Kimbrough v. Mikes' Transmission Svc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 21, 2003
DocketI.C. NOS. 179122, 179548, 179722
StatusPublished

This text of Kimbrough v. Mikes' Transmission Svc. (Kimbrough v. Mikes' Transmission Svc.) 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
Kimbrough v. Mikes' Transmission Svc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Stephenson. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence; therefore, the Full Commission MODIFIES and AFFIRMS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties in a Pre-Trial Agreement and at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission and are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employment relationship existed between the plaintiff-employee and defendant-employer on November 22, 2000 and September 4, 2001.

3. On November 22, 2000 and September 4, 2001 Casualty Reciprocal Exchange/James C. Greene Co., was the carrier at risk.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage on November 22, 2000 was $627.13 and $602.91 per week on September 4, 2001.

5. Plaintiff's medicals concerning this claim are admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit # 2. These include the following providers:

a. Chiropractic Partners;

b. Triangle Orthopaedics;

c. Dr. William V. Lorimer;

d. Letter from Beth Bennett.

6. Defendant's Answers' to Plaintiff's Interrogatories are admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #3.

7. Plaintiff's Answers' to Defendant's Interrogatories are admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit # 4.

8. The following Industrial Forms are admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit # 5:18, 19, 22, 61, 33 33R.

9. The issues to be determined by the Full Commission are whether the plaintiff sustained a compensable injury, and if so, what, if any, benefits is he entitled.

10. The depositions of Gary Dietz and Dr. Raphael Orenstein are a part of the evidentiary record in this case.

***********
Based on the evidence of record and the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner, the Full Commission finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On November 22, 2000 plaintiff was twenty-eight (28) years old and employed as a mechanic with defendant-employer. Plaintiff's duties consisted of removing and replacing and rebuilding vehicle transmissions. Plaintiff began work with defendant-employer in early 1998.

2. Plaintiff mainly performed "RR" work when he first started working for defendant-employer. This involved removing transmissions weighing approximately 150 to 250 pounds, and repairing them. Although plaintiff could use a jack, the position still entailed heavy lifting.

3. In mid-1999 to 2000, plaintiff began to perform less "RR" work and concentrated on rebuilding transmissions. Those duties required less heavy lifting but were more highly skilled.

4. Prior to November 20, 2000 plaintiff had experienced occasional back pain. Plaintiff had taken over the counter medications which relieved this pain and did not interfere with his work.

5. On November 22, 2000, plaintiff was bent over sliding a transmission across the floor while at work when he suddenly felt a pop in his back. Plaintiff finished working and on the way home that day he began to experience severe, jabbing pain in his lower back with spasms.

6. The next day was Thanksgiving and plaintiff went to the home of Martin Terry, owner of defendant-employer, to pick up a turkey. While there plaintiff mentioned to a co-worker, Barry Perry, that he was experiencing severe low back pain but did not know the source.

7. Plaintiff continued to feel severe back pain during Thanksgiving vacation. By November 27, 2000 plaintiff's symptoms had not improved so he called his family physician, Dr. Lorimer, requesting a referral to a back specialist. Dr. Lorimer prescribed ibuprofen and arranged for plaintiff to go to Triangle Orthopaedic Associates in Durham.

8. Plaintiff did not immediately report his November 22, 2000 injury to his supervisor, Martin Terry, due to his fear of retaliation for pursuing a workers' compensation claim. Plaintiff's fear of retaliation was based on a previous statement of Mr. Terry wherein he referred to another employee in a manner that plaintiff had interpreted to mean that Mr. Terry did not like employees to file workers compensation claims. Plaintiff also thought his back symptoms would quickly resolve.

9. On December 4, 2000, plaintiff sought treatment from Debra Holmes, Physician's Assistant for Dr. Kyle Black, Jr. of Triangle Orthopaedics. Plaintiff informed Ms. Holmes he did a lot of heavy lifting in his job with defendant-employer, but could recall no specific incident. Plaintiff was diagnosed with low back pain with referred pain to the right lower extremity. Ms. Holmes prescribed Skelexin, Vicodin, a Medrol dose pack and restricted plaintiff to not lift over twenty (20) pounds. Plaintiff returned to work after Thanksgiving.

10. On December 11, 2000 plaintiff began receiving physical therapy. Plaintiff was given a thirty (30) pound lifting restriction and continued taking Ibuprofen and Vicodin.

11. Plaintiff began treatment with Dr. Raphael Orenstein, a physiatrist with Triangle Orthopaedic Association, on January 12, 2001. Plaintiff's pain was sharp, stabbing, aching throbbing, pulling and piercing and went down the right leg to the heel. Plaintiff also experienced numbness and weakness in the right leg.

12. On January 25, 2001 and May 3, 2001 plaintiff underwent two epidural injections performed by Dr. Orenstein. The first injection provided some temporary relief but the second one seemed to increase his pain.

13. Plaintiff underwent a second round of physical therapy beginning February 8, 2001. An April 16, 2001 MRI of the lumbar spine revealed mild changes at L5-S1, with a minimal degree of bulging and a very mild scoliotic curvature to the left.

14. Dr. Orenstein referred plaintiff to Dr. Krasnov, a chiropractor. Plaintiff completed this course of treatment on August 23, 2001. Plaintiff did not inform Dr. Krasnov he had been injured at work because plaintiff still thought the back pain would resolve.

15. Plaintiff has continued to experience severe back pain since November 22, 2000. Mr. Terry and plaintiff's co-workers were aware of plaintiff's back pain and lifting limitations. Plaintiff occasionally missed work for physician and physical therapy appointments. During those times, Mr. Terry paid plaintiff for a regular work-week and did not deduct time plaintiff missed.

16. On July 17, 2001, plaintiff purchased a back brace on defendant-employer's account with Mr. Terry's consent. Plaintiff wore the back brace while at work.

17. On September 4, 2001, plaintiff was replacing a subframe, or cradle, in a Ford Taurus and was lining the subframe up under the car at head level, when he felt a pop in his back. The subframe weighed between fifty (50) and seventy-five (75) pounds. At the same time he felt the pop, plaintiff also felt severe pain shooting down both of his legs. Plaintiff had to sit down a moment to get his composure back.

18. Plaintiff continued to work the rest of the day on September 4, 2001, although he was experiencing a lot of pain. At this time, plaintiff informed Mr. Terry that his back hurt. Plaintiff went home after work, laid down and rested the rest of the evening.

19. On September 5, 2001 plaintiff went back to work but only worked half the day because of the back pain. Plaintiff saw 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)
§ 97-22
North Carolina § 97-22
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kimbrough v. Mikes' Transmission Svc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimbrough-v-mikes-transmission-svc-ncworkcompcom-2003.