Gaddy v. General Switch Corporation

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 29, 1996
DocketI.C. Nos. 415362 and 427664
StatusPublished

This text of Gaddy v. General Switch Corporation (Gaddy v. General Switch Corporation) 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
Gaddy v. General Switch Corporation, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1996).

Opinion

Upon review of all of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good ground to receive further evidence, or rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence AFFIRMS in part and MODIFIES in part the Opinion and Award of the deputy commissioner as follows.

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were agreed upon by the parties at the hearing before the deputy commissioner and in a Pre-trial Agreement dated March 17, 1995 as

STIPULATIONS

1. All parties were designated correctly, and there was no question as to misjoinder or non-joinder of parties.

2. All parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act at all relevant times hereto.

3. At such times, an employment relationship existed between Plaintiff and Employer-Defendant.

4. Carrier-Defendant Wausau Insurance Company was the carrier of Workers' Compensation Insurance on the risk at the time of the alleged accident occurring on or about January 8 or January 12, 1994.

5. Carrier-Defendant CompSource was the carrier of Workers' Compensation Insurance on the risk at the time of the alleged accident occurring on or about March 14, 1994.

6. A Form 22 Wage Chart was prepared on August 13, 1994, for the injury date of January 8, 1994, and was stipulated into evidence by the parties as evidence of Plaintiff's earnings.

7. A Form 22 Wage Chart was prepared on August 13, 1994, for the injury date of March 14, 1994, and was stipulated into evidence by the parties as evidence of Plaintiff's earnings.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Full Commission adopts in part and modifies in part the findings of fact of the deputy commissioner and finds as follows

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff is a thirty-three-year-old woman who was employed by the Employer-defendant on or about January 8, 1994, and had been so employed as a punch-press operator for approximately one and one-half (1 1/2) years.

2. Based on the Form 22 Wage Chart prepared by Employer-defendant Plaintiff was earning an average weekly wage of TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-ONE AND 53/100 DOLLARS ($271.53) on January 8, 1994, yielding a compensation rate of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE AND 02/100 DOLLARS ($181.02) per week.

3. Plaintiff's employment with Employer-Defendant consisted of operation of a punch press, wherein her regular duties would be to pick up sheets of metal from a pallet, place them into the machine, operate the machine, and then place the form metal on another pallet. The typical weight for these sheets of metal ranged from one to fifteen (1-15) pounds.

4. Plaintiff began noticing back pain on or about January 8, 1994 when she was placed on an assignment where she had to lift doors weighing approximately twenty-five pounds from the floor and placing them onto a machine. These doors were much heavier than the parts she usually lifted. Plaintiff reported back pain to her supervisor immediately but was kept on the job for several more days until she finished. Plaintiff did not see a doctor until four days later on January 12, 1994.

5. According to Employer-defendant's Work Assignments Production Record, Plaintiff was working on six-pound wrapping pieces from Monday, January 10, 1994, through Wednesday, January 12, 1994. Although there is some dispute concerning when plaintiff noticed back pain, based upon the greater weight of the evidence plaintiff's back pain began on or about January 8, 1994.

6. On January 12, 1994, Plaintiff was seen at Stanly Memorial Hospital Occupational Health Services by Dr. Eugene Coles, who diagnosed Plaintiff as having sustained a lumbosacral strain. Plaintiff reported to him that she had been experiencing pain in her low and mid back for about five days and that it had worsened on that day, January 12, 1994. Plaintiff was kept off work until the following Monday, January 17, 1994, when she was released to return to full-duty work without physical restrictions. Plaintiff was also earning full wages at this time.

7. From January 17, 1994, through March 14, 1994, Plaintiff missed no further time from work as a result of her back injury stemming from the incident on or about January 8, 1994.

8. On March 14, 1994, Plaintiff was again placed on the larger-than-usual 400 Amp doors. On this date at approximately 11:00 a.m., Plaintiff experienced a sudden increase in pain in her back while lifting one of the 400 Amp doors, which she described as a "pull" in her back. Plaintiff qualified this pain as "real bad" and different from the pain she initially felt in her back following the January 1994 incident.

9. Plaintiff subsequently received medical attention from Dr. Burke at Cabarrus Orthopedic Clinic and from Dr. Charles P. Clarke at the Albemarle Chiropractic Clinic. Upon examination by both of these doctors, it was noted that Plaintiff was suffering from an increase in lumbar lordosis and spondylolisthesis at the L-5 level with forward slippage of the L-5 vertebrae onto the S-1 vertebrae. Besides these congenital problems, the plaintiff was diagnosed with an acute, moderate lumbar strain, together with sciatic neuritis radiculitis.

10. Following this March 14, 1994 incident, a Form 19 was filled out and submitted by Plaintiff together with Mildred Russell on March 17, 1994 describing the earlier lifting incident. On that Form 19, Ms. Russell recorded that "employee states that while operating the press, picking up and putting down heavy parts, her back started hurting." While treating with Dr. Coles later that day, Plaintiff reported "lifting heavy objects" on Monday, March 14, 1994, at which time her back pain got significantly worse.

11. After briefly returning to work for a few days in April of 1994, Plaintiff began developing adjoining pain in her thighs. On July 20, 1994, Dr. Burke limited Plaintiff's' lifting restrictions to ten (10) pounds.

12. Plaintiff received chiropractic care from Dr. Charles Clark in March and April of 1994. Dr. Clark indicated that Plaintiff was unable to perform her duties from March 15, 1994 through May 4, 1994.

13. On April 5, 1994, Plaintiff came under the care of Dr. Frank B. Sellers and Dr. David J. Burke of Cabarrus Orthopaedic Clinic.

14. On June 27, 1994, Dr. Sellers wrote an out of work slip for Plaintiff for 30 days as the result of her back injury.

15. On July 20, 1994, Dr. Burke released Plaintiff to return to work with a 10 pound lifting restriction as a result of her back injury.

16. On or about July 25, 1994, Plaintiff attempted to return to work with Employer-defendant, but was advised that no light duty within her restrictions was available. Because these restrictions were permanent according to Dr. Burke, Employer-defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on or about July 25, 1994.

17. Subsequent to the termination of her employment with Employer-defendant, Plaintiff made reasonable efforts to obtain work within her restrictions. As of March 27, 1995, Plaintiff has been unable to find work within her restrictions.

18. On March 21, 1995, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Burke of Cabarrus Orthopaedics for a final evaluation. Dr. Burke was of the opinion that Plaintiff had sustained a 5% permanent partial disability of the lumbar spine as a result of her work related injuries.

19. Plaintiff drew short term disability benefits from a wholly employer funded disability plan in March, April, June and July of 1994 for a total of 25 days. Plaintiff received $12.00 per day for 25 days of short term disability benefits.

20. Plaintiff drew $125.00 per week of unemployment insurance benefits between July 27, 1994 and January 1995.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-28
North Carolina § 97-28
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-42
North Carolina § 97-42
§ 97-42.1
North Carolina § 97-42.1
§ 97-86.2
North Carolina § 97-86.2
§ 97-88
North Carolina § 97-88

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gaddy v. General Switch Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaddy-v-general-switch-corporation-ncworkcompcom-1996.