Locke v. Contigroup Companies, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 11, 2008
DocketI.C. NO. 613787.
StatusPublished

This text of Locke v. Contigroup Companies, Inc. (Locke v. Contigroup Companies, 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
Locke v. Contigroup Companies, 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 Gillen and the briefs and oral argument before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Gillen with minor modifications.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as: *Page 2

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

2. All parties have been correctly designated and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

3. The appointment of any party who appears in a representative capacity is valid and no additional proof of appointment or capacity is required.

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

5. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act.

6. ACE USA, Inc. is the workers' compensation carrier for employer Contigroup Companies, Inc.

7. Plaintiff's compensation rate is $446.67 subject to verification by a Form 22.

8. A Form 61 Denial of Workers' Compensation Claim was filed by defendants on 4 May 2006.

9. A Form 33 was filed by plaintiff on 5 May 2006.

10. Plaintiff was employed by Contigroup Companies, Inc. as a truck driver.

11. The following items were stipulated into evidence:

a. The Pre-Trial Agreement, marked as stipulated exhibit 1.

b. Industrial Commission Forms filed in this matter, collectively paginated 1-7 and marked as stipulated exhibit 2.

*Page 3

c. A collection of plaintiff's medical records, collectively paginated 1-37 and marked as stipulated exhibit 3.

d. A collection of documents including discovery and plaintiff's employment records, collectively paginated 1-37 and marked as stipulated exhibit 4.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon all of 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 40 years old. Before working for defendant-employer, plaintiff worked in Florida in orange and grapefruit groves. Plaintiff completed the 9th grade and has not attained a G.E.D.

2. Plaintiff began working for defendant-employer as an egg delivery truck driver in September 2004. As part of his job, plaintiff had to move very large wheeled egg "stands" from farmers' chicken houses onto a lift and into his truck, replacing these stands with empty stands from his truck. These stands held nearly 5,000 eggs, and, when full, could weigh up to 1,200 pounds. Plaintiff's truck held 15 stands, and plaintiff picked up over 30 stands per day on average. The egg stands were on wheels. However, these wheels worked with differing degrees of efficiency and the stands sometimes required extra force to move. The poor performance of the egg stands' wheels was known to defendant-employer.

3. On Saturday, January 28, 2006 plaintiff noticed pain in both shoulders while moving egg stands with wheels that were particularly difficult to manipulate. Plaintiff completed his shift that day but continued to have shoulder pain. Plaintiff reported this pain to his supervisors Monday morning. As time progressed, plaintiff could not lift or move his shoulders *Page 4 and had difficulty sleeping. Plaintiff saw the plant nurse and eventually sought medical care on March 15, 2006, when he was seen at Blue Ridge Orthopaedics. Plaintiff was first seen by Jason Ferris, P.A. The medical note for this visit, in the "Impression" section, reads "Bilateral right worse than left work-related impingement syndrome." Plaintiff's treatment continued at Blue Ridge under the supervision of Dr. William E. Refvem. Plaintiff received shots, but the shots did not relieve his pain.

4. Plaintiff's pain continued, radiating down both arms into his elbows and causing numbness in both hands. Defendant-employer gave plaintiff light-duty work. Plaintiff was given a delivery job that required driving only. Plaintiff was also given the task of cleaning machinery with a hose.

5. In May 2006 plaintiff was written out of work for one month. Although plaintiff received short-term disability benefits during this time, for economic reasons he was forced to move his family from Booneville to Mount Airy.

6. Plaintiff was first seen by Tri-County Orthopaedics on November 29, 2006. At this visit, plaintiff was diagnosed with chronic bilateral shoulder impingement syndrome by Dr. Courtenay S. Whitman. On January 16, 2007 Dr. Whitman performed a left shoulder arthroscopy with subacromial decompression CPT on plaintiff. Plaintiff has not worked since this surgery. After plaintiff's left shoulder failed to improve, Dr. Whitman performed a second surgery on plaintiff's left shoulder on or about June 15, 2007.

7. Plaintiff's wife and pastor testified that plaintiff was very active physically before January 28, 2006 and exhibited no shoulder problems. However, after that date, plaintiff's physical activity with his shoulders and arms was severely limited. *Page 5

8. Dr. Whitman testified by deposition that plaintiff's job as an egg delivery truck driver put him at a greater risk to contract chronic bilateral shoulder impingement syndrome than members of the general public not so employed. Dr. Whitman further testified that, assuming the veracity of the health history plaintiff related, plaintiff's job with defendant-employer was a significant causal factor in his development of chronic bilateral shoulder impingement syndrome.

9. Dr. Whitman also testified that he removed plaintiff from work after his January 16, 2007 surgery, that plaintiff could not work currently, and that plaintiff required surgery on his right shoulder.

10. Dr. Refvem testified that plaintiff's work for defendant-employer placed him at an increased risk as compared to the general public of contracting shoulder impingement syndrome. Dr. Refvem further testified that plaintiff's job was a significant causal factor to the development of the impingement syndrome.

11. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, the Full Commission finds that plaintiff's work for defendant-employer as an egg delivery truck driver placed him at increased risk of developing bilateral shoulder impingement syndrome as compared to the general public.

12. The Full Commission further finds that plaintiff's work for defendant-employer, as an egg delivery truck driver, was a significant factor in causing his bilateral shoulder impingement syndrome.

13. Given the credible medical and vocational evidence of record, and as a result of his compensable occupational disease, plaintiff has been unable to earn any wages in any employment from January 16, 2007, through the present and continuing.

14. The medical treatment provided thus far, by and under the direction of Drs.

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

Related

Harvey v. Raleigh Police Department
384 S.E.2d 549 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1989)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Holley v. Acts, Inc.
581 S.E.2d 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2003)
Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn
301 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
Booker v. Duke Medical Center
256 S.E.2d 189 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)
Fann v. Burlington Industries
296 S.E.2d 819 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Locke v. Contigroup Companies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/locke-v-contigroup-companies-inc-ncworkcompcom-2008.