Hargrave v. Kentucky Derby Hosiery

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 25, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 021624
StatusPublished

This text of Hargrave v. Kentucky Derby Hosiery (Hargrave v. Kentucky Derby Hosiery) 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
Hargrave v. Kentucky Derby Hosiery, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

***********
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the award, the Full Commission AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner with some modifications.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. At all relevant times employer-defendant and employee-plaintiff were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. At all relevant times an employer-employee relationship existed between defendant-employer and plaintiff-employee.

3. In the period March 31, 1999 through March 31, 2000 the carrier on the risk for defendant-employer was Travelers Insurance Company.

4. In the period April 1, 2000 through April 1, 2001 the carrier on the risk for defendant-employer was PMA Insurance Group.

5. As of January 24, 2000, employee-plaintiff developed left and right hand/wrist tendonitis. Defendants Kentucky Derby Hosiery and Travelers Insurance Company submitted a Form 60 Agreement and employee-plaintiff received temporary partial disability benefits from February 19, 2000 to May 20, 2000, in the amount of $1,260.11.

6. A package labeled Proceedings Leading to Hearing was admitted as Stipulated Exhibit No. 2 and a package of medical records was admitted as Stipulated Exhibit No. 3. Subsequent to the hearing, additional medical records were submitted by stipulation as Volume II of Exhibit No. 3.

7. The issues for determination are:

a. Whether plaintiff contracted a compensable occupational disease, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome;

b. If so, when was plaintiff last injuriously exposed to the hazards of such diseases; and

c. If plaintiff contracted a compensable occupational disease, what compensation, if any, is plaintiff due?

***********
The Full Commission adopts the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 29 years old and had completed the eleventh grade in school.

2. Defendant-employer employed plaintiff as a "sock folder" at its facility located in Mount Airy, North Carolina in or about September 1995.

3. Plaintiff continued as a sock folder from the date of her employment until February 2000.

4. Plaintiff worked 48 weeks per year, five days a week. From 1996 to 1999, plaintiff worked 8 ½ to 9 hours per day, inclusive of breaks and meal periods. Beginning sometime in 1999, she began working an additional 5 to 8 hours on Saturdays.

5. Plaintiff's tasks primarily required use of her hands and fingers to fold and band together approximately two thousand pairs of socks daily. She normally folded children's socks, which are thin and lightweight. Plaintiff also used her hands and fingers to push the socks onto a needle so the socks could be bound together. This process requires almost constant use of the hands and fingers in repetitive flexion and extension motions.

6. Throughout plaintiff's employment until January 2000, she had no problem with either of her hands as a result of performing her work duties.

7. For three weeks during late November and early December 1999, plaintiff folded and bound thick men's tube socks for the first time. In order to get these thick socks on the needle to be bound together, plaintiff had to exert significantly greater force with her hands and fingers than she had to exert to manipulate children's socks. The men's socks were so thick that the needle would break on occasions as plaintiff tried to insert the socks onto the needle.

8. Beginning in January 2000, plaintiff began experiencing pain in both her left and right forearm and wrist, with more acute pain on the left. She experienced numbness in her left hand in all fingers.

9. Dr. J. Gil Burke, a board certified orthopedic surgeon, evaluated plaintiff on February 23, 2000, upon referral by defendants. Plaintiff reported the symptoms noted above and reported that her symptoms awakened her at night. Dr. Burke's physical examination was largely negative for carpal tunnel syndrome except for paresthesias of the left wrist. Dr. Burke diagnosed hand and wrist tendonitis, left more than right, "somewhat ill-defined." He doubted plaintiff had developed carpal tunnel syndrome. However, during his deposition testimony, Dr. Burke stated that he was not "comfortable" with any diagnosis because plaintiff's symptoms were so atypical.

10. Dr. Burke restricted plaintiff to light duty work activities. Medications and a splint for the left hand were prescribed and, at the request of defendants, he referred plaintiff to Dr. Matthew Weingold, a hand specialist, for an evaluation.

11. Dr. Weingold evaluated plaintiff on March 14, 2000. Dr. Weingold's physical examination did not find anything medically significant, but he recommended nerve conduction studies to rule out any median nerve compression syndrome.

12. Dr. Travis H. Jackson, a neurologist, examined plaintiff on April 10, 2000, and performed the nerve conduction test. Dr. Jackson's physical examination revealed borderline positive Phalen's signs bilaterally. The nerve conduction test indicated that plaintiff had carpal tunnel syndrome, right worse than left.

13. Dr. Jackson was not certain whether plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome was the cause of her multiple, transitory and enigmatic symptoms. Dr. Jackson concluded that plaintiff's symptoms and physical examination did not "fit her symptomatology or her physical examination very well and [he was] not sure that the carpal tunnel syndrome is actually the etiology of her symptoms."

14. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Weingold, the referring physician, on May 16, 2000, who reviewed Dr. Jackson's nerve conduction study. Dr. Weingold stated that some of plaintiff's symptoms are consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome while other symptoms are not. No further treatment was recommended and plaintiff was released to her regular duties with no permanent disability rating.

15. Dr. Burke concurred with Dr. Weingold's opinions. He released plaintiff on May 24, 2000, to her pre-injury duties as a "sock folder" without restrictions.

16. Plaintiff returned to work but was able to fold only about 1,000 pairs of socks because of bilateral hand pain. Folding 1,000 pairs of socks per day is approximately one-half the production plaintiff achieved prior to January 2000. Plaintiff remained at her regular employment duties through August 24, 2000. Plaintiff testified that during this time period she experienced increased pain and swelling in both hands.

17. Plaintiff sought medical treatment for the continuing bilateral wrist pain at Northern Hospital of Surry County on May 29, 2000.

18. Plaintiff subsequently sought treatment from Dr. Anthony J. DeFranzo, an Associate Professor at Wake Forest University/Baptist Hospital Medical Center, on June 22, 2000. Her symptoms were bilateral hand numbness and tingling, weak grip, frequent awakening at night due to severe wrist pain, and pain radiating from her carpal tunnel up to her elbow in each arm.

19. Based on Dr.

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

Related

Cain v. Guyton
340 S.E.2d 501 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)
Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn
301 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
Hansel v. Sherman Textiles
283 S.E.2d 101 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1981)
Cain v. Guyton
348 S.E.2d 595 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hargrave v. Kentucky Derby Hosiery, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hargrave-v-kentucky-derby-hosiery-ncworkcompcom-2002.