Miller v. Lincoln Cty.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 15, 2004
DocketI.C. NO. 121384
StatusPublished

This text of Miller v. Lincoln Cty. (Miller v. Lincoln Cty.) 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
Miller v. Lincoln Cty., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2004).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission hereby MODIFIES and AFFIRMS the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Glenn.

***********
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 properly before the Industrial Commission and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and this claim. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. At all time relevant to this matter, an employer-employee relationship existed between employee-plaintiff and employer-defendant, and employer-defendant was insured for workers' compensation benefits.

3. The date of the injury which is the subject of this claim is February 16, 2001.

4. Defendants filed a Form 60 admitting liability for plaintiff's injuries pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-82.

5. Plaintiff is currently employed and working for defendants on restricted duty.

6. The following exhibits were entered into the evidence of record at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

a. Stipulated Exhibit 1 — plaintiff's medical records

b. Stipulated Exhibit 2 — medical bills

c. Stipulated Exhibit 3 — Form 25Ps

d. Stipulated Exhibit 4 — Form 25Ts

e. Stipulated Exhibit 5 — Form 22

7. The issues to be determined by the Commission are whether plaintiff injured her neck when she fell at work on February 16, 2001 and suffered compensable injuries to other parts of her body, and what, if any, additional benefits is plaintiff entitled to receive under the North Carolina Worker' Compensation Act.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff has been employed as a supervisor for the Families for Kids program through Lincoln County's Department of Social Services for over thirteen years.

2. On February 16, 2001, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment with defendants when she fell from a chair while attempting to hang a poster on the reception area wall of her workplace.

3. On February 16, 2001, plaintiff presented to Lincoln Medical Center's Emergency Room where she was diagnosed with an acute fracture of the base of the fifth metarsal bone of the right foot and an acute fracture of the distal left radial metaphysis of the left wrist.

4. Plaintiff was treated by Dr. J. Emory Chapman, an orthopaedic specialist, who applied a molded short arm cast to plaintiff's left wrist and placed her in a walker boot for her injured right foot. Plaintiff was told to remain out of work until February 26, 2001.

5. Defendants accepted liability for plaintiff's accident pursuant to a Form 60 dated February 27, 2001.

6. On March 1, 2001, Dr. Chapman released plaintiff to work for four hours per day, but restricted her from driving.

7. On April 5, 2001, Dr. Chapman noted healing of both fractures and scheduled plaintiff to begin occupational therapy.

8. On May 10, 2001, Dr. Chapman noted that the wrist fracture had completely healed, but the foot fracture was still healing. He released plaintiff back to full duty work.

9. On June 14, 2001, Dr. Chapman stated that plaintiff should continue to improve and reach maximum medical improvement in approximately three months.

10. On July 12, 2001, Dr. Chapman noted that plaintiff's foot had completely healed and that she continued to experience residual stiffness in her hand, but released plaintiff at maximum medical improvement with a 0% permanent partial disability rating to her right foot and a 2% rating to her left hand.

11. On August 2, 2001, plaintiff returned to Dr. Chapman reporting pain in her left shoulder. Dr. Chapman noted "[a]t her initial evaluation, she was complaining of pain in her shoulder, but due to the other injuries of the other parts of her extremity, it was difficult to separate this out and examine it." Dr. Chapman suspected rotator cuff tendonitis, but ordered an MRI to rule out rotator cuff tear. Dr. Chapman directed plaintiff to continue full duty work.

12. On August 30, 2001, Dr. Chapman noted that the MRI performed on August 9, 2001 did not show rotator cuff tear, but that plaintiff suffered from AC arthropathy with rotator cuff tendonitis. Dr. Chapman ordered a corticosteroid injection and physical therapy.

13. On September 27, 2001, Dr. Chapman noted that plaintiff had no benefit from the injections and that she was not benefiting from physical therapy.

14. On October 25, 2001, Dr. Chapman recommended subacromial decompression and excision of the distal clavicle for plaintiff's ongoing shoulder pain. Dr. Chapman performed arthroscopic decompression and excision surgery on November 15, 2001.

15. On November 21, 2001, Dr. Chapman's partner, Dr. Gregory Hardigree, saw plaintiff in follow-up and noted plaintiff to have marked spasm of the trapezius and pain in her neck.

16. On November 27, 2001, Dr. Chapman referred plaintiff for physical therapy for her shoulder. He also diagnosed her with plantar fasciitis of the right foot which was due to alteration in gait as a result of the fracture. Plaintiff was restricted from driving and work for at least three weeks.

17. On December 3, 2001, plaintiff saw Dr. Chapman and reported shoulder soreness and pain in her neck. That same date plaintiff reported neck pain to the physical therapist.

18. On December 20, 2001, Dr. Chapman released plaintiff to drive and to return to work on December 27, 2001 with limited walking.

19. On January 29, 2002, plaintiff was seen by David Kirlin, a podiatrist, for heel pain. Dr. Kirlin prescribed various treatment modalities, including stretching and ice therapy, and ordered temporary foot orthoses.

20. After release by Dr. Chapman, plaintiff continued to experience pain with her left hand and left wrist and sought further medical treatment with Dr. John Gaul, an orthopaedic hand specialist, on February 12, 2002. Dr. Gaul's examination revealed limited range of motion in the left hand with positive Tinel's and pain over the A-1 pulley into her left middle finger with obvious popping. He referred plaintiff for physical therapy for her wrist and injected her middle finger with Kenalog, Xylocaine and Marcaine.

21. On February 21, 2002, plaintiff returned to Dr. Chapman for plantar fasciitis as a result of her earlier right foot fracture causing alteration in her gait. Dr. Chapman again concluded that plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement for her shoulder and wrist, but not her foot.

22. On February 21, 2002, Dr. Chapman also assigned a 10% permanent partial disability rating to plaintiff's shoulder, a 5% rating to her left wrist and a 3% rating to her right foot. He placed plaintiff on permanent work restrictions including no lifting over 25 pounds and no repetitive work above shoulder level. Dr. Chapman then referred plaintiff to Dr. W. Hodges Davis, an orthopaedic foot expert, for further evaluation.

23. On March 19, 2002, plaintiff returned to Dr.

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

Related

Sparks v. Mountain Breeze Restaurant & Fish House, Inc.
286 S.E.2d 575 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Miller v. Lincoln Cty., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-lincoln-cty-ncworkcompcom-2004.