Jenkins v. Richard and David Jacobs Group

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJune 12, 1998
DocketI.C. No. 591873.
StatusPublished

This text of Jenkins v. Richard and David Jacobs Group (Jenkins v. Richard and David Jacobs Group) 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
Jenkins v. Richard and David Jacobs Group, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1998).

Opinions

The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Chrystal Stanback. 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.

***************
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. On November 22, 1995, the parties were subject to and bound by the provision of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act, and that the employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

2. On November 22, 1995 the American Insurance Company (Fireman's Fund) was the carrier on the risk for the defendant-employer.

3. The plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment on November 22, 1995, and pursuant to a Form 60 Agreement dated December 5, 1995 the defendants paid compensation to the employee at the rate of $80.67 per week from November 23, 1995 through December 17, 1995, and the employee returned to her regular work on December 18, 1995 at the same average weekly wage.

4. The parties stipulate to the Form 22 wage chart, from which the Commission may compute the plaintiff's average weekly wage, which is found in Section 5, pages 55-56 of Stipulated Exhibit #1.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The plaintiff began working part-time for the defendant-employer in June of 1995, as a Food Court Worker at their Hanes Mall location in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. She generally worked approximately twenty hours per week. Plaintiff was 64 years of age at the time of the hearing and had retired from a career of manual labor including hospital laundry work and institutional housekeeping. Plaintiff graduated from high school and matriculated for one year at Winston-Salem State University in the child care program. Though she had a history of diabetes, hypertension and probable cardiovascular disease, these conditions did not hinder her from performing her duties as a Food Court Worker.

2. The duties of a Food Court Worker included keeping the food court area clean, emptying trash containers, moving heavy tables and chairs, operating cleaning equipment, mopping floors, carrying trays and cleaning bathrooms. Plaintiff was required to lift heavy trash bags and other objects to a height of forty-eight inches at any time, and the job included repetitive stooping and bending.

3. On November 22, 1995, plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury by accident arising out of and within the course of her employment, when, after plaintiff had entered a ladies bathroom to clean, she stepped on a sanitary napkin causing her foot to slip forward out in front of her, causing her left leg and back to bend backwards hyperextending both her left leg and back. She was able to grab onto something to keep her from falling, but she felt immediate and extreme pain in her left hamstring area.

4. Plaintiff was transported by ambulance to Forsyth Memorial Hospital Emergency Room. The emergency room physician, Dr. Kimball Johnson, examined plaintiff and diagnosed an acute muscle tear in the posterior aspect of her left leg between the hip and knee. Dr. Johnson recommended the use of ice to minimize her pain, prescribed Norflex and Votaren for inflammation and pain, and took her out of work for four to five days. Votaren is a pain reliever which has the effect of masking pain which could effect the manifestation of problems in an area other than plaintiff's hamstring.

5. Following her discharge from the emergency room, plaintiff began experiencing hip discomfort as well as pain in her hip, buttock and upper left leg. The defendants scheduled plaintiff to see Dr. Timothy McGowen, an orthopedic surgeon. Plaintiff was seen on December 4, 1995 at which time she presented with complaints of her left upper leg and left hip pain.

6. Dr. McGowen, who only saw plaintiff once, diagnosed a probable hamstring injury to her left leg. Dr. McGowen advised plaintiff to apply ice to her thigh, stretch her limb and take Advil as needed. He further advised plaintiff to ambulate as tolerated, but did not give plaintiff a return appointment. Further, despite the severe pain in her leg, he instructed plaintiff to return to work on December 18, 1995, without restrictions. Plaintiff followed Dr. McGowan's instructions.

7. Plaintiff continued to experience left leg and left hip pain after she returned to work on December 18, 1995. Within two weeks of her return to work with no restrictions, and while plaintiff was lifting trash bags weighing in excess of thirty pounds and moving furniture, her back also began to hurt. She did not seek another appointment with Dr. McGowan because she did not think that she was covered by workers' compensation for another visit. Since her husband's insurance expired due to his incarceration, plaintiff could not afford to pay for a doctor's visit, so plaintiff continued to work in pain, taking a multitude of over-the-counter medications and using heat and rest to help alleviate her symptoms.

8. Mr. Gordon Shannon, plaintiff's supervisor, became aware of plaintiff's complaints of pain in her left leg, hip and back within weeks of her return to work on December 18, 1995. About two weeks prior to April 10, 1996 plaintiff began experiencing some discomfort radiating from her lower back into her leg. On or about April 10, 1996 the pain that radiated from her back down to her leg was so severe that she had to leave work. She notified her supervisor, went home and went to bed; took over-the-counter medications, but the pain was persistent, so she went to the North Carolina Baptist Hospital emergency room on April 12, 1996. Her complaints at the hospital were of left leg pain and low back pain radiating down her left leg; and plaintiff described her accident of November 22, 1995. The emergency room physician ordered X-rays, prescribed pain medications and referred plaintiff to Dr. Leon Grobler, an orthopedist. Plaintiff has not returned to work since April 10, 1996.

9. On April 18, 1996, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Leon Grobler, at which time she presented with pain in her left hip radiating to the left leg, numbness and weakness, her left leg was slightly bigger than the right, and her pain was aggravated by most activities but improved with sitting. Upon examination Dr. Grobler found that plaintiff walked with a left sided limp and after testing, he concluded that she had several neurological deficits including decreased sensation in the S1 and L5 distribution and decreased hip motion with pain. Dr. Grobler ordered a myleogram whose results showed moderate L4-5 spinal stenosis with facet joint arthrosis and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy and Grade I spondylolisthesis at L4-5 level. To treat her condition Dr. Grobler recommended epidural infiltration, which was performed on May 23, 1996 which led to substantial improvement of plaintiff's back and left leg pain.

10. On June 24, 1996 Dr. Grobler released plaintiff to return to work with a twenty pound lifting restriction for four weeks. Plaintiff's daughter presented the release form to the defendant-employer, however, she was told that if plaintiff could not come back to her regular duties she could not come back at all. Plaintiff's condition subsequently deteriorated, and she was referred to the self-care spine program.

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

Related

Bartlett v. Duke University
200 S.E.2d 193 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)
Moore v. Davis Auto Service
456 S.E.2d 847 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1995)
Lackey v. R. L. Stowe Mills, Inc.
418 S.E.2d 517 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1992)
Thacker v. City of Winston-Salem
482 S.E.2d 20 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jenkins v. Richard and David Jacobs Group, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-richard-and-david-jacobs-group-ncworkcompcom-1998.