Parker v. Martin Mills, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedAugust 30, 2000
DocketI.C. NO. 421895
StatusPublished

This text of Parker v. Martin Mills, Inc. (Parker v. Martin Mills, 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
Parker v. Martin Mills, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2000).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Holmes and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives or amend the Opinion and Award except for minor modifications.

***********
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 are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers Compensation Act.

2. At the time of the accident, the defendant was self-insured with Constitution State Service Company as the adjuster.

3. The employee-employer relationship existed between the parties.

4. The plaintiffs average weekly wage was $315.20, yielding a compensation rate of $210.14 per week.

5. The date of the alleged injury was 16 November 1993.

6. The nature of the injury was back injury.

7. The plaintiff last worked for the defendant on 16 November 1995, at which time she was laid off in connection with the closing of the plant.

8. The plaintiffs medical records were stipulated and received into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 1. The four doctors depositions were stipulated and received into evidence.

***********
The Full Commission adopts the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner with some modifications and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The plaintiff, age 51 at the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, is a high school graduate. She previously worked as a hair-dresser for approximately eight years, as a physical fitness consultant for approximately ten years, as a housekeeper for approximately six months, and then as a fitness consultant again for seven years.

2. The plaintiff began working for the defendant on 19 October 1987 as a "close sleeve operator, which is a production job sewing sweatshirts. The plaintiff continued her work as a fitness consultant and taught aerobics classes at night while employed with the defendant.

3. Prior to 6 November 1993, the plaintiff had no back problems.

4. On 6 November 1993, the plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with the defendant when she fell off a platform at work and struck her back. The plaintiff continued to work her regular job until January 1994.

5. The plaintiff began treating with Dr. Todd M. Chapman at Miller Orthopedic Clinic on 5 January 1994 with complaints of pain and numbness in her left buttock area and down her left leg. Dr. Chapman initially diagnosed the plaintiff with a contusion of her gluteus maximus and her cluneal nerves over the iliac crest area. Dr. Chapman subsequently diagnosed the plaintiff with lumbar strain. Dr. Chapman treated her conservatively.

6. Based upon the plaintiffs continued complaints of pain in her low back, left leg and occasionally her left hip, Dr. Chapman ordered a CT scan of the lumbar spine which was taken on 18 April 1995. It did not reveal any significant neuro-compressive lesions. On 2 May 1995, the plaintiff returned to Dr. Chapman reporting that a muscle stimulator recently prescribed was helping her back pain and that she had not had anymore sharp pains. She was still complaining of numbness in her leg after sitting or standing for a long time. Dr. Chapman found the plaintiff to have reached maximum medical improvement and released her from his care with a five percent permanent partial impairment to her spine. He released her to work at a sitting job with a thirty-five pound lifting restriction.

7. As a result of her restrictions, in May of 1995, the plaintiff was transferred to the position of "band bottom worker with the defendant, which was a light duty job.

8. On 18 July 1995, the plaintiff returned to Dr. Chapman to get a new prescription. At that time, she had forward flexion with fingertips to the floor, excellent extension and negative SLR. The plaintiff did, however, report continuing numbness in her left buttock area. Dr. Chapman opined that the plaintiff had a contusion in that area that would improve.

9. On or about 4 October 1995, the plaintiff signed the Form 26 agreement agreeing to the rating of five percent permanent partial disability to her back. The Form 26 was approved by the Industrial Commission on 22 February 1996.

10. The plaintiff continued to work full-time for the defendant until the plant closed in November 1995.

11. On 12 December 1995, the plaintiff returned to Dr. Chapman with complaints of pain in the left buttock and left posterior thigh. Dr. Chapman ordered an S1 nerve root block. When the plaintiff returned to Dr. Chapman on 5 January 1996, her symptoms had improved. When she last saw Dr. Chapman on 19 February 1996, she was "getting along fine and had only needed three or four pain pills since the January visit. Dr. Chapman released her to return as needed.

12. After the plant closed, the plaintiff was unable to find employment within her permanent restrictions. She worked one day at a Manpower job and one day at a doctors office. During 1996 until approximately March of 1997, at the expense of the defendant, the plaintiff returned to school to become a licensed practical nurse.

13. The plaintiffs condition began to deteriorate due to increasing and continuing back and left leg pain. She began to cry out in pain in the middle of the night. Her left leg began to give out. She began just sitting around the house. Her complaints of pain increased and she began to tell her husband that she would rather die that live with the pain. By approximately March 1997, due to her increasing pain, she could not sit in class and had to drop out of school. She only completed the first year of the two-year program.

14. On 13 February 1997, the plaintiff returned to Miller Orthopedic Clinic and, because Dr. Chapman had left the practice, was seen by Dr. John A. Welshofer, a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation. The plaintiff was complaining of "miserable back pain and intermittent pain down her left leg. Dr. Welshofers impression on that date was degenerative disc disease with intermittent left sciatica. He did not give plaintiff any work restrictions because she was not working. He referred her for a CT myelogram which revealed a fairly large herniated disk between T12 and L1 on the left with possible compression on the left T12 nerve root. After further questioning by Dr. Welshofer, the plaintiff reported having pain progression towards her umbilicus region on the left side.

15. On 6 March 1997, after reviewing the results of the CT myelogram, Dr. Welshofer could not conclude whether the T12-L1 herniation was causing the plaintiffs symptoms, so he order a T12 selective epidural. On 27 March 1997, Dr. Welshofer found that the plaintiff reported a seventy-five percent improvement in her pain after the selective T12 epidural. Despite this report and despite the plaintiffs report of back pain around her umbilicus region on the left side, Dr. Welshofers impression was that the T12-L1 disk herniation was not producing her pain. He therefore referred her to Dr. Craig Brigham for evaluation.

16. Due to the pain relief the plaintiff received with the epidural, the plaintiff was able to work four or five weekends as a nursing assistant at a nursing home.

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

Related

Blair v. American Television & Communications Corp.
477 S.E.2d 190 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Hyler v. GTE Products Co.
425 S.E.2d 698 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1993)
Lucas v. Bunn Manufacturing Co.
368 S.E.2d 386 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Parker v. Martin Mills, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-martin-mills-inc-ncworkcompcom-2000.