Hamby v. the Sherwin-Williams Company

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMay 22, 1998
DocketI.C. No. 500721
StatusPublished

This text of Hamby v. the Sherwin-Williams Company (Hamby v. the Sherwin-Williams Company) 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
Hamby v. the Sherwin-Williams Company, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1998).

Opinions

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before former Deputy Commissioner Lawrence B. Shuping, Jr., and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good ground to reconsider the evidence. Upon reconsideration of the entire record of evidence, including the Deputy Commissioner's firsthand observations of the witnesses, the Full Commission reverses the prior Opinion and Award and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties through a Pre-Trial Agreement and at the hearing on 28 January 1997 as:

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

2. All parties have been correctly designated and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of the parties or of necessary or additional parties.

3. No parties are appearing in a representative capacity.

4. There are no third-party defendants or cross claims.

5. In addition to the other stipulations contained herein, the parties hereto stipulate and agree with respect to the following undisputed facts:

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

b. An employment relationship existed between the employee and employer on or about 17 January 1994.

c. The employee's average weekly wage is $561.00 plus commissions.

6. The parties stipulated that plaintiff's medical records, all Industrial Commission forms, plaintiff's employment records, the recorded statement of Kenny Cox dated 6 January 1995, plaintiff's personnel file, and the reports and videotapes from MJM Investigations could be stipulated and received into evidence.

7. The issues to be resolved are: (a) did plaintiff suffer a specific traumatic incident within the course and scope of his employment which renders him disabled and entitled to workers' compensation benefits under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act; (b) if so, to what benefits is plaintiff entitled to receive pursuant to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

***********
Having considered all the evidence, including the firsthand observations of the witnesses by the Deputy Commissioner, the Full Commission rejects the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing on 28 January 1997, plaintiff was a 49 year old man who had graduated from high school and had completed one year of trade school for auto diesel mechanics and welding. Plaintiff worked for a trucking company for several years as a diesel mechanic, and did paint and body work. Subsequently, he opened his own auto body repair business.

2. Plaintiff began working for employer in March 1983. His position was as a traveling sales representative in the automotive division.

3. Although hired while he lived in Rocky Mount, plaintiff subsequently moved to Manns Harbor. In addition to working for defendant-employer, plaintiff operated a part-time commercial fishing and crabbing business.

4. For his work with defendant-employer, plaintiff maintained an office in the spare bedroom of his residence in which he did paperwork and assorted tasks related to his work. In the trunk of his company vehicle, plaintiff also carried various catalogs, brochures and other literature for his customers and maintained them in a plastic parts tote that weighed approximately forty pounds when full.

6. Plaintiff has a medical history of cervical and low back pain and numbness and tingling radiating into the left arm and hand and has sought chiropractic treatment with Dr. Craig Gibson for the same symptoms beginning in 1990. In June 1990, Dr. Gibson determined that plaintiff was unable to return to his regular work with defendant-employer because of the pain in his cervical and lumbar spine, as well as numbness in his left arm and left leg. Plaintiff was eventually able to return to his regular duties in 1990 and thereafter, but continued to have back problems.

7. Plaintiff alleges that on or about Tuesday, 4 January 1994, he was lifting the approximately forty pound plastic tote of materials out of the trunk of his company vehicle when he felt something in his back pop, resulting in low back pain. Plaintiff did not report this incident to his employer until August 1994, after his annual performance review.

8. Plaintiff alleges that prior to January 1994, he did not have any low back pain. Based on the stipulated medical records and plaintiff's testimony at the hearing, the Full Commission finds that plaintiff's testimony with regard to his low back problems prior to January 1994 is not credible.

9. Plaintiff alleges that he stayed out of work the entire week after 3 January 1994 and returned to work on the following Monday. Plaintiff did not seek medical treatment until 17 January 1994, when he first sought medical treatment at the Outer Banks Medical Center from Dr. James Stephens, who provided a conservative course of treatment consisting of various medications, exercises and physical therapy. Plaintiff subsequently had a diagnostic MRI of the lumbosacral spine, which showed degenerative disk disease at several levels. Dr. Stephens referred plaintiff for a neurologic evaluation by Dr. David W. Swingle at Atlantic Neurosurgery. Dr. Swingle noted that the plaintiff claimed he had a long history of low back problems, but never had any lower extremity symptoms. This is contrary to the 1990 claim for disability benefits certification wherein it was noted that plaintiff had numbness in his leg. Dr. Swingle provided a conservative course of treatment consisting of various medications and physical therapy and referred plaintiff for a diagnostic MRI of the cervical spine because of his concurrent neck pain and left arm numbness. The cervical MRI also showed degenerative disk disease. Contrary to plaintiff's testimony, Dr. Swingle's medical notes reflect that he did not recommend surgery.

10. On 21 June 1994, plaintiff was seen at Outer Banks Medical Center complaining of low back pain that he had been experiencing for four to five days. The medical notes indicate that plaintiff was deep sea fishing on the day prior to the onset of his back pain.

11. In August 1994, plaintiff was helping his wife lift a refrigerator and felt pain in his low back. On 23 August 1994, plaintiff told Kenny Cox, a business associate, that he could not lift anything because he had hurt his back lifting a refrigerator.

12. On 15 August 1994, plaintiff was seen at Outer Banks Medical Center complaining of low back pain for 24 hours and was diagnosed with acute lumbar strain.

13. Mike Paul, plaintiff's supervisor, testified that plaintiff never mentioned the January 1994 lifting incident to him or any other employee of employer until late August 1994, following plaintiff's annual performance evaluation. During the evaluation, plaintiff was informed he would be put on probation for poor job performance.

14. Mr. Paul testified that he knew plaintiff had a long history of back problems. Over the many years prior to 1994 that they had known each other, plaintiff had told Mr. Paul on numerous occasions that he had felt like he had pulled a muscle in his back, and that it would be particularly bothersome when he drove for long periods of time.

15. Mr.

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

Related

Brown v. S & N COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
477 S.E.2d 197 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Kennedy v. Duke University Medical Center
398 S.E.2d 677 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1990)
Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, Inc.
181 S.E.2d 588 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
Fish v. Steelcase, Inc.
449 S.E.2d 233 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1994)
Franklin v. Broyhill Furniture Industries
472 S.E.2d 382 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.
290 S.E.2d 682 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)
Gupton v. Builders Transport
357 S.E.2d 674 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)
Ashley v. Rent-A-Car Company
155 S.E.2d 755 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
Watson v. Winston-Salem Transit Authority
374 S.E.2d 483 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hamby v. the Sherwin-Williams Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamby-v-the-sherwin-williams-company-ncworkcompcom-1998.