King v. Beverly Enterprises

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 23, 2010
DocketI.C. NO. 564710.
StatusPublished

This text of King v. Beverly Enterprises (King v. Beverly Enterprises) 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
King v. Beverly Enterprises, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and argument of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good ground to receive further evidence or rehear the parties or their representatives. Following its review, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner, with minor modifications.

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties as:

STIPULATIONS
1. On August 19, 2005, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act and the Plaintiff-Employee was an employee of Defendant-Employer. *Page 2

2. Plaintiff alleges that on August 19, 2005, she sustained injury to her left knee and right hip by accident, arising out of and in the course of her employment.

3. Plaintiff contends that she reported her injury to her employer both shortly after the accident and the Monday after the accident.

4. Defendants denied the Plaintiff-Employee's claim.

5. The average weekly wage of Plaintiff-Employee is contested.

6. Plaintiff-Employee worked reduced hours due to her knee condition starting on September 20, 2005. She was taken completely out of work due to knee surgery on November 1, 2005. September 20, 2005 to November 1, 2005 equals six weeks.

7. Plaintiff-Employee underwent arthroscopic knee surgery by Dr. Dockery on November 10, 2005. She was taken completely out of work from November 1, 2005 to November 28, 2005, which equals three weeks. Plaintiff returned to work for Defendant-Employer on November 29, 2005.

8. Plaintiff-Employee left employment with Defendant-Employer on January 3, 2006. Plaintiff-Employee has returned to new employment with a different employer, making as much as she did before the injury.

***********
Based upon the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is 67 years old. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant-Employer on April 11, 2005, as an LPN.

2. On August 19, 2005, Plaintiff was working for Defendant-Employer. She was giving out medications to patients with assistance from a CNA. The phone starting ringing at the *Page 3 Nurse's Station, so she locked her medication cart and ran to grab the phone. Plaintiff had to sit down to write some orders from a doctor for a patient requiring a new/different medication, so she pulled a chair around and went to sit down, but the chair, which had coasters, slipped away from her. Plaintiff twisted her left knee and when it gave away, she fell to the floor on her right hip.

3. Plaintiff's co-worker Dawn Wiley was working around the corner at the time of the incident. She heard a loud noise and boom. When Ms. Wiley came around the corner, she saw Plaintiff sitting on the floor. Plaintiff told Ms. Wiley that the chair had thrown her. Ms. Wiley helped Plaintiff off of the floor, and Plaintiff told Ms. Wiley that she was fine. Ms. Wiley encouraged the Plaintiff on several occasions to be certain that she reported the incident.

4. Prior to this incident, Plaintiff had reported a "little bit" of aching in her knees to Ms. Wiley; however, Ms. Wiley agreed that the Plaintiff had not missed any significant time from work and was able to perform her job duties before her fall.

5. After the fall, Plaintiff told Tammy in Defendant-Employer's administration that she had fallen out of the chair, but hoped that she would be fine. Plaintiff did not fill out an incident report. On the Monday after her fall, Plaintiff reported her fall to Denise Black, who was also Defendant-Employer's administration. No incident report was completed at that time either.

6. Plaintiff continued to work for Defendant-Employer, but began to have increasing pain and swelling in her left knee. She sought treatment at Carolinas Medical Center-University Emergency Department on September 17, 2005. Plaintiff reported an injury to her left knee, but the records did not reflect where the injury occurred. The records noted: "Chronic knee DJD. Overuse and tripped-ankle sprain-better. Using knee brace x 5 d[ays]." The attending physician indicated that Plaintiff had left knee swelling and tenderness on exam. Plaintiff was given a knee *Page 4 immobilizer and referred to Dr. Michael Dockery, an orthopedic surgeon at OrthoCarolina for follow-up treatment.

7. Plaintiff advised Defendant-Employer at her next shift that she had sought treatment at the emergency room for her condition. She completed an incident report on September 19, 2005, 31 days after her injury. Plaintiff was issued a warning on the grounds that she failed to fill out an incident report about her injury.

8. Plaintiff was first evaluated by Dr. Dockery on September 20, 2005. He noted a history of an injury on August 19, 2005, in which Plaintiff tried to sit down on a chair that slid and she twisted her knee and fell to the floor. Dr. Dockery noted that she did not report it as workers' compensation at that time. Dr. Dockery ordered an MRI and restricted Plaintiff to sit-down work only.

9. Dr. Dockery interpreted the MRI to show that Plaintiff had a left medial meniscus tear, which corresponded to her complaints of pain and the results of her clinical examination. On November 10, 2005, Dr. Dockery performed arthroscopic surgery on Plaintiff's left knee to remove the torn medial meniscus.

10. Dr. Dockery testified, and the Full Commission finds, that the meniscus tear was caused by the fall at work and that the tear exacerbated a pre-existing condition of chondromalacia or a wearing of the cartilage which covers the ends of the bone.

11. Dr. Dockery testified that it was not unusual for individuals to delay obtaining medical treatment for a torn meniscus to see if the knee will heal on its own. The length of delay will depend upon how "tough" the person is. Further, he testified that it was unlikely that there was any further damage to the knee due to the time period between the original injury and the date Plaintiff was evaluated by him. *Page 5

12. Defendants presented no evidence to dispute that Plaintiff fell from the chair and twisted her knee on August 19, 2005. Testimony from Ms. Wiley showed that she spoke with the adjuster for Defendant-Carrier and confirmed that Plaintiff did have a fall from her chair.

13. Defendants presented no evidence to establish that Plaintiff did not report her injury as she testified. Defendants did not establish prejudice by any delay in receiving a written report.

14. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with Defendant-Employer on August 19, 2005, resulting in a meniscus tear of her left knee and an aggravation of pre-existing chondromalacia, for which medical treatment is necessary to effect a cure, provide relief and/or lessen her period of disability.

15. As a result of her injury by accident of August 19, 2005, and the resulting left knee injury, Plaintiff suffered a total loss of earning for three weeks, from November 1, 2005 to November 28, 2005.

16.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(5)
§ 97-22
North Carolina § 97-22
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-30
North Carolina § 97-30
§ 97-88
North Carolina § 97-88
§ 97-88.1
North Carolina § 97-88.1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
King v. Beverly Enterprises, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-beverly-enterprises-ncworkcompcom-2010.