Holley v. Acts, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 26, 2001
DocketI.C. NO. 674798
StatusPublished

This text of Holley v. Acts, Inc. (Holley v. Acts, 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
Holley v. Acts, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2001).

Opinions

The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Order and prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Young and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good ground to reconsider the evidence in this matter. Having reconsidered the evidence, the Full Commission reverses the Deputy Commissioners denial of benefits and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers Compensation Act.

2. An employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and defendant-employer at all relevant times herein.

3. The carrier on the risk is Liberty Mutual Insurance Company at all times relevant herein.

4. The parties stipulated that the date of the plaintiffs injury by accident was July 13, 1996.

5. The parties stipulated that the plaintiff injured her left lower leg in the calf area when she turned suddenly while walking down the hall at her place of employment with the defendant-employer on July 13, 1996.

6. The parties stipulated to the plaintiffs medical records from Kaiser Permanente, and Presbyterian Hospital.

7. The issues presented are:

a) Whether the plaintiffs medical condition of DVT is causally related to the plaintiffs injury by accident to her left leg sustained in the course of her employment with the defendant-employer on July 13, 1996.

b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any benefits under the North Carolina Workers Compensation Act.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the plaintiff was a 53-year-old high school graduate. The plaintiff is a Certified Nurses Assistant (CNA) and at the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner was still employed as a CNA with the defendant-employer. Her average weekly wage was $243.60, yielding a compensation rate of $162.40.

2. In 1986, the plaintiff opened her own beauty shop in which she worked part-time until 1998. The plaintiff worked alone about twelve hours each week in her beauty shop. The plaintiff closed her business in 1998 due to her DVT and her doctors recommendation.

3. On or about July 1994, the defendant-employer hired the plaintiff as a CNA. The plaintiffs job duties included providing nursing assistance to the elderly.

4. On July 13, 1996, the plaintiff was working for the defendant-employer as a floater. The plaintiff was assigned to help lift a patient off of the floor. As the plaintiff helped to lift the patient, the plaintiffs foot became stuck on the carpet as she turned suddenly and she injured her lower left leg in the calf. She reported this incident to Pat Hasty, L.P.N., and went home to soak her leg. The foot becoming stuck on the carpet as she turned suddenly constituted an accident and the resulting injury was an injury by accident within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act.

5. Plaintiff reported to work on July 14, 1996, but her leg pain worsened. She left work and presented to Dr. Jason Ratterree complaining of sudden pain in her left calf, tenderness, but no swelling. Dr. Ratterree diagnosed muscle strain and prescribed medication, an ace bandage, crutches and ordered her to stay off of her leg for three days. Plaintiff returned home and immobilized her leg for seven days.

6. Plaintiff returned to work on July 22, 1996.

7. Prior to July 13, 1996, the plaintiff had a history of hypertension and took medication to control her blood pressure. The plaintiff was also under a doctors care to aid weight loss. The plaintiff testified that in 1995, she began Estrogen Replacement Therapy which required that she take the potentially blood clotting medication, Premarin.

8. The plaintiff continued to work for the defendant-employer, but on September 3, 1996, the plaintiff went to the doctor for dehydration and a urinary tract infection. While at the doctors office she had an acute onset of pain and swelling in her left lower leg and had to be hospitalized for three days. Among other things, the hospital admission note said:

"This is a 49-year-old white female with a history of hypertension and fibrocystic breast disease who had a previous injury to her left calf approximately July, 1996 when she had slipped and strained it. Since then she has had persistent pain, which was treating conservatively. On the day of admission she had increasing pain and swelling, more than had been present previously. She subsequently was referred to radiology for Doppler study which revealed extensive left lower extremity deep vein thrombosis.

Upon the plaintiffs release, she was referred to Dr. Dietlinde W. Zipkin, an internist at Kaiser Permanente.

9. The plaintiff continued to treat with Dr. Zipkin and on November 16, 1996, she returned to work on light duty. She continued to experience leg pain and was hospitalized again on or about June 16, 1997 for her chronic DVT. She returned to work as a CNA for the defendant-employer on July 11, 1997.

10. Dr. Ratterree testified that it was a reasonable possibility that the twisting incident of July 13, 1996 caused the deep venous thrombosis. He was confused, however, that the DVT had been diagnosed shortly after July 13. The first time it was diagnosed was after a Doppler test at Presbyterian Hospital during the September 3-6, 1996, admission. When he first saw her the day after the episode Dr. Ratterree wrote presciently in his "impression:

"Acute left leg pain, most probably gastrocnemius. However, I did discuss that this can also be DVT in etiology had not the patient told me that there was sudden pain during slight traumatic episode. However DVT studies and further workup would be needed should symptoms persist or worsen. However, if she has increased pain she is to return here for a Doppler study of the lower leg. Importance of follow-up stressed.

His confusion that the DVT had been diagnosed prior to September 3 was demonstrated by these passages from his deposition:

[Y]ou have a lot of things that you fit into time spectrums and occasionally you have somebody come in that has a different time spectrum, but its reasonably possible. But I can say that Ive been at this eight years, Ive never seen anybody come in that quick with that type history and have that happen."

My impression was, by the history, that she probably had pulled a muscle and I listed that in the impression. However, anytime somebody has calf pain deep venous thrombosis is a possibility. However, I thought it was a low possibility at that time because she had just had a sudden acute injury that usually is not followed after just something sudden. It can develop over time, but I was seeing her right after the event.

He also said that swelling usually is present in DVT yet he reported no swelling of her leg upon examination.

11. Dr. Zipkin rendered the opinion that it was possible that the plaintiffs twisting injury could have caused her DVT, "but I dont know that it did.

12. Vascular damage is a main cause of venous thrombosis.

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

Related

Lockwood v. McCaskill
138 S.E.2d 541 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Cummings v. Burroughs Wellcome Co.
502 S.E.2d 26 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1998)
Dean v. Carolina Coach Company, Inc.
215 S.E.2d 89 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1975)
Henry v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co.
57 S.E.2d 760 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Alva v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority
453 S.E.2d 871 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Holley v. Acts, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holley-v-acts-inc-ncworkcompcom-2001.