Hall v. Potpourri Press, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 6, 1995
DocketI.C. No. 182508
StatusPublished

This text of Hall v. Potpourri Press, Inc. (Hall v. Potpourri Press, 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
Hall v. Potpourri Press, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 1995).

Opinion

The Form 21 Agreement, having been approved by the Commission, constitutes an Award of record and the same is incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the parties stipulated to the X-ray reports attached to the March 1, 1994 letter from Ms. Grimes to the undersigned and to those factual matters concerning long-term disability benefits set forth in her March 8, 1994 letter to the Deputy Commissioner.

* * * * * * * * * *

The undersigned have reviewed the Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner.

The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. However, upon reconsideration of the evidence, the undersigned reach the same facts and conclusions as those reached by the Deputy Commissioner. Neither party here requested the Full Commission to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives. The Full Commission, in their discretion, have determined that there are no good grounds in this case to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, as sufficient convincing evidence exists in the record to support their findings of fact, conclusions of law, and ultimate order.

The Full Commission adopt as their own all findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner, as follows:

Based upon the competent and convincing evidence adduced at the hearing, the undersigned make the following additional

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On and prior to November 19, 1991 plaintiff's job with defendant employer was as a picker and shipper which required her to pick orders in the warehouse, put them in a pushcart, package them, and put them on a conveyor belt. That job also required her to lift items weighing up to 70 pounds.

2. Plaintiff, who is 53 years old and has a ninth grade education, sustained the admittedly compensable injury by accident giving rise hereto on November 19, 1991 when she slipped on a wet floor and fell, landing on her tailbone and left hip-buttock area with her left leg straight out and her right foot slightly under the left leg in a figure four fashion.

3. As a result of the injury by accident giving rise hereto, plaintiff sustained right knee sprain, left ankle sprain, lumbar sprain, and pain in the left hip and coccyx for which she received conservative treatment from November 20, 1991 through December 20, 1991 by Drs. Bennett, Fernandez, and Fields.

4. Pursuant to a Form 21 Agreement which is dated December 6, 1991 and was approved by the Industrial Commission on January 7, 1992, defendants undertook to pay workers' compensation benefits to plaintiff at the rate of $234.68 per week for her period of temporary total disability from November 20, 1991 to December 5, 1991 by reason of the injury by accident on November 19, 1991 which resulted in right knee, left ankle, and tailbone injuries. On December 10, 1991, plaintiff signed a Form 28B Report Of Compensation And Medical Paid indicating that the report closed her case.

5. Plaintiff returned to work as a picker and shipper for defendant employer on December 5, 1991 and thereafter remained so employed on a full time basis to October 6, 1992 with the exception of a medical leave-of-absence from June 29, 1992 to July 4, 1992 and from September 8, 1992 to October 3, 1992 due to a venous stasis condition with bilateral leg pain and edema for which she was treated by Dr. Mazzocchi. Said venous stasis condition is not causally related to the injury by accident of November 19, 1991.

6. In about January 1992 while plaintiff was walking at home, her right knee gave out whereupon she fell. The manner in which she landed is undeterminable from the evidence of record. She did not notice any injuries as a result of this fall that required medical attention. The credible evidence fails to establish that the giving way of the knee and the fall are causally related to the injury by accident of November 19, 1991. Knees occasionally give out from injury or from knee problems and she had both an injury, knee sprain, as well as a knee problem, degenerative changes.

7. During the period that plaintiff worked from December 5, 1991 to October 6, 1992, she experienced continuing low back pain and right knee pain as well as aching and swelling with activity and on September 16, 1992, she began physical therapy at Carolina Physical Therapy on referral from Dr. Mazzocchi for treatment of her lumbar sprain. She reported to physical therapy on September 16 that her low back pain had become worse over the last three months. She thereafter continued on physical therapy for low back pain as well as right knee pain through November 13, 1992.

8. In August 1992 Dr. Carter examined and evaluated plaintiff for complaints of pain in the right foot and ankle and with a history of pain in the right leg and behind the right knee on occasions. Following examination, he prescribed arch support and exercises for treatment of chronic strain of a tendon in the right foot which was due to her walking flat-footed. Said right foot strain is not due to the injury by accident of November 19, 1991.

9. By October 6, 1992 when she again saw Dr. Carter, plaintiff's right foot had improved but her right knee continued to ache and swell with activity and she remained on physical therapy for low back pain. MRI of the right knee performed in October 1992 revealed degenerative changes without a definite tear. Dr. Carter thereafter rendered conservative care, including medications and knee immobilizer, for treatment of right knee sprain, a hyperextension injury with stretching of the posterior capsule and the posterior cruciate, which is due to the injury by accident of November 19, 1991, and Dr. Carter prescribed physical therapy for treatment of low back sprain which is also due to the injury by accident of November 19, 1991. By January 11, 1993, Dr. Carter reported that "we are in the process now of applying for long-term disability" due to her back and knee conditions.

10. When seen by Dr. Carter on April 30, 1993 plaintiff was complaining of pain in the groin and right hip. On examination, there was limitation of motion of the hip and x-rays of the hip on that date revealed aseptic necrosis and on June 24, 1993 he performed cord decompression of the right hip. When last seen by him on October 6, 1993, plaintiff complained of much increased pain and x-ray at that time revealed further collapse in the area of the decompression by reason of which Dr. Carter recommended hip replacement surgery. In December 1993, plaintiff was examined and evaluated by Dr. Spillmann.

11. The credible and convincing evidence of record fails to establish that the aseptic necrosis of plaintiff's right hip is causally related to the injury by accident of November 19, 1991.

12. By October 6, 1992, plaintiff experienced a change of condition for the worse with respect to her right knee sprain due to the injury by accident of November 19, 1991 and as a result thereof, she was rendered unable to earn any wages in any employment from October 6, 1992 to October 27, 1992. In addition, by October 27, 1992 she also experienced a change of condition for the worse with respect to her lumbar sprain due to the injury by accident of November 19, 1991 and as a result thereof in combination with her right knee sprain, her earning capacity was reduced from an average weekly wage of $352.00 which she earned at the time of the injury by accident to an average weekly wage of $169.01 which she was able to earn from October 27, 1992 to December 5, 1992, a period of five and four-seventh weeks during which she earned gross wages of $941.60.

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

Related

Church v. Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc.
409 S.E.2d 715 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hall v. Potpourri Press, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-potpourri-press-inc-ncworkcompcom-1995.