Lail v. Accuforce Staffing Services

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedDecember 17, 2008
DocketI.C. NO. 630075.
StatusPublished

This text of Lail v. Accuforce Staffing Services (Lail v. Accuforce Staffing Services) 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
Lail v. Accuforce Staffing Services, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Harris and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence or rehear the parties or their representatives. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms with modifications, the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
ISSUES
The issues are:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to temporary total disability compensation at any time since August 16, 2006? *Page 2

2. Whether plaintiff's left arm/shoulder and/or reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) are compensable?

3. Whether Dr. Jerry Barron should be designated as plaintiff's treating physician?

4. Whether defendants should be sanctioned for their conduct in this claim, including but not limited to payment of attorney's fees under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1?

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

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employee-employer relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

3. The carrier liable on the risk is correctly named above.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $340.00 per week.

5. Plaintiff sustained an injury on or about April 11, 2006.

6. The injury arose out of and in the course of employment and is compensable.

***********
EXHIBITS
The following documents are received and admitted for the purposes specified:

1. Executed Pre-Trial Agreement.

2. Industrial Commission Forms and Orders.

3. Mediation Agreement dated 3/28/07.

*Page 3

4. Fax to adjuster requesting resumption of TTD compensation dated June 6, 2006.

5. Plaintiff's Motion Regarding Second Opinion dated September 12, 2006 and defendants' response.

6. Plaintiff's partial job search records.
7. Plaintiff's discovery responses.
8. Plaintiff's medical records.
9. Industrial Commission Nurse Reports.

10. Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Dr. Barron as Treating Physician dated June 15, 2007.

The following document was accepted into evidence as a plaintiff's exhibit:

1. Plaintiff's partial job search records.

The following document was accepted into evidence as defendants' exhibit:

2. Accident reports.

Transcripts of the depositions of the following were also received post-hearing:

• Dr. Timothy H. Kirkland (with Exhibits 1 2).

• Dr. Jerry L. Barron (with Exhibit 1).

***********
EVIDENTIARY RULINGS
The objections raised by counsel at the depositions taken in this matter are ruled upon in accordance with the law and the Opinion and Award.

*********** *Page 4
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record and the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission enters the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is 38 years old and completed the eighth grade. As of the date of the hearing, she was working on completing her GED. Her work history consisted almost entirely of knitting and hosiery factory work, and some cleaning work.

2. On April 11, 2006, plaintiff was employed with defendant-employer, a temporary worker service, and was working a manufacturing job at Jobst Carolina plant. Plaintiff was operating a heat transfer iron and accidentally depressed the foot pedal while her left hand was in the machine. The iron, heated to 350 degrees Fahrenheit, came down on her left hand, trapping it and burning it, and plaintiff instinctively and forcefully reacted, jerking her left hand out of the machine.

3. Although defendants contend that plaintiff's failure to report that she jerked her arm out of the machine renders her testimony to that effect less than credible, the Full Commission finds that it is foreseeable that anyone whose hand is being burned will react by removing his or her hand from the heat source immediately and forcefully. Further, the burns themselves were the immediate concern and plaintiff reported them immediately.

4. Plaintiff sustained second degree burns to her left hand and fingers, which were accepted as compensable and treated. The burns themselves have healed with some scarring, but are not in themselves currently at issue in this matter.

5. Prior to April 11, 2006, plaintiff had been diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome, but she had no left shoulder or RSD-type problems. *Page 5

6. Defendants sent plaintiff to Burke Occupational Health, where she was treated for her burns by William C. Vaassen, PA-C. By May 23, 2006, Mr. Vaassen's office note indicated that plaintiff was having "pain all the way up to her elbow." The June 2, 2006 note shows that plaintiff was having pain "in arm to shoulder."

7. Plaintiff developed left arm and shoulder pain within a week following the April 11, 2006 accident.

8. Defendant-carrier paid temporary total disability compensation to plaintiff until about May 30, 2006, when it unilaterally stopped TTD without filing a Form 24, Form 28 or Form 28T.

9. Defendant-carrier authorized plaintiff to have a one-time visit on August 18, 2006 for an evaluation of her left hand with Dr. Kirkland, a hand specialist. Being authorized by defendant-carrier to treat only the hand, Dr. Kirkland did not undertake a detailed examination of plaintiff's left shoulder. He did not order any radiographic tests of the shoulder, and he did not know that Mr. Vaasen had noted arm and shoulder problems soon after the accident.

10. Upon the conclusion of his August 18, 2006 examination, Dr. Kirkland did not know what was causing plaintiff's pain, and he recommended that she seek another medical opinion.

11. As Dr. Kirkland testified, if he had found a rotator cuff tear in plaintiff's left shoulder on August 18, 2006, he probably would have imposed work restrictions.

12. The parties mediated this claim on March 28, 2007. The parties agreed that defendants would make a lump sum payment to plaintiff "in compromise of any *Page 6 benefits, penalties, attorney's fees and/or interest plaintiff contends are due her through August 16, 2006." Defendants also agreed to authorize an evaluation for plaintiff with Dr. Barron.

13. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Barron, an orthopaedic surgeon specializing in shoulder and knee conditions on April 23, 2007. Dr.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(19)
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-86.2
North Carolina § 97-86.2
§ 97-88
North Carolina § 97-88
§ 97-88.1
North Carolina § 97-88.1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lail v. Accuforce Staffing Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lail-v-accuforce-staffing-services-ncworkcompcom-2008.