Moore v. Premium Standard Farms

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedAugust 4, 2004
DocketI.C. NO. 190007
StatusPublished

This text of Moore v. Premium Standard Farms (Moore v. Premium Standard Farms) 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. Premium Standard Farms, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2004).

Opinion

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

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

STIPULATIONS
1. The Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, the parties are properly before the Commission, and the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act at all relevant times.

2. Travelers Insurance Company was the carrier on the risk.

3. The employee-employer relationship existed between the parties at all relevant times.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $450.17, which yields a compensation rate of $300.13 per week, based upon the Form 22 stipulated to by the parties.

5. The parties stipulated the following into the evidence of record at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

Stipulated Exhibits 1-15 consisting of plaintiff's medical and vocational records, pages 001-375.

Defendants' Exhibit #1 Correspondence on security guard position.

6. The issues for determination by the Commission are:

Whether plaintiff suffered an occupational disease as defined by the Workers' Compensation Act?

If so, to what benefits is plaintiff entitled as a result of the occupational injury?

If the claim is found to be compensable, what, if any, reduction, credit or offset from indemnity benefits is due defendants?

If defendants are due a reduction, credit or offset, is this subject to an attorney's fee?

Whether plaintiff is currently disabled as a result of his carpal tunnel syndrome or as a result of an unrelated, preexisting heart condition?

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was born on June 17, 1943, and completed the seventh grade. Plaintiff worked for defendants for approximately 29 years prior to his leaving employment in September 2001.

2. Plaintiff was employed by defendants as a ham cutter. Six people on a line one floor above plaintiff cut the tails from halved pig carcasses, then sent the carcasses down a chute where they traveled along a conveyor belt to plaintiff's station. As the hams traveled down the chute, they were often bunched and on top of each other as they came to plaintiff for sawing. Plaintiff grasped each ham and aligned it with the feet towards him, and ran the ham through a saw, cutting off the feet. Plaintiff was the only foot cutter receiving the hams from the six tail cutters. At times, plaintiff was required to grasp the hams and flip them over in order to properly align them for sawing. Plaintiff processed approximately 16,000 hams per day and each ham weighed between 12 and 30 pounds. Plaintiff worked eight hours per day and was permitted to take two 15 minute breaks and one 30 minute lunch period per day.

3. In 1987, the lines were changed so that all personnel on the line were on the same floor. This eliminated the bunching of hams so that they no longer went down a chute to plaintiff's conveyor belt, but came to plaintiff in a more uniform way.

4. Beginning in 1994 or 1995, plaintiff was provided with assistance in aligning the hams for sawing. However, when the assistant was on a break or absent from work, plaintiff aligned the hams himself.

5. Plaintiff began experiencing pain and numbness in his hands in 1994. A note from defendants' physician, Dr. Fletcher, dated June 16, 1994, recorded that plaintiff sought treatment for pain and numbness in the right thumb and forearm. Plaintiff told Dr. Fletcher he thought the symptoms came from grasping hams to cut the foot off. Dr. Fletcher recommended that plaintiff wear a wrist splint while working, which plaintiff did.

6. Plaintiff's hand pain continued to worsen significantly during the three years prior to his leaving his employment with defendants. Plaintiff developed persistent weakness, pain and numbness in both hands.

7. On May 18, 2001, plaintiff presented to Dr. Agodichi Nwosu with complaints of shortness of breath, palpitations and fatigue with minimum exertion. Plaintiff gave a history of hypertension, arthritis and poor circulation. Following a number of tests including a catheterization, Dr. Nwosu diagnosed plaintiff with a severe and diffuse coronary ectasia and right coronary artery focal aneurysm.

8. On September 21, 2001, plaintiff applied for Family and Medical Leave (FLMA) due to heart problems. Plaintiff has not returned to work since that date.

9. On October 5, 2001, Dr. Nwosu provided an out of work note stating that plaintiff was unable to resume his usual work. On October 9, 2001, Dr. Nwosu completed a Certification of Health Care Provider in which he described plaintiff's condition as not amenable to surgery and that he anticipated life long treatment and follow up by plaintiff's primary treating physician. Dr. Nwosu felt that plaintiff could no longer perform strenuous activities or those with potential for cuts or bruises due to the blood thinners plaintiff was required to take for his condition. Dr. Nwosu released plaintiff to light duty work and recommended that plaintiff be limited to deskwork or answering the telephone.

10. Dr. Nwosu did not relate plaintiff's heart condition to his employment. The Full Commission finds that there is no causal relationship between plaintiff's heart condition and his employment with defendants.

11. On October 11, 2001, plaintiff presented to Dr. James Lowe upon referral from his primary treating physician, Dr. Edward Powell. Dr. Lowe is a plastic surgeon whose practice includes treating approximately 200 carpal tunnel patients per year. By October 11, 2001, plaintiff had complaints of persistent pain, weakness, swelling and numbness in both hands. Plaintiff gave Dr. Lowe a history of having these complaints for approximately three years. Dr. Lowe's initial examination showed that plaintiff had a positive Tinel sign and evidence of significant tenderness over the median nerve, weakness of the abductor pollicis muscle, and significant decrease in his two-point discrimination, which are all clinical signs of carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Lowe ordered a nerve conduction study which showed plaintiff had compression of the median nerve in both wrists and the ulnar nerve at the elbow level of both arms. Dr. Lowe found evidence of synovitis and tendonitis in both arms. Based upon his clinical findings, Dr. Lowe recommended that plaintiff undergo bilateral release surgery.

12. On October 11, 2001, plaintiff filed a second FMLA application due to bilateral hand surgery effective October 18, 2001.

13. On October 19, 2001, Dr. Lowe performed release surgery on the median and ulnar nerves of plaintiff's right hand, along with a synovectomy. Dr. Lowe performed similar surgery to plaintiff's left hand on November 30, 2001.

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

Related

Harrell v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc.
284 S.E.2d 343 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1981)
Booker v. Duke Medical Center
256 S.E.2d 189 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Moore v. Premium Standard Farms, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-premium-standard-farms-ncworkcompcom-2004.