Meek v. Pontiac

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 11, 2011
DocketI.C. NO. 688528.
StatusPublished

This text of Meek v. Pontiac (Meek v. Pontiac) 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
Meek v. Pontiac, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

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

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

STIPULATIONS *Page 2
1. All parties are properly before the Commission. The Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of this case.

2. All parties are subject to and bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

3. All parties have been properly designated, and there is no question as to joinder or non-joinder of parties.

4. Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident on December 9, 2006.

5. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant-Employer and Defendant-Employer hired three or more employees at all times relevant hereto.

6. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $1367.42, resulting in the 2006 maximum compensation rate of $730.00 per week.

7. Defendant Brentwood Services Administrators, Inc. was the servicing agent on the risk at all times relative to this action.

8. Plaintiff stipulated that she is not claiming any accrued temporary total disability benefits, but reserves the right to claim future temporary total disability benefits.

**********
ISSUES
1. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to additional medical treatment recommended by Dr. Kathryn A. Caulfield, as a result of her compensable injury on December 9, 2006?

2. What additional benefits, if any, is Plaintiff entitled to under the Act?

3. Was Plaintiff's alleged carpal tunnel syndrome caused by her December 9, 2006 accident? *Page 3

4. Whether Plaintiff's alleged disability, if any, was caused by her December 9, 2006 accident and if so, whether Defendants are entitled to a credit for any unemployment compensation benefits paid and being paid to Plaintiff?

**********
EXHIBITS
1. The parties stipulated the following documentary evidence:

a. Stipulated Exhibit #1: I.C. Forms

b. Stipulated Exhibit #2: Medical records

c. Stipulated Exhibit #3: Medical bills

**********
Based upon all the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Plaintiff was 38 years old and had obtained her GED. She was a pharmacy technician for five years and then worked in various capacities in the automotive industry for approximately 14 years. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant-Employer in 2000 as an assistant office manager. Thereafter, Plaintiff worked for various dealerships in different locations that were all owned or were affiliates of Defendant-Employer. As of December 2006, Plaintiff was a controller/office manager for Defendant-Employer. Plaintiff oversaw the financial statements and office administration.

2. On December 9, 2006, Plaintiff attended a team building event during which she lost her balance while running, and fell forward onto hard packed sand. Plaintiff landed on her right hand, bending the hand back, and had immediate onset of pain in the right hand, wrist, and *Page 4 arm. Defendant-Employer accepted the claim as a medical only claim and paid all of Plaintiff's related medical bills until approximately June 2, 2009.

3. On December 11, 2006, Plaintiff presented to Dr. James Foster. Dr. Foster noted that Plaintiff was having significant pain in her right hand and wrist with bruising and swelling and intermittent tingling and numbness. Dr. Foster diagnosed Plaintiff with a sprain of the right wrist and hand. He assigned lifting restrictions of no more than one pound and no repetitive work. Plaintiff followed up with Dr. Foster on December 19, 2006, with complaints of continued bruising and pain, with no numbness and tingling. Plaintiff was seen again in January, February, and April 2007, and Dr. Foster continued to document pain but no numbness and tingling.

4. On July 11, 2007, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Foster who noted that Plaintiff was complaining of intermittent numbness and continued pain. Dr. Foster diagnosed Plaintiff with a healed second metacarpal fracture of the right hand and sprain of the right hand and opined that Plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement. He released Plaintiff without permanent impairment.

5. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Foster on September 25, 2008, with complaints of numbness. Dr. Foster noted that Plaintiff did not have any significant dysesthesias or anesthesia of her hand, but complained of some dysesthesias that would come and go in the arm. Dr. Foster opined that Plaintiff might have carpal tunnel syndrome and ordered an MRI of the wrist, and EMG studies of the right upper extremities.

6. The MRI of the right wrist was performed on October 24, 2008, and revealed no fractures, dislocation, or evidence for osteonecrosis. It was specifically noted that the *Page 5 scapholunate and lunotriqueteral ligaments appeared intact and normal in signal intensity. Nerve conduction studies performed were consistent with moderate carpal tunnel syndrome.

7. Dr. Foster referred Plaintiff to Dr. Glenn Gaston, where Plaintiff presented on January 9, 2009. Dr. Gaston opined that Plaintiff's nerve conduction studies revealed carpal tunnel syndrome and that the exam was consistent with that diagnosis. Dr. Gaston performed an injection to the carpal tunnel. Plaintiff followed up with Dr. Gaston on March 17, 2009. Because Plaintiff received no improvement from the injection, Dr. Gaston opined that Plaintiff was not a good surgical candidate. He further opined that Plaintiff had carpal tunnel syndrome but had reached maximum medical improvement, and he released her to return to work without restrictions.

8. On June 2, 2009, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Kathryn Caulfield for a second opinion. Dr. Caulfield's impression was a persistent slight non-union at the base of her index metacarpal, partial scapholunate ligament tear in her wrist, which was negative in the MRI, and impingement along the triqueteral ligaments on the ulnar side of her wrist, as well as right carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Caulfield recommended a CT Scan of the right hand. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Caulfield on November 6, 2009. Based on her review of the CT scan, Dr. Caulfield's recommendation was surgery including a carpal tunnel release, a dorsal wrist exploration and scope and a triquetral ligament release. Dr. Caulfield also indicated that she would explore the right index metacarpal at the CMC joint for potential debridement of bony overhang and cyst.

9. When Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel for authorization of future diagnostic testing (including Dr.

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

Related

Parsons v. Pantry, Inc.
485 S.E.2d 867 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)
Click v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.
265 S.E.2d 389 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)
Snead v. Sandhurst Mills, Inc.
174 S.E.2d 699 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1970)
Pittman v. Thomas & Howard
468 S.E.2d 283 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Booker v. Duke Medical Center
256 S.E.2d 189 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Meek v. Pontiac, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meek-v-pontiac-ncworkcompcom-2011.