Page v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Company

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 27, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 080805.
StatusPublished

This text of Page v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Company (Page v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Company) 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
Page v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Company, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Houser and the briefs and arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence or to amend the prior Opinion and Award. The Full Commission therefore affirms the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner with minor modifications.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. An employee-employer relationship existed between plaintiff and Goodyear at the time of the alleged incidents.

2. At the times of plaintiff's alleged injuries, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act, Goodyear employing the requisite number of employees to be bound under the provisions of the Act.

3. The parties stipulated to the following facts:

a. Plaintiff sustained a compensable lower back strain when he slipped on ice in Goodyear's parking lot on January 11, 1997.

b. Dr. Keith, the authorized treating physician assigned a 5% permanent partial disability rating to plaintiff's spine as a result of the January 11, 1997 injury.

c. Defendants paid plaintiff the amount of medical and indemnity, if any, necessary to recovery for this injury and for this 5% permanent partial disability rating to plaintiffs spine, the receipt of which plaintiff hereby acknowledges in full and complete satisfaction of this rating, under the appropriate North Carolina Industrial Commission Form agreement, which was approved by the Commission.

d. On March 30, 2000, plaintiff sustained another compensable injury to his lower back while pulling a spool off a Buncher machine when the spool stuck.

e. When conservative treatment did not alleviate plaintiffs symptoms and after objective radiographic testing confirmed lumbar spine pathology that was probably amenable to surgical correction, Dr. Amundson, the authorized treating neurosurgeon, performed the following surgery on the employee's lumbar spine on September 20, 2000, a right-sided lumbar laminotomy, removal of extruded disc fragments, and microdiscectomy.

f. Defendants accepted this injury on an Industrial Commission Form 60 dated March 28, 2001.

g. Pursuant to said Form 60, defendants paid temporary total disability compensation, temporary partial disability compensation, and medical expenses in the amount necessary to recovery, receipt of which plaintiff hereby acknowledges in full and complete satisfaction of this time out of work.

h. On March 8, 2001, Dr. Amundson, the authorized treating neurosurgeon, assigned an overall 15% rating to plaintiff's spine as a result of the March 30, 2000 compensable injury and the September 20, 2000 surgery.

i. On June 21, 2001, Dr. Amundson, the authorized treating neurosurgeon, clarified that the overall 15% rating to plaintiffs spine was in addition to the previous 5% rating assigned by Dr. Keith, resulting in a net 14.25% rating to plaintiff's lumbar spine (100% — 5% 95% × 15% = 14.25%).

j. At his deposition on June 28, 2004, Dr. Amundson testified that he referred to the North Carolina Industrial Commission Rating Guidelines and assigned and calculated this rating according to said guidelines.

k. Defendants paid plaintiff for this 14.25% rating to the lumbar spine for 42.75 weeks at a compensation rate of $504.57 for a total of $21,570.37, receipt of which plaintiff hereby acknowledges in full and complete satisfaction of this rating, on an Industrial Commission Form 21 Agreement for Compensation that was approved by the Commission on November 2, 2001.

l. In the meantime, plaintiff returned to work for Goodyear at his pre-injury average weekly wage, and it was determined that he re-herniated his L4-5 disc under compensable circumstances. Surgery was authorized, and on November 21, 2001, Dr. Amundson, the authorized treating neurosurgeon, performed the following procedures, an L4-5 medial fasciectomy, external neurolysis, removal of extruded disc fragments, and an L4-5 microdiscectomy.

m. No additional permanent partial disability rating to plaintiff's lumbar spine was issued as a result of this surgery.

n. Defendants then restarted indemnity benefits via an Industrial Commission Form 62 dated November 30, 2001. Pursuant to the Form 62, defendants paid plaintiff medical and indemnity benefits in the amount necessary to recovery in full and complete satisfaction for this time out of work, the receipt of which plaintiff hereby acknowledges.

o. In the meantime, plaintiff returned to work with Goodyear at his pre-injury wage. Because of ongoing pain complaints, Drs. McDonald and Amundson, the authorized treating orthopedist and neurosurgeon, recommended yet another lumbar surgery which was authorized by defendants.

p. On July 15, 2002, Drs. Amundson and McDonald performed the following procedures on plaintiff's lumbar spine; a decompressive laminotomy at L-3, a decompressive laminotomy at L-4, and a decompressive laminotomy at L-5. An interbody fusion at L4-5 had also been planned, but this was aborted when it was determined intra-operatively that the scar tissue binding the nerve would not allow adequate mobilization of the nerve to safely access the interbody space.

q. On October 21, 2002, plaintiff returned to work for Goodyear at his pre-injury wage.

r. On December 2, 2002, Dr. Amundson, the authorized treating neurosurgeon, assigned a 30% permanent partial disability rating to plaintiffs spine and clarified that the overall 30% rating to plaintiffs spine was in addition to the previous 5% and 14.25% ratings, resulting in a net additional 24.23% rating to plaintiffs lumbar spine (100% — 5% = 95% × 15% 14.25%; 95% — 14.25% = 80.75% × 30% = 24.23%). At his deposition on June 28, 2004, Dr. Amundson testified that he referred to the North Carolina Industrial Commission Rating Guidelines and assigned and calculated this rating according to said guidelines. Defendants offered to pay plaintiff for this 24.23% rating to the lumbar spine for 72.69 weeks at a compensation rate of $504.57 for a total of $36,677.19 on an Industrial Commission Form 21 agreement in 2003.

s. Initially plaintiff agreed to accept this payment then withdrew his consent before the Form 21 was approved by the Commission to seek further clarification on the 30% rating. A deposition of Dr. Amundson was conducted by the parties, by mutual consent, on June 28, 2004, the transcript of which is incorporated herein by reference, to clarify the issue of the rating.

t. Subsequent to the deposition, the parties agreed that defendants would pay and plaintiff would accept payment for the additional 24.23% permanent partial disability rating to his spine on a Form 21 agreement as noted above. A Form 21 Agreement with proper documentation has been approved by the Full Commission to pay this rating.

4. The parties agree that the issue to be answered by the Full Commission is whether plaintiff is also entitled to an additional 5.77% rating to his lumbar spine — the difference between the "gross" 30% PPD rating and the "net" 24.23% rating noted above — based on the current evidence of record which includes 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)
§ 97-25.1
North Carolina § 97-25.1
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31(23)
§ 97-47
North Carolina § 97-47

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Page v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/page-v-goodyear-tire-rubber-company-ncworkcompcom-2005.