Moore v. City of Lexington

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 21, 2008
DocketI.C. NO. 816522.
StatusPublished

This text of Moore v. City of Lexington (Moore v. City of Lexington) 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. City of Lexington, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinions

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission has reviewed the entire record consisting of the additional evidence in Dr. Furr's deposition, the briefs and oral arguments presented before the Full Commission on January 17, 2008, as well as the prior evidentiary record and Full Commission Opinion and Award of August 16, 2001. Based upon all of the evidence of record, and in accordance with the directives of the Court of Appeals, the Full Commission enters the following Opinion and Award.

* * * * * * * * * * * *Page 2
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties in the pre-trial agreement as:

STIPULATIONS
1. At the time of the alleged contraction of the occupational disease, the parties were bound by and subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. At the time of the alleged contraction of the occupational disease, an employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

3. At the time of the alleged contraction of the occupational disease, defendant-employer was a qualified self-insurer, with Gallagher Bassett acting as its third-party administrator.

4. The employee's average weekly wage was $398.40, which yields a compensation rate of $265.60.

5. The issues before the Commission are whether plaintiff contracted a compensable occupational disease and, if so, to what benefits he entitled to receive.

* * * * * * * * * * *
In accordance with the directives of the North Carolina Court of Appeals and based upon all the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission finds as facts the following: *Page 3

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 41 years old, had a GED, was trained as a firefighter, and had work experience as a custodian, landscaper and in the manufacturing business.

2. In September 1991, plaintiff became employed as a part-time firefighter with defendant-employer, the City of Lexington. During this same time, plaintiff was also employed as a full-time custodian for Lexington City Schools, which is not affiliated or associated with defendant-employer.

3. In August 1994, plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim against Lexington City Schools contending that he developed carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of his job duties as a custodian. Plaintiff's claim was accepted as compensable by Lexington City Schools, and plaintiff was paid certain workers' compensation benefits. Although plaintiff was also employed as a firefighter for defendant-employer in 1994, he only filed a claim against the City of Lexington arising out of his job as a custodian.

4. As a result of the 1994 workers' compensation claim against Lexington City Schools, plaintiff received conservative medical treatment from Dr. Gregory Mieden, a neurologist, for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and fibromyalgia/myofascial pain syndrome. Plaintiff was also treated conservatively by Dr. Scott Kniseley, another neurologist, who indicated that plaintiff's symptoms could continue for a period of time.

5. Plaintiff continued working full-time as a custodian and part-time as a firefighter. In 1995, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which his vehicle was destroyed after being struck by another car. Plaintiff again received treatment for pain and symptoms in his arms and hands following the automobile accident. *Page 4

6. In July 1995, plaintiff began working as a full-time firefighter for the City of Lexington. The work schedule for a firefighter is 24 hours on-duty followed by 48 hours off-duty. During the 24-hour work period, a firefighter is engaged in a variety of scheduled activities and responds to emergencies as they occur.

7. The position of a firefighter includes planned activities scheduled from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. These activities include a morning meeting, a brief period of optional individual exercise, classroom and practical training, inspections of local businesses and public service educational programs and presentations at day care centers, nursing homes and schools. Firefighters also receive a one-hour lunch break during this time. Scheduled activities are followed by dinner and a brief period of cleaning and completion of reports. The remaining 12 to 13 hours of the workday is free time and no activities are scheduled during this period. Although physical fitness is encouraged, exercise or weight lifting is not required by defendant-employer. Further, there is no evidence in the record of how frequently or for how long plaintiff engaged in weight lifting, how much weight he lifted, or whether he engaged in weight lifting during times he was not working.

8. In addition to the daily scheduled activities, one time per month, firefighters participate in a "hot drill," which is a practice session of a particular skill such as utilizing a ladder or hose. These drills last from five minutes to one hour.

9. When a firefighter's workday is scheduled for either a Saturday or Sunday, planned activities are limited. On Saturdays, firefighters engage in some light cleaning for a few hours with the remainder of the day being down time. There are no scheduled activities on Sunday. *Page 5

10. Firefighters also respond to 150 to 200 emergency calls per year. The vast majority of these calls do not involve fires and during two-thirds of the calls firefighters take minimal or no action. Out of the emergency calls, only two to three per month involve fires and of these, only one per month involves a structural fire.

11. During the structural fires, firefighters utilize the hose to put out the fire for approximately five to 20 minutes. Thereafter, firefighters utilize a variety of tools including a pipe pole to knock down ceilings, shovels, brooms, ladders and saws. Many of these tools, such as a chainsaw and a K-12 saw, are seldom used and the tools are generally not used for any more than a 20-minute period. On average, the firefighting operation lasts no more than two hours.

12. The position of a firefighter involves varied activities and no strenuous use of the hands or arms on a daily basis. Although firefighters use certain tools in training and in fighting fire, these tools are not used on a constant or regular basis. Further, while the activity of fighting a fire may be strenuous, it does not involve repetitive use of the hands in the same position for a sustained period of time. In addition, the strenuous activity of fighting a fire in general occurs on an infrequent basis and for a brief period of time when compared to all other job activities of a firefighter. According to Fire Chief William Deal, firefighters are seldom required to push, pull or grasp for over 15 minutes at a time in any given month.

13. Although more than 100 individuals have worked as a firefighter for defendant-employer over the past two decades, none except plaintiff have ever complained of hand or arm pain due to work. *Page 6

14. In addition to his job as a firefighter, for six months each year in 1996 and 1997, plaintiff also worked as a landscape maintenance assistant. His primary job duty involved use of lawnmowers.

15. In the summer of 1997, plaintiff began experiencing recurrent pain and numbness in his hands and arms. Initially, plaintiff did not relate this condition to his job as a firefighter.

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

Related

Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn
301 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
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)
Chambers v. Transit Management
636 S.E.2d 553 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Moore v. City of Lexington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-city-of-lexington-ncworkcompcom-2008.