Meeler v. Stock Building Supply

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 21, 2011
DocketI.C. NO. W06771.
StatusPublished

This text of Meeler v. Stock Building Supply (Meeler v. Stock Building Supply) 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
Meeler v. Stock Building Supply, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

***********
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, the Full Commission finds no good grounds to receive further evidence, or to rehear the parties or their representatives. Upon reconsideration of the evidence, the Full Commission modifies the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner, and enters the following Opinion and Award.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are subject to and bound by the N.C. Workers Compensation Act and the N.C. Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. *Page 2

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

3. On September 2, 2008, an employment relationship existed between Plaintiff and Employer-Defendant.

4. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is the carrier on the risk for Employer-Defendant.

5. The average weekly wage is to be determined.

6. A package of Industrial Commission Forms is admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #2.

7. Plaintiff's medical records regarding this claim are admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #3.

8. A written statement by Ed Cox is admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #4.

9. Stipulated Exhibit #5, admitted into evidence, is a print-out of benefits by the Carrier-Defendant.

***********
Based upon the preponderance of the evidence in the record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff's date of birth is July 3, 1948, and he was 62 years of age at the date of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. Plaintiff has a high school diploma and two years of community college. On September 2, 2008, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant-Employer as a credit sales coordinator. He had been employed with Defendant-Employer since 1991, when it was previously called "Carolina Builders." He had served in various capacities over the years, including an accounts receivable agent, a purchasing agent, and in a stock receiving position. *Page 3

2. On September 2, 2008, Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of his employment when he tripped and fell. Plaintiff reported the incident to his supervisor and a Form 19 was completed the next day.

3. Prior to this date, Plaintiff had a significant medical history with regard to his lower back and left knee. In 1972, Plaintiff sustained a lower back injury while playing baseball, which required surgical intervention. Plaintiff underwent a second surgery on his lower back in 2006. Plaintiff underwent his first knee surgery in 1965. On March 10, 2008, Dr. John Chiavetta performed a total left knee replacement.

4. On September 2, 2008, Plaintiff was walking down the hallway at work when he stumbled on a tear in the carpet, causing him to fall and land on his left knee. This fall was witnessed by Ed Cox.

5. Plaintiff continued to work after the fall. However, due to pain and stiffness in his knee over the upcoming weeks, he eventually decided to seek medical treatment.

6. Defendants initially accepted Plaintiff's injury on March 20, 2009, by completing a Form 63, Section 2. There was no specific body part filled in on the Form 63. Defendants sent Plaintiff to Concentra Medical Care for treatment with Dr. Paul Mele on January 30, 2009. Plaintiff explained the fall at work on September 2, 2008, as well as his previous back and knee surgeries. Dr. Mele referred Plaintiff to Dr. John Chiavetta (Plaintiff's previous knee surgeon); to Dr. Robin Koeleveld (Plaintiff's previous neurosurgeon); and Dr. Conrad Flick (Plaintiff's family doctor). Dr. Mele kept Plaintiff at full duty, as he had already been working since the injury. Defendants ultimately arranged for Plaintiff to see Dr. David Jones for his knee and Dr. William Lestini for his back. *Page 4

7. On February 24, 2009, Plaintiff saw Dr. Jones for his knee. Dr. Jones took x-rays and also recommended a bone scan to rule out a fracture. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Jones on March 23, 2009, and the medical record reflects that Plaintiff was assessed with "possible loosening of the patellar component status post fall at work." Plaintiff's pain was persistent and there was increased blood flow in that area of his knee. The possibility of surgery was discussed.

8. On March 6, 2009, Plaintiff saw Dr. Lestini for his low back pain. Dr. Lestini indicated Plaintiff could continue working, prescribed pain medicine, and ordered a thoracic and lumbar MRI. The MRI revealed degenerative changes in the lumbar region, but also revealed a possible lesion in the thoracic area. Dr. Lestini referred Plaintiff to Dr. Paul Peterson at Duke Neurology since the lesion was located within the cord. Plaintiff saw Dr. Peterson who recommended repeat scans in four months.

9. Plaintiff last worked on March 25, 2009, when he was written out of work by Dr. Lestini.

10. Plaintiff again saw Dr. Lestini on May 19, 2009. A discogram was recommended and Dr. Lestini wanted to confer with Dr. Jones as to whether the knee or back problems should be addressed first. Dr. Lestini also gave Plaintiff an out of work note pending workup of his knee and back complaints.

11. On June 4, 2009, Defendants filed a Form 61 indicating a total denial of indemnity or medical compensation.

12. Dr. Conrad Flick is a board certified specialist in family medicine who has been involved with Plaintiff's general care since 2000. Dr. Flick testified that Plaintiff "started really complaining of some knee issues in 2003." Throughout 2004 and 2005, Plaintiff's complaints *Page 5 regarding his left knee pain increased. Dr. Flick stated that Plaintiff first mentioned "back issues" in 2005 and 2006.

13. Although Plaintiff previously experienced back and knee issues and had undergone surgery prior to September 2, 2008, Plaintiff had returned to regular duty prior to the work injury. He was still active and his knee and back were stable, with just intermittent pain. An MRI of the lumbar spine prior to the injury revealed degenerative changes at multiple levels.

14. The Full Commission finds, based upon the preponderance of the evidence, that Plaintiff's pre-existing back condition and pre-existing knee problems were aggravated by the fall at work on September 2, 2008. This aggravation resulted in additional surgery and Plaintiff being out of work from March 26, 2009 and continuing.

15. Plaintiff first presented to Dr. John Chiavetta, a board certified orthopedist specializing in hip and knee replacement surgery, on October 31, 2005, complaining of left knee pain. Following a physical examination, Dr. Chiavetta diagnosed Plaintiff with left knee osteoarthritis and administered a cortisone injection.

16. On January 22, 2008, Dr. Chiavetta noted limited range of motion and valgus pseudo instability in Plaintiff's knee. Plaintiff elected to proceed with knee replacement surgery, which was subsequently scheduled for March 10, 2008.

17. On June 6, 2008, Plaintiff was still unable to fully straighten his left leg at a follow up with Dr. Chiavetta. During the same appointment, Plaintiff complained of pain in his lower back. Dr.

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
§ 97-88.1
North Carolina § 97-88.1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Meeler v. Stock Building Supply, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meeler-v-stock-building-supply-ncworkcompcom-2011.