Hollifield v. Columbia Carolina

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 30, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 927904
StatusPublished

This text of Hollifield v. Columbia Carolina (Hollifield v. Columbia Carolina) 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
Hollifield v. Columbia Carolina, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinions

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Glenn and the briefs and arguments of the parties before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good ground to reconsider the evidence. The Full Commission reverses the Deputy Commissioner's 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 in a Pre-Trial Agreement and at the hearing as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The North Carolina Industrial Commission has jurisdiction of this matter in that the parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer on February 17, 1999, which is the date of the incident at issue.

3. On that date, defendant-employer was self-insured, with Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. acting as its servicing agent.

4. Plaintiff's March 18, 1999 recorded statement transcript, as well as plaintiff's Answers to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, are stipulated and admitted into evidence.

5. The Industrial Commission Forms 18, 19, 61, 33 and 33R are stipulated and admitted into evidence.

6. The medical records of Dr. Joseph Turnbull of McDowell Community Services, Inc.; Dr. Vincent Denuna at the McDowell Hospital; Dr. William V. Fowler at McDowell Family Medicine; Rutherford Hospital Emergency Room; and Dr. Mark L. Moody, are stipulated and admitted into evidence.

7. The Industrial Commission Form 22, together with its supporting wage documentation, are stipulated and admitted into evidence.

8. The depositions of Dr. Turnbull and Dr. Denuna have been entered into the record.

9. The stipulated issue to be determined in this case is whether the February 17, 1999 incident caused a left inguinal hernia and, if so, its compensable consequences.

***********
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Full Commission concludes as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 36 years old. On the date of the February 17, 1999 incident, plaintiff was employed by defendant-employer as an edge plug, which involved plugging holes, marking defects and otherwise inspecting pieces of plywood. Plaintiff was also responsible for emptying trash barrels, as well as sweeping and picking up debris. Plaintiff worked on the second shift and his supervisor was Dawn Vanover.

2. Plaintiff's medical history included sustaining a work-related right inguinal hernia in February 1994, when plaintiff was employed by another employer. Plaintiff underwent surgery for the repair of that hernia on February 25, 1994, performed by Dr. Denuna.

3. On February 12, 1999, plaintiff was examined by his family physician, Dr. Fowler, for an upper respiratory infection which included a cough and congestion. Plaintiff was prescribed Claritin for those symptoms.

4. On February 15, 1999, plaintiff asked his supervisor, Dawn Vanover, if he could go home early to put a transmission in someone's car. Thereafter, on February 16, 1999, plaintiff was observed using defendant-employer's office copier to make copies of fliers advertising his home auto repair business.

5. On the date of the February 17, 1999 incident, plaintiff arrived for work four and a half hours late.

6. On February 17, 1999, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident to his back when a forklift struck a wheeled dolly, on which rested a 55-gallon trash barrel. The dolly and trash barrel did not touch or strike plaintiff. Rather, it caused plaintiff to twist his back. The incident was witnessed by a co-employee, Cathy Barrier. Plaintiff told Barrier that nothing hit him and that he was "okay." Plaintiff made no complaints to Barrier of any pain, bulges or other hernia-like symptoms.

7. Following the occurrence of the February 17, 1999 incident, plaintiff reported it to his supervisor that same day. Initially, plaintiff told his supervisor that he "felt fine." However, approximately 30-60 minutes later, plaintiff returned to his supervisor to report that his back was hurting too much to work. Consequently, plaintiff left work early. Plaintiff did not request any medical attention at that time and, further, plaintiff did not make any complaints to his supervisor of a bulge or of any other hernia-like symptoms. Nevertheless, in response to plaintiff's complaints of back pain, his supervisor told plaintiff to call defendant-employer's plant nurse the following day to report the incident.

8. On February 18, 1999, Amy Rhymer, who was at that time employed by defendant-employer in its Human Resources Department, received two calls from McDowell Family Medicine, where Dr. Fowler practices. Rhymer was told that plaintiff was there, and had sustained an injury, and that workers' compensation coverage needed to be verified. In response to both of those calls, Rhymer told the person on the telephone that plaintiff would have to come into the plant and report the injury or pay for the office visit himself. Thereafter, plaintiff reported the incident to Rhymer, and specifically reported that he was experiencing back pain. Plaintiff never made any complaints to Rhymer of a bulge or other hernia-like symptoms. As a consequence of his report of back pain, Rhymer told plaintiff he would need to be seen by defendant-employer's plant nurse.

9. Dr. Fowler's records indicate that on February 18, 1999, at approximately 9:15 a.m. plaintiff called seeking a refill of the pervious Claritin prescription. Dr. Fowler's records also reveal that plaintiff was waiting in the lobby on that date but left before he could be seen. There is no evidence that plaintiff reported a bulge or any other hernia-like symptoms to Dr. Fowler or to his office personnel on February 18, 1999.

10. On February 18, 1999, after speaking with Rhymer, plaintiff reported the February 17, 1999 incident to defendant-employer's plant nurse. He made no complaints of a bulge or of other hernia-like symptoms. As a result of plaintiff's complaints of back pain, the plant nurse took plaintiff to Dr. Turnbull's office for an examination. On that date, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Turnbull's physician's assistant, Anthony Metter. Plaintiff provided Mr. Metter with a history which consisted of complaints of "some pain in his back." Plaintiff was diagnosed with paravertebral strain and was prescribed medication for pain. There is no evidence that plaintiff reported to Mr. Metter or to Dr. Turnbull any complaints of bulging or other hernia-like symptoms on February 18, 1999. In fact, Mr. Metter's thorough physical examination of plaintiff's abdominal area did not reveal a hernia. As a result, Mr. Metter later assured Dr. Turnbull that plaintiff did not have a hernia on February 18, 1999.

11. Although plaintiff returned to work on February 18, 1999, he did not work again until February 22, 1999. On February 19, 1999, plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Following that accident, plaintiff was treated at Rutherford Hospital emergency room where he complained of pain in his back and neck. Plaintiff reported that he was wearing a seatbelt.

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

Related

Keel v. H & v. INC.
421 S.E.2d 362 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1992)
Long v. Morganton Dyeing & Finishing Co.
361 S.E.2d 575 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)
Johnson v. Asheville Hosiery Co.
153 S.E. 591 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hollifield v. Columbia Carolina, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollifield-v-columbia-carolina-ncworkcompcom-2002.