Jackson v. Carolina Turkeys, Incorporated

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJune 24, 1996
DocketI.C. No. 312293
StatusPublished

This text of Jackson v. Carolina Turkeys, Incorporated (Jackson v. Carolina Turkeys, Incorporated) 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
Jackson v. Carolina Turkeys, Incorporated, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1996).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the deputy commissioner. The appealing party has shown good ground to reconsider the evidence. The Full Commission REVERSES the Opinion and Award of the deputy commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award.

**************

The Full Commission finds as facts and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing, and also in a Pre-trial Order received by the Commission on 29 April 1994, and in Industrial Commission Form 21, Agreement for Compensation for Disability, approved by the Industrial Commission on 11 February 1993, as

STIPULATIONS

1. At all times relevant to this claim, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act, and an employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

2. On 19 January 1993 plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant-employer.

3. Plaintiff is a resident of Sampson County, North Carolina.

4. Defendant Carolina Turkeys, Inc., is engaged in the processing of turkeys in and around Wayne County, North Carolina.

5. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was the compensation carrier on the risk.

6. Plaintiff has not performed a full day's work with defendant-employer since the day before 19 January 1993.

7. Plaintiff was discharged by defendant-employer on or about 24 February 1993.

8. Subject to verification by an Industrial Commission Form 22 Wage Chart, plaintiff's average weekly wage was $256.00.

9. The following medical records are stipulated into evidence:

(a) Exhibit A — Medical records of Sampson Memorial Hospital (6 pages);

(b) Exhibit B — Medical records of Joseph R. Thomas, Jr., M.D. (6 pages);

(c) Exhibit C — Medical records of James R. Dineen, M.D., (3 pages);

(d) Exhibit D — Medical records and notes of Corazon Ngo, M.D. (2 pages);

(e) Exhibit E — Medical records of S. Mitchell Freeman, M.D. (5 pages);

(f) Exhibit F — Form 18 filed by plaintiff;

(g) Exhibit G — Form 19 filed by defendants;

(h) Exhibit H — Form 21 approved by the Industrial Commission;

(i) Exhibit I — Form 22 prepared by employer for plaintiff;

(j) Exhibit J — 21 January 1993 and 1 February 1993 statements by plaintiff to employer about injury;

(k) Exhibit K — Medical records of Eddie Powell, M.D. (7 pages).

10. Plaintiff received temporary total disability compensation benefits in connection with this claim from 20 January 1993 through 17 February 1993.

************

RULINGS ON EVIDENTIARY MATTERS

depositions of Corazon Ngo, M.D.; Joseph Thomas, M.D.; S. Mitchell Freedman, M.D.; James R. Dineen, M.D., and Eddie Powell, M.D., are OVERRULED.

The Full Commission rejects the findings of fact of the deputy commissioner and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the time of the hearing in this matter, plaintiff was a sixty year old woman with a high school education. During a substantial portion of the time period of plaintiff's employment with defendant-employer from 19 January 1992 to 19 January 1993, plaintiff was employed as a "gizzard peeler". Plaintiff's employment involved using her hands to place Turkey gizzards over rotating rollers to remove the skin from the gizzards. This area was known as the gizzard table.

2. On 19 January 1993, plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant-employer when she slipped on some turkey fat and fell onto the cement floor hitting the left side of her head and her right knee. Plaintiff remembers slipping and falling. The next thing she remembers is co-workers surrounding her, helping her to her feet and asking if she was injured.

3. Plaintiff completed her shift at work but later that day presented to the emergency room at Sampson Memorial Hospital complaining of left-sided head pain, right knee pain, and neck pain. The x-rays of plaintiff's head and knee revealed no fractures. Plaintiff was discharged with medication and instructions to keep the knee immobilized and to follow-up with Dr. Joseph R. Thomas, an orthopaedic surgeon. Plaintiff returned to the emergency room on 24 January 1993 still complaining of pain. Plaintiff's right knee was noted to be mildly swollen and she was again instructed to follow-up with Dr. Thomas.

4. Plaintiff received treatment for her right knee from Dr. Thomas on 27 January 1993. His notes indicated that the swelling and bruising in plaintiff's knee had resolved and he released plaintiff to return to work on 1 February 1993.

5. Plaintiff returned to work on 1 February 1993. After working about one and a half hours, plaintiff was removed from work upon advice of the company nurse. Dr. Dineen, the company doctor, sent plaintiff home from work with instructions to stay off her leg and keep it elevated.

6. On 8 February 1993, Dr. Thomas authorized plaintiff to return to light duty work and offered to order an MRI of plaintiff's knee if defendants were concerned with the swelling in the knee. This MRI was never performed.

7. By 9 February 1993 plaintiff's knee was still swollen and Dr. Dineen kept her out of work for another week.

8. Plaintiff's last visit with Dr. Dineen was on 17 February 1993. According to Dr. Dineen's notes, plaintiff's knee was not swollen on that day. Although he considered her knee at maximum medical improvement, he did not release her from his care and instructed her to return one week later. Plaintiff also complained about head pain at this 17 February visit. Dr. Dineen referred plaintiff to defendant's other company physician, Dr. Corazon Ngo, a general practitioner, for treatment of her head pain. Dr. Dineen did not advise plaintiff to return to work if approved by Dr. Ngo.

9. Plaintiff visited Dr. Ngo on defendant's referral that same day. Plaintiff complained of recurrent headaches over the left facial and parietal area of her head and of blurred vision. After an examination Dr. Ngo determined that plaintiff suffered from a contusion and advised plaintiff she could return to work the next day in reference to the condition for which she provided treatment.

10. Plaintiff remained out of work during the rest of the week and returned for her appointment with Dr. Dineen on 24 February 1993. Plaintiff was not allowed to see Dr. Dineen and was instead directed to the resource office where she was informed that she had been discharged for unexcused absences. According to Joan Rouse, manager of the occupational health services department, defendant-employer had contacted Dr. Dineen and had been advised that plaintiff could return to work if released by Dr. Ngo. This release which occurred after plaintiff left the doctor's office had never been communicated to plaintiff.

11. Plaintiff's understanding of her work status was that she should remain out of work until her next scheduled visit with Dr. Dineen on 24 February 1996. Defendant's computer records and Dr. Dineen's office notes support plaintiff's understanding of her no work status. Defendant's computer generated medical record regarding the 17 February visit states, "Seen by Dr. Dineen 2-17-93. No Work. Referred to Dr. Ngo re: head abrasion. . . . (return office visit) 1 week." In addition, Dr. Dineen's inter-office memo of 17 February 1996 indicates "no work" under the work status category and shows his referral of plaintiff to Dr.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-32
North Carolina § 97-32

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jackson v. Carolina Turkeys, Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-carolina-turkeys-incorporated-ncworkcompcom-1996.