Johnson v. Cochrane Furniture

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 6, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 325163
StatusPublished

This text of Johnson v. Cochrane Furniture (Johnson v. Cochrane Furniture) 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
Johnson v. Cochrane Furniture, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Donovan, and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing parties have shown good ground to reconsider the evidence in this matter. Having reconsidered the evidence of record, the Full Commission hereby reverses the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award in part as to plaintiffs' appeal, affirms the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award in part as to defendants' appeal, 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 their Pre-Trial Agreement and at the hearing as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, the parties are properly before the Commission, and the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act at all relevant times.

2. Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance was the carrier on the risk.

3. The employee-employer relationship existed between the parties at all relevant times.

4. The date of injury is February 27, 2003.

5. Decedent's average weekly wage was $316.47, which yields a compensation rate of $210.99 per week, pursuant to a Form 22 Wage Chart submitted by defendants on June 9, 2003.

6. The sole issue for determination is: Whether the medical treatment received by decedent in November 2003 is related to his compensable accident of February 27, 2003.

7. The parties stipulated the following documentary evidence:

a. Stipulated Exhibit #1: Pre-Trial Agreement

b. Stipulated Exhibit #2: I.C. Forms

c. Stipulated Exhibit #3: Medical Records

d. Stipulated Exhibit #4: Carrier File

e. Stipulated Exhibit #5: Additional Medical Records

f. Stipulated Exhibit #6: Personnel File and Discovery Responses

8. In addition to Stipulated Exhibit(s), the following Exhibits were admitted into evidence:

a. Subsequent to the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiffs provided a letter from defendant-carrier to plaintiffs dated May 28, 2003, which is hereby entered into evidence and made part of the record as Plaintiffs' Exhibit #1.

b. By letter dated October 22, 2004, plaintiffs' counsel advised the Deputy Commissioner that decedent in this case had died on or about September 15, 2004. Accordingly, plaintiffs have submitted the following documents, which are hereby entered into the record as follows:

i. Plaintiffs' Exhibit #2: Death Certificate

ii. Plaintiffs' Exhibit #3: Form 42, Application for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, approved by the undersigned on November 3, 2004.

c. Defendants' Exhibit #1: Medical records received by the parties subsequent to the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, which are hereby entered into the record.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Decedent Terry Johnson was born on April 20, 1969, and had completed the ninth grade. On February 27, 2003, decedent was working for defendant-employer when he stepped off a conveyor belt onto an air hose and slipped, injuring his back. As a result of his injury by accident, decedent felt severe pain in his lower back radiating into his leg. Decedent had suffered a back injury requiring surgery in 1990; however, while he experienced mild chronic back pain, decedent had recovered sufficiently from the 1990 surgery to return to heavy construction work and manual labor.

2. On February 28, 2003, decedent presented to Dr. Alex Sanchez of CaroMont Occupational Medicine, who diagnosed decedent with an acute lumbar sacro strain and spasm. Although Dr. Sanchez did not perform any diagnostic tests such as x-rays, CT scan or MRI, he noted that there was no evidence of radiculopathy or herniated disc despite decedent's complaints of pain radiating down his leg. Dr. Sanchez prescribed pain medication and physical therapy and placed decedent on light duty with restrictions of no lifting over 15 pounds, no frequent bending or stooping, and no operating heavy equipment. He also required that decedent have alternate sitting and standing in his job.

3. Decedent returned to work at light duty and continued working full time making light fixtures. Decedent testified that he was able to do the job until his condition worsened on March 11, 2003.

4. Decedent was again seen by Dr. Sanchez on March 7, 2003, and decedent advised Dr. Sanchez that in order to stand his pain while at work it had been necessary for him to take two of the pain medication pills at a time. Decedent also advised Dr. Sanchez that the company did not follow Dr. Sanchez's limitations for light duty and that his back pain had become exacerbated. Dr. Sanchez noted that the decedent was complaining of pain in the left leg, however, his diagnoses of acute lumbo sacro strain remained unchanged. Dr. Sanchez gave the decedent a prescription for Tylox #30 to be taken one every six hours. There would be no refills. Decedent was a given a prescription for physical therapy to start at three times a week for two weeks with ultrasound, electrical stimulation and other modalities. Decedent was scheduled to follow up with Dr. Sanchez in three weeks.

5. On the morning of March 11, 2003, decedent awoke in extreme pain and had difficulty putting on his shoes. Decedent called the defendant-employer and advised that he would not be able to come into work due to his pain but that he was scheduled to be at Optima Therapies for physical therapy at 11:00 a.m. and that if it decreased his pain he would come into work thereafter. He was ordered by the defendant-employer to come in after physical therapy no matter what his condition was. At Optima Therapies, the decedent complained that his symptoms were getting worse and that he had intermittent left lower extremity pain down to the mid gastroc area with intermittent tingling down the leg into the plantar aspect of the foot. The physical therapist noted significant lumbar paraspinal muscle tightness bilaterally. The decedent was advised by the physical therapist to perform prone lying extensions every 1 to 2 hours throughout the day for 3 or 5 minutes as he could tolerate it with two pillows under the chest if possible. He was to avoid sitting.

6. The decedent completed his March 11, 2003, physical therapy session and went to his employer as directed and advised the human relations manager, Karen Padgett, that he was in too much pain to perform any work. Ms. Padgett became angry and directed him to drive to Dr. Sanchez's office in another town immediately for an opinion as to whether he could work or not. Decedent drove to Dr. Sanchez's office and was seen and examined by Dr. Sanchez. Once again, the physical examination indicated signs of radiculopathy which were ignored by Dr. Sanchez. Dr. Sanchez, however, noted in his record two ex parte conversations on that date with defendant-employers' human resource manager regarding whether the decedent could perform the job offered decedent by defendant. Dr. Sanchez ordered the decedent to return to work, but increased the prescription for Diazepan to 10 mg to be taken one hour before bedtime.

7. On March 11, 2003, after the prescription for Diazepan was written by Dr. Sanchez to the decedent, Dr.

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

Related

Seagraves v. Austin Co. of Greensboro
472 S.E.2d 397 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Chavis v. Thetford Property Management, Inc.
573 S.E.2d 920 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnson v. Cochrane Furniture, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-cochrane-furniture-ncworkcompcom-2005.