Giddeons v. Subway Burgaw, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 12, 2010
DocketI.C. NO. 991296.
StatusPublished

This text of Giddeons v. Subway Burgaw, Inc. (Giddeons v. Subway Burgaw, 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
Giddeons v. Subway Burgaw, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Harris 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 Harris and enters the following Opinion and Award:

***********
EXHIBITS
At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the following documents were accepted into evidence as stipulated exhibits:

a. Exhibit 1: Executed Pre-Trial Agreement

b. Exhibit 2: Industrial Commission Forms and filings

*Page 2

c. Exhibit 3: Transcript of Plaintiff's recorded statement

d. Exhibit 4: Plaintiff's personnel file

e. Exhibit 5: Parties' discovery responses

f. Exhibit 6: Plaintiff's medical records

Transcripts of the depositions of the following were also received post-hearing:

aa. Dr. Michael G. Rallis

bb. Dr. Constance Lee Baker (with Plaintiff's Exhibit 1)

cc. Dr. David Allen, Jr. (with Defendants' Exhibit 1)

dd. Dr. Donald D. Getz (with Exhibit 1)

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

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission, and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.

2. The parties have been correctly designated.

3. This case is subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

4. The carrier on the risk is correctly named.

5. An employment relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant-Employer on May 20, 2008.

6. Plaintiff had an average weekly wage of $379.71, yielding a compensation rate of $253.14.

*********** *Page 3
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Plaintiff was 56 years of age, with a date of birth of August 8, 1953. She obtained her GED in 1983. Prior to working for Defendant-Employer, Plaintiff had worked in retail sales, a clerical position, housekeeping, manufacturing, and as a receptionist.

2. As of May 20, 2008, the date of injury in this claim, Plaintiff was working as a manager at Defendant-Employer's store in Burgaw, North Carolina.

3. Prior to May 20, 2008, Plaintiff had sought medical attention periodically over the previous several years for low back pain. Her medical records from 2003 onward reflect several episodes of radiating pain down both her right and left legs, and sometimes both. On June 17, 2003, Plaintiff underwent a lumbar MRI, which showed disk bulges at L2-3 and L3-4.

4. On April 26, 2008, less than one month before the date of injury in this claim, Plaintiff presented to her local emergency room with complaints of low back pain with sciatica down the right side.

5. Plaintiff's primary care doctor in the months leading up to the injury in this claim was Dr. Baker. On April 28, 2008, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Baker with a complaint of back pain over the previous three days. The record from that date notes low back pain radiating down the posterior thigh (whether it was the left or right thigh, or both, was not noted in the record). Dr. Baker diagnosed sciatica and prescribed Prednisone, Vicodin, and Flexeril. She also instructed Plaintiff to avoid deep knee flexion and wrote her out of work through April 30, 2008. *Page 4

6. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Baker on May 6, 2008. Dr. Baker noted that Plaintiff's sciatica was better but also noted nerve pain/paresthesias in the "feet." At that time, Dr. Baker discussed with Plaintiff that the bilateral foot symptoms should be further evaluated with imaging, a nerve conduction study, and/or a neurological consultation. The May 6, 2008, visit with Dr. Baker was the last medical treatment Plaintiff sought before the date of injury in this claim.

7. On May 20, 2008, Plaintiff was at work at the Burgaw store. A truck had just delivered approximately 70 boxes of stock, and Plaintiff was putting up the boxes. At about 10 a.m., as she lifted a box of bread in the freezer and twisted to put it up, she felt a pull in her left side in her low back and into her hip and buttocks. She developed burning pain, and it felt like she was toting a weight on her left side. She also had pain in her left groin area from the incident.

8. Putting up stock was a regular part of Plaintiff's job duties, and it was not unexpected that she would have to put up boxes. There was no slip or unusual occurrence associated with the lifting incident on May 20, 2008.

9. Plaintiff's pain increased throughout the day on May 20, but she was able to finish out her shift, which ended at 3:30 p.m.

10. Plaintiff's first medical treatment following May 20, 2008, was with Dr. Baker, on May 21, 2008. Dr. Baker's note from that visit states, "loading truck and developed acute onset of left groin pain." Dr. Baker diagnosed Plaintiff with a left groin strain and also stated in her note that, "now pain in back responds to massage/heat." The note also contains an "addendum" stating, "(patient) still has LBP/sciatica and will treat as above." Dr. Baker noted that Plaintiff's back was "tender @ L4." Dr. Baker wrote Plaintiff out of work for both her groin and low back symptoms and ordered physical therapy.

11. Plaintiff did physical therapy twice a week over the next three weeks. *Page 5

12. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Baker on May 27, 2008, and again on June 3, 2008. At each visit, Dr. Baker again diagnosed a left groin strain. Each of the records for these two appointments also contains an "addendum" noting "LBP/sciatica", and each also contains a notation that Plaintiff's back was "tender @ L4." On June 3, 2008, Dr. Baker again wrote Plaintiff out of work for both her groin and low back symptoms.

13. On June 10, 2008, without seeing Plaintiff again, Dr. Baker wrote Plaintiff out of work, for both her groin and low back symptoms, until an orthopedist released Plaintiff to return to work.

14. Plaintiff did not return to Dr. Baker after June 3, 2008. Plaintiff did not obtain an orthopedic consultation because of her lack of funds and health insurance, and because Defendants denied this claim.

15. Upon Plaintiff's counsel's referral, Plaintiff saw Dr. Allen, an orthopedic surgeon, on March 31, 2009. In her history to Dr. Allen, Plaintiff told him that she had not had any left-sided issues before the May 20, 2008, incident.

16. Dr. Allen examined Plaintiff and assessed her with left hip pain, left buttock pain, low back pain, left sacroiliac joint pain, lumbar spinous process pain, and left gluteal pain. He assigned restrictions of no lifting more than 10 pounds and no bending. He also recommended that Plaintiff undergo a lumbar MRI. There is no evidence of record that Dr. Allen told Plaintiff of the restrictions that he was assigning.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Giddeons v. Subway Burgaw, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giddeons-v-subway-burgaw-inc-ncworkcompcom-2010.