Lindley v. Huffman Oil Co., Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 2, 2008
DocketI.C. NO. 359277.
StatusPublished

This text of Lindley v. Huffman Oil Co., Inc. (Lindley v. Huffman Oil Co., Inc.) 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
Lindley v. Huffman Oil Co., Inc., (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 Phillips and the briefs and oral argument before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence and, upon reconsideration, the Full Commission reverses the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. This case and the parties are subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. *Page 2

2. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission, and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.

3. An employment relationship existed between the named employee and the named employer on or about October 11, 2001.

4. The Hartford was the carrier liable on the risk for the injury occurring on or about October 11, 2001.

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $701.29.

6. Plaintiff-Employee sustained an injury by accident on or about October 11, 2001.

7. The injury by accident was an electrocution which arose out of and in the course of employment and is compensable.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The following documentary evidence was received as:

EXHIBITS
Stipulated Exhibit #1: Medical Records

Stipulated Exhibit #2: IC Forms

Stipulated Exhibit #3: Plaintiff's Personnel File

Depositions: Dr. Nitka, Dr. Schulhof

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was fifty years old. On October 11, 2001 he was employed by defendant, Huffman Oil Company, as a *Page 3 manager of a convenience store located in Archdale, North Carolina. At the time he was an 11 year employee of defendant Huffman Oil Company. His duties included the daily operations, ordering products, stocking, tracking inventory and hiring and firing personnel.

2. On October 11, 2001, plaintiff was cleaning the windows of the front of the store. He was standing on a metal ladder, holding the ladder with his left hand and cleaning with a wet rag in his right hand. The windows were framed in metal. As he wiped the wet rag across the top of a metal frame, it hit an exposed electrical wire shocking the plaintiff. The electrical shock jerked his body into a rigid state.

3. Plaintiff was seen at the High Point Regional Health System's emergency room on October 11, 2001. He was written out of work for two days and did not work again until Monday, October 15, 2001. Plaintiff returned to the emergency room on October 15, 2001. He complained of heaviness in his left arm for the preceding two to three days. He stated his whole left arm felt heavy and slightly numb. He was prescribed a six-day Prednisone Dos-Pak. He was placed on light-duty work through October 18th and was told to follow up with doctors at High Point Neurological Associates.

4. Plaintiff was next seen on October 29, 2001 by Dr. Elaine R. Feraru, a neurologist at High Point Neurological Associates. His chief complaints — "Left hand and arm pain, heavy feeling, pain comes and goes, but when the pain hits it's severe." Dr. Feraru's impression was "fairly significant electric shock in both arms." Plaintiff described the electrical shock to Dr. Feraru, describing left arm symptoms since the event.

5. Plaintiff was seen again by Dr. Feraru on December 4, 2001. He complained of left arm pain as follows: "Sometimes arm throbs; still some pain; tingling; some numbness." Dr. *Page 4 Feraru's impression was "left arm 10/11/01, still with some pain." She prescribed Neurontin and Ovidis.

6. Thereafter, over the coming eighteen months, January 15, 2002 through June 3, 2003, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Feraru twelve times, each time consistently complaining of left arm pain, variously described as follows: "throbs — weak — tingling — numbness — achy — increased pain with lifting — feels like it's getting worse — numb and tingling — no arm strength — hurts to even pick arm up — weak — shooting pain — shooting pain all through arm — loss of strength — throbbing/shooting — really weak — decreased sense."

7. Later in June, after the June 3, 2003 visit to Dr. Feraru, plaintiff's condition worsened, and he began to experience pain in his neck and shoulder and his left arm pain got worse. He had not suffered any new trauma.

8. On June 11, 2003, plaintiff called Dr. Feraru's office and asked for an increase in his Vicodin. The noted complaint was "severe pain."

9. On June 20, 2003, plaintiff visited Greensboro Orthopedic Center complaining of "severe pain in the left shoulder and neck, starting about two weeks prior, and numbness and tingling in the left arm." He was seen initially by Dr. Carter on June 20, 2003, who ordered an MRI and took plaintiff out of work for one week. Plaintiff returned again to Dr. Carter, who extended the out of work order until Monday, June 30, 2003. The MRI revealed a combination of central and right paracentral disc herniation at C4-5 and moderate sized left paracentral and foraminal disc herniation at C5-6.

10. Subsequently, plaintiff was referred to Dr. James R. Nitka, a board certified orthopaedic surgeon with an emphasis on spine surgery. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Nitka on July 2, 2003. *Page 5

11. On July 11, 2003, plaintiff visited Dr. Feraru and reported that Dr. Nitka had diagnosed ruptured discs and that he was going to have surgery. On that date, Dr. Feraru noted — "History electrical injury left arm may have injured neck at same time."

12. On July, 18, 2003, plaintiff underwent an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion at C4-C5 and C5-C6 with excision of herniated nucleus pulposus central and left-sided at C5-C6, central and right-sided at C4-C5, right iliac crest bone graft harvested through a separate incision. Dr. Nitka was the surgeon.

13. Over the two months following surgery, the arm pain that plaintiff had been experiencing for nearly 21 months went away. On October 20, 2003, plaintiff returned to Dr. Feraru and reported that his arm pain of nearly two years was "gone."

14. Plaintiff continued to follow up with Dr. Nitka, seeing Dr. Nitka on at least eight occasions with no complaints of left arm pain.

15. Dr. Nitka opined that it was his opinion that the disc herniations, prompting the fusions at C4-5 and C5-6, were more likely than not related to and secondary to the electrical shock sustained by the plaintiff and that the increased symptoms occurring in June 2003 were a worsening of plaintiff's previous condition related to the electrical shock. Dr.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lindley v. Huffman Oil Co., Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindley-v-huffman-oil-co-inc-ncworkcompcom-2008.