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Rowell and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing parties have not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as a fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties as:

STIPULATIONS
1. On June 17, 1996, the date of the admittedly compensable injury by accident, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. On this date plaintiff was using a grinder when the pad separated causing the grinder to catch causing it to erratically jerk resulting in injuries to plaintiff's neck, left shoulder and left elbow.

2. On said occasion, the employee-employer relationship existed between the plaintiff and the employer. On said occasion, the employer was insured by Kemper Insurance Companies.

3. On May 16, 1997, plaintiff was diagnosed with chronic recurrent post traumatic lateral epidcondylitis of the left elbow for which he underwent surgical debridement of the left epicondyle by Dr. James Thompson.

4. On April 15, 1999, plaintiff was seen by Dr. E. Brown Crosby for a second opinion regarding pain he was experiencing in both of his arms. Dr. Crosby diagnosed plaintiff with bilateral epicondylitis and recommended MRI evaluation which was performed on May 7, 1999 and reported as normal.

5. On September 16, 1999, Dr. Crosby declared plaintiff had reached MMI and no future surgery was anticipated. Dr. Crosby assigned a 15% PPD rating to plaintiff's left arm and 10% PPD to his right arm.

6. Defendants accepted this claim as compensable by filing an IC Form 21 dated November 23, 1999 reporting plaintiff's average weekly wage was $789.32 which results in a compensation rate of $492.00. Said form was approved by the Industrial Commission 10-13-00 and was for payment of plaintiff's permanent disability of 10% to his right arm and 15% to his left arm.

7. Defendants printed plaintiff's check in the amount of $23,520.00, net after attorney fees, on November 6, 2000. Plaintiff received such check on November 15, 2000.

8. Plaintiff filed a Petition to Reopen pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-47 on November 13, 2002, which receipt was acknowledge by the Industrial Commission.

9. The parties stipulate into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit # 1, Pre-Trial Agreement.

10. The parties stipulate into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit # 2, medical records.

11. The parties stipulate into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit # 3, I.C. Forms.

* * * * * * * * * * *
RULINGS ON EVIDENTIARY MATTERS
The objections contained in Depositions of Dr. E. Brown Crosby and Dr. Kristin Gowin are ruled upon in accordance with the applicable rule of law and the Opinion and Award in this case.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner plaintiff was 56 years old and had been employed by defendant/employer for approximately 21 years primarily as a welder earning an average weekly wage of $827.91 yielding a compensation rate of $492.00.

2. On June 17, 1996 plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury by accident when he was operating a metal grinder which had a new grindpad and during the grinding process the pad separated causing the grinder to catch and jerk erratically causing plaintiff to sustain injuries to his neck, right shoulder, left shoulder, and elbow.

3. Plaintiff was evaluated and treated by Dr. E. Brown Crosby on July 10, 1996, with complaints of pain in his right shoulder, left elbow and neck. After physical examination he was diagnosed with a strain to his left elbow, right shoulder and cervical strain. He thereafter continued to work and underwent physical therapy with initial improvement but with a return of his left arm and neck pain. He was thereafter referred to Dr. Ralph Loomis for a neurosurgical evaluation.

4. Dr. Loomis reported plaintiff suffered from right shoulder, right paracervical and arm pain with occasional left elbow pain and left proximal arm pain. Based on his examination and an MRI scan Dr. Loomis diagnosed a cervical strain and recommended conservative treatment.

5. Thereafter, plaintiff came under the care of Dr. James Thompson of the Carolina Hand Surgery Associates who diagnosed and treated him for recurrent post traumatic epicondylitis of the left elbow and subacromical impingement of the right shoulder. Dr. Thompson performed surgery on plaintiff's left elbow on January 21, 1998.

6. Plaintiff was out of work for approximately one week and then returned to work to light duty wearing a cast and sling for 10-12 weeks. Due to the restricted use of his left arm plaintiff used his right arm more extensively.

7. In April 1998, plaintiff returned to his welding job four hours per day. Due to the limited use of his left arm he developed increasing right shoulder pain and right elbow pain and returned to see Dr. Thompson who discontinued plaintiff's welding job.

8. Plaintiff sustained a crush injury to his left middle and ring fingers in July 1998 for which he underwent surgery by Dr. Thompson, was required to wear a splint at work for a period of time which effected his work abilities and for which he received and was paid for permanent partial impairment ratings of 2% to each finger in February, 1999.

9. On April 15, 1999, plaintiff returned to Dr. Crosby with increased complaints of pain in his left arm which had now radiated up his arm from the surgically corrected elbow into his biceps and tricep area. He also complained of pain in the same areas on his right arm and into his right elbow. Dr. Crosby diagnosed bilateral epicondylitis with continued intractable pain in both upper extremities and recommended physical therapy.

10. On May 10, 1999, upon obtaining MRI scans of which were interpreted as normal, Dr. Crosby diagnosed fibromyalgia and referred plaintiff to Dr. Kristin Gowin for a rheumatological evaluation. Defendants denied treatment for plaintiff's fibromyalgia.

11. Dr. Gowin evaluated plaintiff on July 6, 1999 and diagnosed him suffering with fibromyalgia for which she prescribed anti-inflammatory medications and continued to follow his treatment while plaintiff continued to work.

12. On September 20, 1999, Dr. Crosby submitted a Form 25R reporting plaintiff sustained permanent partial impairment ratings of 15% to the left arm and 10% to the right arm. Defendants accepted these ratings and the parties entered into a Form 21 Agreement for Compensation on November 23, 1999, which was not approved by the Commission until October 13, 2000.

13. Defendants printed the check for payment of the impairment ratings in the amount of $23,520.00 on November 6, 2000, and such check was received by plaintiff on November 15, 2000.

14. Following payment of his impairment rating plaintiff was able to continue to work at a tolerable pain level. He continued to follow up with Dr. Gowin who on January 17, 2001 noted plaintiff had been off work for several weeks and had significant improvement in his condition.

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

Related

§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-47
North Carolina § 97-47

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Frady v. Volvo Construction Equipment, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frady-v-volvo-construction-equipment-ncworkcompcom-2006.