Horsey v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 18, 1998
DocketI.C. NO. 663804
StatusPublished

This text of Horsey v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation (Horsey v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation) 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
Horsey v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1998).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Hoag. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award, except for the additional Finding of Fact inserted as Number 12 which resulted in the renumbering of subsequent Findings, the additional phrase in Award Number 1 subjecting benefits to a credit for short term disability paid, the merging of Conclusions of Law Numbers 5 6, correction of 3 6/7 weeks instead of 7 1/7 in Award Number 2, and the correction of $412.00 instead of $362.26 in Conclusion of Law Number 6 and Award Number 2, and other minor corrections.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. 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 at all relevant times.

3. Defendant-employer is a qualified self-insured.

4. On 4 September 1996, plaintiff earned an average weekly wage of $768.00, an amount sufficient to yield the maximum compensation rate in 1996 of $492.00 per week.

5. The date of plaintiff's alleged specific traumatic incident was 4 September 1996.

6. Plaintiff was absent from work from 4 September 1996 through 25 March 1997. Plaintiff has since returned to work for another employer.

7. Plaintiff received $210.00 per week for twenty-six weeks of employer funded short term disability.

8. The following documents were stipulated into evidence:

a. Plaintiff's medical records in a bound and indexed volume.

b. Plaintiff's responses to defendant-employer's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.

*************
Based upon the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner, the Full Commission finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff, in 1996, was a twenty-five year old male employed by Employer-Defendant as a laborer/deck hand. His duties included maintaining machine operation of the No. 1 and No. 2 lathes in the Green End Department of Employer-Defendant's Dudley Plywood location. Employee-Plaintiff had been employed by Employer-Defendant since September, 1994.

2. On 4 September 1996, plaintiff arrived at work at 6:45 a.m. and reported to the deck to watch over one of the wood chipping machines. His duties included replacing the oil and knives in the wood chipping machine, standing by the machine to make sure the wood came out straight and watching for problems with the machine's operation.

3. Between 9:00 and 9:30 a.m., plaintiff noticed that there were nail blocks in the wood which was being fed into the wood chipping machine. Because of the nail blocks, the knives inside the machine became jagged. Plaintiff's job was to replace the jagged knives with a new set of knives. The procedure plaintiff had to follow to replace the knives was: shutting down the machine, opening the guards to the #1 lathe, taking the cradle filled with knives out of the lathe, breaking the jagged knives loose with a tool, taking the jagged knives out of the cradle, setting the clean knives inside the cradle, and finally placing the cradle of knives back into the machine. The knives were approximately 54 inches in length and weighed approximately 25 pounds. There are two knives per machine.

4. As plaintiff bent over to set the replacement knives into the machine cradle he experienced a sharp pain in his lower back, radiating into his left leg.

5. Plaintiff complained of pain radiating from his lower back into his buttocks and legs to the Green End Superintendent Mark Harris, Employee-Plaintiff's supervisor, Cecil Smith, and the plywood mill's Safety Director, Gary Kelly.

6. On 4 September 1996, plaintiff presented to the emergency department at Wayne Memorial Hospital complaining of low back strain with radiculopathy. Plaintiff reported that he had never suffered an injury to his back before. Plaintiff described his pain as originating from the incident of picking up knives. Plaintiff was referred to Dr. Robert Lacin, a neurosurgeon in Goldsboro, North Carolina.

7. Plaintiff presented to Dr. Lacin for examination. Plaintiff had a disc herniation at the L5-S1 level. He underwent a discectomy on 18 September 1996. Initially, plaintiff did well, but then had recurrent symptoms and underwent a subsequent discectomy, hemilaminotomy at L5 and a forminotomy on 9 October 1996.

8. After his second surgery, plaintiff continued to suffer pain in his back, and Dr. Lacin referred plaintiff to Dr. Charles Branch in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Dr. Branch did not recommend surgery when he examined plaintiff on 15 January 1997. Dr. Branch advised plaintiff to continue conservative treatment.

9. Plaintiff returned to work with defendant-employer on 27 March 1997. Plaintiff had missed twenty-nine weeks of work. Dr. Lacin had prescribed work restrictions for plaintiff. However, defendant-employer required plaintiff to perform duties the same as when he had previously worked for defendant-employer prior to his back injury.

10. On 15 May 1997, plaintiff left work due to severe pain in his back. His trial return to work was unsuccessful.

11. No work within plaintiff's restrictions was subsequently provided plaintiff by the defendant-employer. Plaintiff never returned to work for defendant-employer.

12. Plaintiff received $210.00 per week for twenty-six weeks of employer-funded short term disability.

13. Plaintiff began training to be a truck driver for Calco, Inc., in Wisconsin on 3 July 1997. Plaintiff made training wages equal to $150.00 per week while training.

14. On 29 July 1997, plaintiff began making wages equal to or above his pre-injury wages.

15. Plaintiff has a 10% permanent partial disability rating to his back.

16. Although plaintiff's memory is hazy and he is not articulate, plaintiff's testimony is credible and consistent. The testimony of Cecil Smith and Gary Kelly, representatives of defendant-employer who contradict plaintiff's testimony in some aspects, is found by the undersigned to be less credible than that of plaintiff.

17. Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the competent, credible evidence of record that he sustained an injury on 4 September 1996, resulting from a specific traumatic incident of the work assigned.

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

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. On 4 September 1996, plaintiff sustained an injury as a direct result of a specific traumatic incident of the work assigned. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6).

2. Plaintiff retained a 10% permanent partial disability of the back as a result of his injury. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-31.

3. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $768.00, an amount sufficient to yield the maximum compensation rate of $492.00 per week. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(5).

4.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Horsey v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horsey-v-georgia-pacific-corporation-ncworkcompcom-1998.