Lynch v. Abf Freight Sys.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 22, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 808118, I.C. NO. 971479
StatusPublished

This text of Lynch v. Abf Freight Sys. (Lynch v. Abf Freight Sys.) 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
Lynch v. Abf Freight Sys., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Jones and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. Upon reconsideration of the evidence, the undersigned reach the same facts and conclusions as those reached by the Deputy Commissioner with some modifications. Therefore, the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Jones is hereby MODIFIED and AFFIRMED.

Accordingly, the Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the Deputy Commissioner hearing and in a Pre-Trial Agreement as:

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

2. At all relevant times, an employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

3. Defendant is a duly self-insured.

4. Plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer on June 17, 1999.

5. Defendant accepted this claim and continues to pay temporary total disability benefits at the maximum compensation rate for 1999 of $560.00 per week. Defendant has also paid medical expenses arising out of plaintiff's compensable injury by accident.

6. Plaintiff's medical records were stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 1.

7. Industrial Commission forms and filings relating to this case were stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 2.

8. The issues before the Commission are: (i) whether plaintiff is permanently and totally disabled; (ii) whether plaintiff should be compelled to cooperate with vocational rehabilitation; and (iii) whether Dr. Thomas Rennard should be authorized as plaintiff's treating physician.

***********
Based upon all the competent evidence and stipulations of the parties, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 57 years old and has a tenth grade education. He had worked as a truck driver for 30 years, the last 15 years driving for defendant-employer.

2. Prior to the injury by accident which is the subject of this case, plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer when he was involved in an automobile accident resulting in low back injuries on June 26, 1998.

3. As the result of these injuries, plaintiff underwent L5-S1 fusion surgery performed by Dr. Seyed Emadian.

4. Dr. Emadian assigned plaintiff a 10% percent permanent partial disability rating to his lower back. In June 1998, Dr. Emadian released plaintiff to return to full duty without restrictions.

5. Defendant accepted this as a compensable injury by accident by filing a Form 21 on June 11, 1998. Plaintiff was out of work from January 26, 1998 until June 17, 1998 and received temporary total disability benefits at the maximum compensation rate for 1998 of $532.00 per week based on an average weekly wage of $1,115.26. Plaintiff was also paid 30 weeks of benefits for the 10% percent permanent functional impairment to his back.

6. Plaintiff returned to work for defendant and worked for over a year until June 17, 1999, when plaintiff was involved in another motor vehicle accident that occurred in Kinston, Tennessee. Plaintiff was originally treated at Roane Medical Center in Harriman, Tennessee where he complained of low back and cervical pain. Plaintiff was diagnosed with neck and low back strain and released.

7. Defendant accepted the June 17, 1999 injury to plaintiff's neck, right shoulder and low back and paid temporary total disability compensation at the maximum compensation rate for 1999 of $560.00 per week based on an average weekly wage of $1,091.10.

8. On June 18, 1999, plaintiff was evaluated by defendant's occupational health physician, Dr. Jack Spies. Plaintiff indicated to Dr. Spies that he had pain in his neck, thoracic and lumbar area. Dr. Spies determined plaintiff's complaints of pain were related to spasms and released him to return to work with no prolonged sitting, standing, walking, avoiding frequent bending and no driving until re-examination on June 25, 1999.

9. On June 25, 1999, plaintiff returned to Dr. Spies complaining of pain in his neck and back. Dr. Spies indicated plaintiff suffered from pain in those areas and recommended physical therapy for three weeks.

10. The physical therapy did not provide improvement to plaintiff's condition.

11. When plaintiff returned to Dr. Spies on July 2, 1999, plaintiff requested a referral to a neurosurgeon but this request was denied. Plaintiff continued physical therapy until re-examination by Dr. Spies on July 3, 1999 at which time plaintiff was referred to Dr. Keith Maxwell for a surgical evaluation.

12. On August 13, 1999, Dr. Maxwell evaluated plaintiff and reported there was no evidence of increased root tension or impaired nerve conduction. Dr. Maxwell did not feel an MRI was necessary and referred plaintiff to Dr. Andrew Rudins, a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation, for continued physical therapy.

13. Dr. Rudins continued to prescribe physical therapy and medications. Plaintiff underwent an MRI scan at the end of September 1999 which revealed a right lateral recurrent disc herniation at L5-S1 with degenerative changes at L4-L5. The MRI also indicated disc spurring on the left at C3-4 and a neuroforaminal disc protrusion at C4-5 and C5-6.

14. In September 1999, plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to return to work at part-time light duty. After his unsuccessful attempt to return to work, plaintiff's benefits were re-instated by defendant.

15. On October 27, 1999, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Seyed Emadian who had previously performed his low back fusion and released him to return to work without restrictions in 1998. Upon examination, Dr. Emadian determined plaintiff's range of motion in his low back was profoundly limited on lateral bending and turning. Dr. Emadian indicated plaintiff was suffering from two principal problems, cervicalgia in the right upper extremity radiculopathy and back pain caused by L5-S1 disc as indicated in the MRI scan.

16. Dr. Emadian discussed with plaintiff that he should consider changing his occupation or choosing retirement based upon his physical circumstances.

17. Dr. Emadian referred plaintiff to Dr. Cleveland Thompson for a surgical epidural block. Dr. Thompson treated plaintiff in January 2000. Plaintiff complained of constant burning, aching and headaches as a result of the treatment and condition. Dr. Thompson prescribed medication in an effort to deal with plaintiff's pain.

18. Plaintiff underwent a functional capacity evaluation on January 31, 2000 at the recommendation of Dr. Rudins. This FCE indicated plaintiff was capable of doing light-duty work except overhead. The report indicated plaintiff could sit, stand or walk for approximately 30 minutes but needed to change positions approximately every 30 minutes in order to relieve discomfort.

19. On February 7, 2000, Dr. Rudins rated plaintiff as having a permanent functional impairment of 19% to the spine, which included the cervical spine and low back. Dr. Rudins released plaintiff from his care, giving him permanent work restrictions of lifting 40 pounds occasionally, 15 pounds frequently and 5 pounds constantly and no bending, twisting, prolonged standing or sitting or any truck driving.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lynch v. Abf Freight Sys., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-abf-freight-sys-ncworkcompcom-2003.