Moore v. Borg Warner, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 23, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 986329
StatusPublished

This text of Moore v. Borg Warner, Inc. (Moore v. Borg Warner, 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
Moore v. Borg Warner, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinions

***********
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Houser, and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good ground to reconsider the evidence in this matter. Having reconsidered the evidence of record, the Full Commission hereby reverses the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award 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. The parties to this matter have been properly named.

2. The date of injury at issue in this claim is October 28, 1999.

3. Plaintiff contends that on October 28, 1999, he sustained an injury to his left elbow during the course of his employment.

4. The parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act

5. An employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff-employee and Borg Warner on October 28, 1999.

6. Kemper Insurance Company was the carrier on the risk.

7. Plaintiff is not receiving temporary total disability benefits at this time, and has not been paid any temporary total disability since October 28, 1999.

8. Plaintiff's average weekly wage shall be determined by an Industrial Commission Form 22 Wage Chart, which has been submitted to the Industrial Commission, received into evidence, and marked as Stipulated Exhibit 4.

9. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the parties submitted a packet of plaintiff's medical records, which was admitted into the record and marked Stipulated Exhibit 2. Also admitted into the record were a Transcript of Plaintiff's Recorded Statement, Employment Security Commission Records, and Short Term Disability Records, collectively marked as Stipulated Exhibit 3.

***********
Based upon all the competent evidence of record, and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was 39 years old at the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. He was born September 26, 1962. Plaintiff began his employment as a machinist with Borg Warner on March 3, 1998. Borg Warner has not employed plaintiff since August 8, 2001.

2. Plaintiff's average weekly wage on October 28, 1999, pursuant to the submitted Form 22, was $590.31, yielding a compensation rate of $393.50 per week.

3. On October 28, 1999, plaintiff experienced pain in his left elbow while working as a machinist for Borg Warner. Plaintiff had complained to his supervisor and others previously about his elbow but the pain he experienced on that day was more severe, causing him to report an injury formally.

4. On that day, plaintiff was operating a machine known as a 103 New Britain, a six-spindled lathe used to process raw iron castings into mechanical parts. Plaintiff had operated the machine for several months prior to October 28, 1999. The general operation of the machine involved placing a raw iron casting weighing between seven and ten pounds on the machine, which is then "chucked," or locked, into place using a gage level. Once locked into position, the casting spins and is processed by the machine. This procedure required plaintiff to use his right hand to pick up a new casting out of a nearby box and maneuver it into place on the machine. While maneuvering the casting with his right hand, plaintiff would use his left arm to pull a lever to "un-chuck," or unlock, the casting, which then goes into a second machine of the same type where the process is repeated. Plaintiff's right arm would lift the castings, and his left arm would be used to operate the levers. Each of these levers was "sluggish" and hard to pull or push. Frequently plaintiff would have to use both hands to force the levers into position to engage the mechanisms.

5. Plaintiff processed approximately 250 to 300 castings in an eight-hour shift and up to 500 in a twelve-hour shift. Overall, each part required four movements of his left arm to chuck and un-chuck each part twice. Thus, plaintiff repeated the same pulling and pushing of the machine's lever anywhere from 500 to 1,000 times in a shift.

6. Following the pain he experienced on October 28, 1999, plaintiff sought treatment with Urgent Care in Haywood County on November 5, 1999. Plaintiff continued treatments at Urgent Care through November 29, 1999. On December 1, 1999, plaintiff began treatments with Dr. James Faulk, of Mountain Orthopaedics Associates, and continued to treat with Dr. Faulk through January 4, 2000.

7. Plaintiff was additionally examined by Dr. Christopher T. Lechner, of Carolina Hand Surgery Associates, on December 3, 1999. Plaintiff reported to Dr. Lechner that he had experienced pain and numbness in his left forearm and into his hand beginning in the middle of October 1999. Dr. Lechner initially diagnosed plaintiff as having radial neuritis of the left arm, which is an inflammation of a nerve that runs through the middle of the forearm. Dr. Lechner testified that radial neuritis can be caused by repetition. Plaintiff was prescribed medications, and restricted from working with vibrating tools or lifting greater than five pounds.

8. On January 7, 2000, plaintiff returned to Dr. Lechner because his radial neuritis symptoms had persisted, however the results of a nerve conduction study ordered by Dr. Lechner were normal. On January 19, 2000, Dr. Lechner noted that plaintiff was experiencing symptoms at his left elbow joint space, which caused Dr. Lechner to posit that plaintiff may have chondromalacia. Chondromalacia is a thinning of the cartilage in a joint, plaintiff's elbow joint in this case, which is often caused by a loose body in the joint. Symptoms of chondromalacia include severe pain and discomfort in using the affected joint. Based upon this differential diagnosis, Dr. Lechner injected plaintiff's elbow joint, and instructed him to return in four weeks.

9. On February 16, 2000, plaintiff returned to Dr. Lechner, and reported that he was still experiencing symptoms with his left elbow, including a catching or locking of the joint. This was consistent with Dr. Lechner's suspicion that plaintiff was suffering from chondromalacia. Following this examination, Dr. Lechner ordered an MRI.

10. The next day, February 17, 2000, plaintiff was involved in an unrelated altercation when he was attacked by a group of men without provocation. Plaintiff sustained injuries to his mandible, right hip, right leg, ribs, and back. However, plaintiff did not sustain any injury to his left arm or elbow during this event.

11. The Full Commission finds that plaintiff's chondromalacia condition pre-existed the February 17, 2000, altercation. Moreover, plaintiff did not sustain any trauma to his left arm or elbow as a consequence of the altercation. Thus, the Full Commission finds that the evidence of record does not establish that this incident had any effect on plaintiff's pre-existing chondromalacia condition.

12. On April 8, 2000, plaintiff had an MRI, as ordered by Dr. Lechner. The MRI showed a calcified loose body in plaintiff's left elbow joint, confirming Dr. Lechner's diagnosis of chondromalacia.

13. On April 25, 2000, Dr. Lechner performed an arthroscopic surgery on plaintiff's left elbow to remove the calcified loose body. Plaintiff was released to return to work by Dr. Lechner as of May 25, 2000, following recovery from his surgery.

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

Related

Norris v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Inc./Masco
534 S.E.2d 259 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Frady v. Groves Thread/General Accident Ins.
286 S.E.2d 844 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)
Hansel v. Sherman Textiles
283 S.E.2d 101 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1981)
Booker v. Duke Medical Center
256 S.E.2d 189 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)
Frady v. Groves Thread/General Accident Insurance
321 S.E.2d 835 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Moore v. Borg Warner, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-borg-warner-inc-ncworkcompcom-2003.