Kale v. mohasco/trend Line Furniture

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedDecember 20, 1995
DocketI.C. No. 814190
StatusPublished

This text of Kale v. mohasco/trend Line Furniture (Kale v. mohasco/trend Line 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
Kale v. mohasco/trend Line Furniture, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1995).

Opinion

Upon review of all of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the award, the Full Commission AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

The Full Commission finds as facts and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at hearing before the deputy commissioner as

STIPULATIONS

1. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, the defendant-employer regularly employing three or more employees.

2. The employer/employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer on February 26, 1988.

3. The Hartford Accident Indemnity Company was the compensation carrier on the risk on February 26, 1988.

4. A North Carolina Industrial Commission Form 21 Agreement approved by the Commission on May 25, 1988, constitutes an award of record and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

5. The Opinion and Award previously entered herein by Deputy Commissioner Tamara R. Warstler (Nance) on 3 February 1989, when the plaintiff was unrepresented, also constitutes an award of record and is incorporated herein by reference.

6. The plaintiff was hired by the defendant-employer on 19 November 1973. He was employed by the defendant-employer at different times as a maintenance helper, utility worker and subassembler. His general duties included mowing the grass and cleaning up trash.

7. The plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant-employer on 26 February 1988 resulting in injuries to his neck, right arm and lower back.

8. The plaintiff returned to work with the defendant-employer following the stipulated accident on 28 March 1988.

9. Following the accident, the plaintiff was employed with the defendant-employer until 9 October 1989.

10. Trend Line Furniture Company was sold to Cochrane Furniture Company on 14 October 1989 and the plaintiff was officially terminated by Cochrane on 14 October 1989.

11. The plaintiff's average weekly wage was $294.28, which yields a compensation rate of $196.20.

12. Plaintiff, Ronald W. Kale, received unemployment benefits through the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina from approximately October 21, 1989 to approximately April 21, 1990. Said benefits were in the amount of $156.00 per week.

13. During the time that he received said benefits, Ronald W. Kale certified to the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina that he was willing and believed he was able to work at gainful employment.

* * * * * * * *

Based upon all the competent, credible evidence of record, the Full Commission adopts the findings of fact of the deputy commissioner and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Ronald Kale was born 01 March 1947 and was forty-six years of age at the time of the hearing. He is currently forty-seven years of age. He has been married for 29 years and is the father of four children. Following the birth of their first child, his wife never worked outside the home until after the stipulated injury by accident.

2. Mr. Kale completed the seventh grade and quit school after the eighth grade when he turned 16. He is functionally illiterate, having scored below the third grade level on reading recognition ability and arithmetic on the Wide-Range Achievement Test administered by Randy Adams. He has been trying to qualify for a G.E.D. since 1988. He has a learning disability that preexisted the stipulated injury by accident. Mr. Kale's I.Q. scores fall in the mentally retarded range for verbal score; the performance score is in the borderline range and the full scale I.Q is in the low portion of the borderline range.

3. The plaintiff's work experience consists of upholstery trimming, driving a truck, grounds maintenance, driving a forklift, staining furniture, work as a cotton mill laborer, employment as a laborer, employment as a handyman, and work on the side as an automobile mechanic.

4. Prior to the stipulated accident, Mr. Kale received special recognition from the President of Trend Line Furniture (the defendant-employer for fifteen years of meritorious service to the company. Moreover, in the year immediately prior to his accident, he was recognized by the defendant-employer for having perfect work attendance.

5. On 26 February 1988, the plaintiff sustained an injury by accident to his neck, right shoulder, right arm and lower back which arose out of and in the course of the plaintiff's employment with the defendant-employer when a dump truck the plaintiff was driving for his employer collided with a car. In the course of this collision, the dump truck turned over. Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to the emergency room for treatment. He was treated in the emergency room and released to go home on the date of the accident with precautions for dealing with head injury.

6. Ignorant of the need to obtain authorization from his employer, plaintiff sought treatment for his injuries from a chiropractor, Robert Chapin, beginning 29 February 1988. Mr. Kale complained to Dr. Chapin of pain in the neck and stiffness with head pain and headaches, hearing difficulty, right shoulder pain with weakness in the right arm, and chest pain with rib pain that hurt when he took a deep breath. Mr. Kale's complaints to Dr. Chapin also included low back pain. Mr. Kale had never seen Dr. Chapin before being injured in the stipulated accident.

7. Dr. Chapin saw Mr. Kale through 3 January 1989. When last seen by Dr. Chapin, Mr. Kale continued to have cervical and thoracic pain, with right shoulder and right hand pain, and headaches. His low back complaints never resolved.

8. Mr. Kale was also treated by Dr. Crumley, who referred Mr. Kale to Hickory Orthopaedic Center, P.A. Mr. Kale was treated by Dr. Baum at Hickory Orthopaedic Center beginning 3 March 1988. Mr. Kale related to Dr. Baum that he remembered getting hit, and going in the ambulance to the hospital. He was not sure whether he lost consciousness, but felt that he must have, because he could not remember the ride to the hospital.

9. On 3 March 1988, Dr. Baum examined the plaintiff and diagnosed a cervical and right trapezial strain and lumbar sprain.

10. On 17 March 1988, due to the plaintiff's continued problems, Dr. Baum ordered an MRI scan of the cervical spine. The MRI did not detect any problem other than degenerative changes. Dr. Baum released Mr. Kale to return to work on 28 March 1988.

11. In obedience to his doctor's instructions and despite continuing pain, Mr. Kale returned to work on or about 28 March 1988. He returned to his duties driving the trash truck and working in maintenance.

12. Prior to the accident, Mr. Kale's main duties were to drive the trash truck, load trash boxes and mow grass. Once he returned to work a little over one month after the accident, Mr. Kale worked for defendant-employer until 9 October 1989. Mr. Kale's duties after the accident were much the same as before the accident, although after the accident he did not maintain company vehicles. Also, unlike the year prior to the accident when his attendance was perfect, he missed work due to numerous doctor's appointments.

13. In the initial period after returning to work following the accident, there were a few days when Mr. Kale came in late and said he had particular difficulty getting up in the morning. Generally, he thereafter was on time although he continued to have significant physical problems and saw Dr. Chapin alone 31 times between 9 May 1988 and 3 February 1989.

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

Related

Starr v. Charlotte Paper Company
175 S.E.2d 342 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1970)
Kennedy v. Duke University Medical Center
398 S.E.2d 677 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1990)
Fayne v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.
282 S.E.2d 539 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1981)
Hyler v. GTE Products Co.
425 S.E.2d 698 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1993)
Little v. Penn Ventilator Co.
345 S.E.2d 204 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Whitley v. Columbia Lumber Mfg. Co.
348 S.E.2d 336 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.
290 S.E.2d 682 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)
Hill v. Hanes Corp.
353 S.E.2d 392 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)
Watson v. Winston-Salem Transit Authority
374 S.E.2d 483 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kale v. mohasco/trend Line Furniture, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kale-v-mohascotrend-line-furniture-ncworkcompcom-1995.