Garner v. Capital Area Transit

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 23, 2009
DocketI.C. NO. 761639.
StatusPublished

This text of Garner v. Capital Area Transit (Garner v. Capital Area Transit) 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
Garner v. Capital Area Transit, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Baddour and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties. The Full Commission affirms with modifications the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Baddour and enters the following 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 *Page 2
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission, and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over this matter.

2. All parties are subject to and bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

3. All parties have been properly designated, and there is no question as to joinder or non-joinder of parties.

4. An employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and the employer-defendant during all relevant times.

***********
EXHIBITS
The following exhibits were admitted into evidence:

Stipulated Exhibit 1: Pre-Trial Agreement

Stipulated Exhibit 2: Industrial Commission Forms and Pleadings

Stipulated Exhibit 3: Medical Records

Stipulated Exhibit 4: Recorded Statement, Discovery Responses, Employment File, Earnings Statement, and Attendance Records.

Stipulated Exhibit 5: Plaintiff's Supplemental Discovery Responses

Stipulated Exhibit 6: Additional Medical Records

Stipulated Exhibit 7: Time Records

Stipulated Exhibit 8: Wake Med Medical Records

Stipulated Exhibit 9: Dr. Suh Medical Records

Stipulated Exhibit 10: Accent Urgent Care Medical Records

Stipulated Exhibit 11: Concentra Medical Center Medical Records

*Page 3

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1: Incident Reports and Other Documentation

Defendants' Exhibit 1: Report of Accident by Plaintiff

Defendants' Exhibit 2: Accident Report by Stephanie Wright

Defendants' Exhibit 3: Supervisor's Field Notes and Accident Report

Defendants' Exhibit 4: Employee's Report of Work Injury

Defendants' Exhibit 5: DVD Containing Video of the Incident

Defendants' Exhibit 6: Subpoena for Witness

***********
Based upon all the competent evidence from the record, the Full Commission finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is 52 years old. She has an 11th grade education and has been employed with defendant Capital Area Transit since 2001. Prior to this employment, she worked in food service jobs.

2. Prior to 2007, plaintiff was involved in three vehicular accidents while driving buses for defendant. She was not at fault in any of the accidents. Plaintiff injured her neck, back and arm in the incidents and defendants paid for her medical treatment.

3. Immediately prior to the accident in March 2007, plaintiff had not been experiencing any pain in her neck or back, although she already had degenerative disc disease.

4. On March 9, 2007, plaintiff was driving bus #103. Plaintiff parked her bus behind bus #1235 while waiting to commence her route at the bus station. Bus #1235 began to roll backwards toward plaintiff's bus and tapped the front of plaintiff's bus. Bus #1235 was being operated by Stephanie Wright. The area around the bus station was essentially flat. *Page 4

5. Plaintiff claims that she was injured when the buses came in contact. In her recorded statement plaintiff indicated that the incident caused her to jerk her neck. At the hearing before the deputy commissioner, plaintiff testified that when the buses made contact it threw her back and she heard something pop. However, the accident reports completed by plaintiff and Ms. Wright do not indicate that anyone was injured. Plaintiff did not note on the report that the incident caused her neck and back to jerk. In addition, the Raleigh Police Department refused to file a report due to the lack of damage to the vehicles and lack of injuries.

6. According to the video surveillance from bus # 1235 operated by Ms. Wright, Ms. Wright was standing at the time the buses made contact. The incident did not cause Ms. Wright to be jerked or to fall. Ms. Wright indicated that she felt only a nudge when the buses made contact.

7. Immediately following the incident, plaintiff exited her bus, re-entered her bus to get what appears to be a black shoulder bag, and then exited the bus again. At approximately 5:15 p.m. plaintiff continued her shift.

8. Plaintiff claims that her neck began to feel sore approximately one hour following the incident and the pain increased throughout the evening. After she finished her shift, plaintiff filled out an accident report and an injury report stating she had injured her neck, back, and shoulders. One of plaintiff's co-workers, Vickie Black, saw plaintiff approximately one hour after the incident, but plaintiff did not report neck pain.

9. On March 10, 2007, the day following the incident, plaintiff went to the Wake Medical Center Emergency Room. Plaintiff's chief complaint was neck pain. Plaintiff provided a history of while sitting as the driver of her bus, another bus rolled approximately ten feet and tapped the front of plaintiff's bus. Plaintiff indicated to emergency room staff that her alleged *Page 5 injuries were a legal case and that she had legal representation. Plaintiff denied any cervical tenderness. Upon physical examination, plaintiff's neck did not reveal tenderness and plaintiff had good range of motion. Dr. Graham Snyder who saw plaintiff in the emergency room notes that plaintiff's alleged mechanism of injury and exam appear to be physiologically impossible to relate to her accident.

10. Dr. Snyder discharged plaintiff the same day with a reported pain level of two. Plaintiff's discharge instructions were to take two extra strength Tylenol every four hours for soreness and to soak in warm bath to feel better.

11. On March 12, 2007, plaintiff sought medical treatment with Dr. Landolf at Concentra where she complained of shoulder, back, and neck pain with her shoulder being the chief complaint. Dr. Landolf noted that plaintiff was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle collision at ten miles per hour. Plaintiff reported that her pain started approximately two to three hours after the incident. An x-ray of plaintiff's cervical spine revealed degenerative changes with anterior osteophytes at C5 and C6 and a reversal of the normal curvature . Dr. Landolf diagnosed plaintiff with cervical strain and mild degeneration of cervical intervertebral disc. Plaintiff was restricted to no lifting over fifteen pounds and no pushing or pulling over thirty pounds of force. Plaintiff was also restricted to no overhead lifting and no driving of the bus. Plaintiff was prescribed Ibuprofen and referred to physical therapy.

12.

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

Related

Harvey v. Raleigh Police Department
384 S.E.2d 549 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1989)
Click v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.
265 S.E.2d 389 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)
Young v. Hickory Business Furniture
538 S.E.2d 912 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2000)
Booker v. Duke Medical Center
256 S.E.2d 189 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Garner v. Capital Area Transit, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garner-v-capital-area-transit-ncworkcompcom-2009.