Parker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 24, 2001
DocketI.C. NO. 680901
StatusPublished

This text of Parker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Parker v. Wal-Mart Stores, 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. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2001).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commission Bost and the briefs and arguments of the parties. 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 with modifications concerning medical treatment and maximum medical improvement.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties in a pre-trial agreement and at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Commission and the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this case.

2. The employer-employee relationship existed between defendant-employer and plaintiff at all relevant times.

3. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania is the carrier on the risk.

4. Plaintiff suffered an admittedly compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment on or about 12 October 1996.

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $314.75.

6. Plaintiff last worked for defendant-employer on or about 28 August 1998, has not returned to work for defendant-employer since that time and has not received any compensation benefits since that time.

7. The parties mediated this case on 27 October 1998. Pursuant to Commission order, defendants advanced plaintiff's share of the mediator's fee in the amount of $150.00.

8. Defendants paid plaintiff compensation for total disability at the rate of $200.00 per week from 14 October 1996 through 8 August 1997. Defendants paid plaintiff compensation for partial disability under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-30 from 7 August 1997 through 10 August 1997 in the amount of $57.14. From 20 August 1997 through 29 August 1997, defendants paid plaintiff compensation in the amount of $227.13.

9. The following documents were received into evidence as stipulated exhibits:

(1) medical and rehabilitation records, 223 pages;

(2) letter from Mr. Brantley to Mr. Austin dated 18 December 1998;

(3) letter from Mr. Austin to Mr. Brantley dated 10 March, 1999;

(4) Form 28 dated 30 January 1998;

(5) Undated letter from Jake Miller to Shirley Parker with handwritten note from Ms. Miller at bottom of letter;

(6) Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents dated 21 April 1999 with Exhibits A B attached thereto;

(7) Medical records from Dr. Robert Abraham, 2 pages;

(8) Medical records from Subu Dubey, 3 pages;

(9) Record of Discussions with Associates;

(10) Medical record from Dr. Mark Hennessy dated 9 December 1997;

(11) Form 60 dated 4 November 1996; and

(12) Medical records from Dr. Mark Rodger, 4 pages.

10. Following the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the parties deposed Dr. Subu Dubey, Dr. Robert Abraham and Dr. Mark Rodger and the depositions are a part of the evidentiary record in this matter. In addition, counsel for defendants submitted four pages of stipulated medical records by letter dated 20 September 2000.

***********
Based upon the evidence of record and the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner, the Full Commission finds as follows

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On 12 October 1996, plaintiff was working as a stocker in the Wal-Mart Store in Jacksonville, North Carolina when she strained her low back while lifting furniture. Thereafter, plaintiff was out of work until August of 1997, during which time she received compensation for total disability. When plaintiff did return to work, she was assigned to be a fitting room attendant, where her primary responsibility was to answer telephones.

2. Plaintiff was initially evaluated at Onslow Doctors Care on 14 and 16 October 1996. She was then referred to Dr. Noel Rogers, an orthopedic surgeon in Jacksonville, who first saw her on 16 October 1996. Dr. Rogers treated plaintiff for her back through 22 November 1996, at which time he referred plaintiff for evaluation by Dr. Robert Abraham, a neurosurgeon in Jacksonville.

3. Dr. Abraham saw plaintiff on four occasions beginning 3 December 1996. After reviewing an MRI obtained by Dr. Rogers and a lumbar mylegram/CT scan that he ordered, Dr. Abraham referred plaintiff to Dr. Scott Johnston, a pain management specialist in Jacksonville and directed plaintiff to return in 4 6 weeks or as needed.

4. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Johnston on 24 February 1997 and has continued seeing Dr. Johnston, intermittently, since that time

5. Defendant-carrier requested that plaintiff be evaluated by Dr. Mark Rodger, an orthopedic surgeon in Wilmington. Dr. Rodger first saw plaintiff on 14 May 1997. At the recommendation of the medical case manager, both defendant-carrier and plaintiff agreed for Dr. Rodger to become the treating physician. Thereafter, plaintiff followed up with Dr. Rodger on 12 June 1997, 28 October 1997 and 4 February 1998.

6. Plaintiff returned to work for defendant-employer as a fitting-room attendant in August of 1997. While plaintiff was working in this capacity, there were at least two other women who performed the same job duties that plaintiff performed as a fitting-room attendant. Therefore, plaintiff had to divide her duties with the other women. other stores operated by defendant-employer have individuals who hold fitting-room attendant positions as well.

7. The fitting-room attendant job plaintiff performed for defendant-employer was not created for her but represented a job defendant-employer had available for plaintiff which was suitable to her capacity. In her position as a fitting-room attendant, plaintiff had the capacity to earn wages of at least $314.75 per week.

8. Even though plaintiff had agreed for Dr. Rodger to become the treating physician, she consulted Dr. Abraham without referral or authorization on 20 July 1998 for complaints of increased back pain. Four days later on 24 July 1998, Dr. Abraham performed a percutaneous discectomy at L3-4 in an effort to repair a bulging disc at that level.

9. Plaintiff received treatment by Dr. Dresbach, a psychiatrist, and Dr. David Novak, a psychologist. Dr. Novak diagnosed plaintiff with chronic pain disorder. According to plaintiff, water therapy was most beneficial in improving pain symptoms. Plaintiff also used a TENS unit which helped to alleviate some of her chronic low back pain.

10. Dr. Rodger would not have recommended that plaintiff undergo the percutaneous discectomy that Dr. Abraham performed for two reasons. First, a May 1998 MRI did not reveal the need for a diskectomy. In addition, percutaneous discectomies are disfavored and do not achieve long-term results in that they tend to treat symptoms, as opposed to the cause of pain. As expected by Dr. Rodger, plaintiff only had a temporary improvement in her symptoms following surgery.

11. Plaintiff last worked at Wal-Mart on or about 28 August 1998. Since that time, plaintiff has retained the capacity to perform activities including standing for a period of up to 15 minutes, walking of a quarter mile and lifting 20 pounds, provided that she avoids bending, twisting, climbing and reaching above her shoulders.

12. Dr. Abraham has not released plaintiff to return to work.

13.

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

Related

§ 97
North Carolina § 97
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-25.1
North Carolina § 97-25.1
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-30
North Carolina § 97-30

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Parker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-wal-mart-stores-inc-ncworkcompcom-2001.