Lingerfelt v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedApril 9, 1997
DocketI.C. No. 266168
StatusPublished

This text of Lingerfelt v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings (Lingerfelt v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings) 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
Lingerfelt v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1997).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Mary Moore Hoag. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award.

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

STIPULATIONS

1. The parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer at all relevant times.

3. Defendant Drexel Heritage Furnishings was self-insured with Associated Risk Services Inc. as the adjusting agent.

4. Plaintiff was out of work for the periods of September 10, 1992 to December 6, 1992 and from December 29, 1992 until the present time.

5. Neither party stipulated to the accuracy of the Form 22 submitted. Both parties stipulated that $100.00 should be credited to the amount on the Form 22 as being a part of plaintiff's salary.

6. The medical records of Dr. Deaton were stipulated to by agreement of counsel on February 14, 1994.

7. The attendance records of plaintiff from 1991 and 1992 were also stipulated to.

8. The issues for resolution are as follows:

a. Did plaintiff develop an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment with Drexel Heritage Furnishings?

b. If so, to what amount is plaintiff entitled for temporary total disability benefits?

c. If plaintiff's claim is compensable, is defendant entitled to a credit under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-42 for payments received by plaintiff pursuant to a group disability policy?

* * * * * * * * * * *

The Full Commission adopts the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the time of the onset of his alleged occupational disease, plaintiff was a forty-six year old male, employed by defendant Drexel Heritage Furnishings as a band saw operator. He had completed the seventh grade.

2. Before being employed by Drexel, plaintiff was a band saw operator and a rip saw operator at Emerson Leather from 1986 to 1989. From 1983 to 1986, he was employed at P G Chair in Longview as a Simco boring machine operator. From 1981 to 1983, plaintiff worked at Lacowana Leather in Conover tailing a paint machine. From 1969 to 1981 he was a router, sander and boring machine operator at Hickory Furniture. Plaintiff never had any problems with his hands prior to his work at Drexel.

3. At Drexel, plaintiff contributed $1.40 per week, representing 35% of a total premium for a short term health disability plan. The plan paid disability insurance benefits for plaintiff from September 6, 1992 through March 24, 1993 at a gross amount of $135.00 per week from which taxes were deducted.

4. At Drexel, plaintiff was a "rough" band saw operator, a saw which had considerable vibration. His duty was to cut posts for table and chair legs in addition to cutting cap rails, drawer bottoms and corner blocks. He did not engage in work on side panels or do any other type of finishing work. Plaintiff spent from 70% to 75% of his time cutting out posts from which the legs for chairs, dressers, chests and night stands were fabricated in processes further down the production line. When cutting out posts, plaintiff made from four to six cuts on each post. In an eight hour day, he would cut between 300 to 350 posts and in a ten hour day he would cut approximately 375 posts; thus, making from 1,200 to 2,100 cuts per day.

5. A videotape depicting three workers and prepared by the defendants was introduced as evidence. One of the workers depicted therein is Albert Fletcher; the second, is a Mr. Ault and the third is plaintiff. Mr. Fletcher makes side panels in the first segment, involving fine cutting and stacking. Mr. Ault, in the second segment, cuts and off-loads cap rails and marking out pieces. In the third segment, shorter than one minute in duration, plaintiff cuts posts using a new carbide tipped blade, not his usual equipment.

6. At the hearing, plaintiff demonstrated his job. He began with a square block of wood. He made cuts on the block with swinging motions. For cutting, plaintiff let the block lie flat on the band saw table. He held the flat part of the post down against the table by use of his fingers pressing on the side. Plaintiff used his hands, wrists, elbows and shoulders in guiding a piece of wood through each of the motions, maintaining pressure on the wood at all times. Cutting the block of wood exactly and precisely square, required placing pressure on the wood by the left hand. If the pressure is relaxed, the saw blade may jerk the wood down on the table and cause unsquare cuts. Plaintiff used his right hand as a guide. He cut some posts bigger and some posts smaller than the ones indicated on the video. The piece of wood utilized by plaintiff at the hearing was approximately four feet long and two inches square and was not a piece of Drexel stock. The cuts in the wood were made prior to the hearing and were held together by tape. Plaintiff placed the wood on the Deputy Commissioner's desk as he demonstrated how the wood was pushed through the band saw.

7. Plaintiff always worked with the same saw which had a bad vibration. Plaintiff's fellow employee, Carl Peterson noticed the fact that plaintiff's band saw had a good deal of vibration. Mr. Peterson observed wood falling off plaintiff's machine due to those vibrations.

8. Plaintiff experienced problems with his hands and arms in March 1992. He consulted Dr. Brezicki who gave him arm splints. Plaintiff had been Dr. Brezicki's patient since early 1989. No notations regarding neurological or musculoskeletal problems with the upper extremities are present in medical histories prepared by Dr. Brezicki before March 22, 1992.

9. Dr. Brezicki has been a medical consultant to Lexington Furniture Company as well as Autumn House Furniture Company, and has toured furniture plants and viewed band saw operation jobs. Prior to being deposed, Dr. Brezicki also viewed the video prepared by defendants, including the segment where plaintiff illustrated his work.

10. After plaintiff's March 27, 1992 visit, Dr. Brezicki diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome as well as left medial epicondylitis of plaintiff's left elbow. Besides prescribing splints, Dr. Brezicki injected plaintiff's left elbow and prescribed Vicodin for pain. Plaintiff reported numbness and weakness in his left arm on April 24, 1992. The doctor prescribed anti-inflammatory medication at that time.

11. On August 14, 1992, plaintiff presented to Dr. Brezicki with additional symptoms of pain and numbness in his wrist and fingers. He had numbness over the median nerve distributions in both hands, and also numbness over the left finger. Dr. Brezicki recommended nerve conduction studies. The nerve conduction studies revealed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, more pronounced on the right side and left tardy ulnar nerve palsy.

12. On August 25, 1992, Dr. Brezicki wrote a letter to the Drexel Heritage Furnishings personnel director, advising that plaintiff had symptoms consistent with work related bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

13. Plaintiff went to Nurse Baker, the plant nurse, after being notified of his carpal tunnel problem by Dr. Brezicki subsequent to his August 14, 1992 visit.

14. Dr. Brezicki referred plaintiff to Dr. Deaton, a surgeon who also diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome after reviewing plaintiff's nerve conduction studies. Dr.

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

Related

Foster v. Western-Electric Co.
357 S.E.2d 670 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)
Booker v. Duke Medical Center
256 S.E.2d 189 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lingerfelt v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lingerfelt-v-drexel-heritage-furnishings-ncworkcompcom-1997.