Payne v. Continental General Tire

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 15, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 815355
StatusPublished

This text of Payne v. Continental General Tire (Payne v. Continental General Tire) 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
Payne v. Continental General Tire, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Order and prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Holmes, the records contained in the Commission's file in this matter and the briefs before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good ground to reconsider the evidence in this matter. Having reconsidered the evidence, the Full Commission reverses the Deputy Commissioner's denial of benefits and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
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. At all relevant times, the parties were bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act, and an employer/employee relationship existed between the parties on or about November 24, 1997.

2. Plaintiff sustained an injury by accident to his left shoulder on November 24, 1997, while employed as a tire technician with defendant.

3. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $671.91, resulting in a weekly compensation rate of $447.96.

4. As a result of his compensable injury by accident, plaintiff received temporary total disability benefits during the following periods:

(a) February 21, 1998, to August 31, 1998;

(b) September 3, 1998, to September 18, 1998; and

(c) September 23, 1998, to January 20, 1999.

5. Defendant filed a Form 24, Application To Terminate Or SuspendPayment Of Compensation, on December 10, 1998, contending Plaintiff was released to return to work with no restrictions on November 25, 1998, by his treating physician, Dr. Patrick Connor, and further contending plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement.

6. A telephonic hearing took place on January 13, 1999, with Special Deputy Commissioner James C. Gillen, who, by an Administrative Decision and Order filed January 20, 1999, allowed defendant's Form 24 application, effective November 25, 1998, finding that defendant had rebutted the presumption of continuing disability.

7. Defendant terminated temporary total disability benefits on January 20, 1999.

8. Defendant was unable to accommodate plaintiff's work restrictions as of July 15, 1999.

9. The issues to be determined are:

(a) Whether Special Deputy Commissioner James C. Gillen properly allowed defendant to terminate plaintiff's temporary total disability benefits, effective November 25, 1998;

(b) Whether any of the medical treatment for permanent partial disability plaintiff has incurred since November 25, 1998, is compensable by defendant;

(c) Whether plaintiff is totally disabled as of July 15, 1999; and

(d) Whether plaintiff continues to be totally disabled as a result of his compensable injury, such that he is still entitled to temporary total disability benefits.

10. Any and all Industrial Commission forms filed by either party and any and all Decisions and Orders and Awards filed by the Industrial Commission, as well as plaintiff's medical records, shall be received in evidence.

***********
Based on the competent evidence of record and the reasonable inferences, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff began working at defendant's tire manufacturing plant in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 1980.

2. On November 24, 1997, plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury by accident to his left shoulder when, while turning a tire buggy at work it got caught on the floor jerking plaintiffs left arm and shoulder.

3. Defendant accepted plaintiff's shoulder claim as compensable by filing a Form 60 dated February 26, 1998 and thereafter also providing medical benefits. On December 10, 1998, defendant filed a Form 24Application to Terminate Payment of Compensation Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 97-18.1. On January, 20, 1999, Special Deputy Commissioner James C. Gillen issued an Order allowing defendant to terminate payment of compensation effective November 25, 1998.

4. On January 26, 1999, plaintiff filed a Form 33 Request for Hearing alleging he was not at maximum medical improvement, had not been returned to work without restrictions and was entitled to a continuation of temporary total disability benefits.

5. On December 1, 1997, defendant referred plaintiff to Arrowood Medical Center for treatment. Dr. Bradner diagnosed a left shoulder strain and treated plaintiff conservatively until December 30, 1997 when Dr. Bradner referred plaintiff for an orthopedic evaluation. Plaintiff was returned to work on restricted duty throughout Dr. Bradner's treatment.

6. On January 9, 1998, plaintiff presented to Dr. Ronald Singer at the Miller Orthopaedic Clinic who diagnosed plaintiff with left shoulder impingement with possible anterior instability. Dr. Singer initially treated plaintiff conservatively and on February 13, 1998 continued him on restricted duty of lifting, pulling and torquing no greater than 15 pounds with the left arm, no repetitive motion with the left arm and no overhead work. Because of his compensable injuries, plaintiff became totally unable to earn wages on February 14, 1998.

7. On February 25, 1998, plaintiff underwent an MRI, which revealed findings consistent with impingement syndrome and AC arthritis.

8. On March 5, 1998, Dr. Singer recommended that plaintiff consider surgery. On March 18, 1998, Dr. Singer performed a diagnostic arthroscopy of the left shoulder, debridement of the anterior glenoid labrum and arthroscopic subacromial decompression. Dr. Singer's post-op plan was to provide the plaintiff with aggressive mobilization without specific limitation in terms of range of motion and strengthening of the left shoulder. Dr. Singer opined at the time of plaintiff's surgery that plaintiff at some point in the future, may require a capsular shrinkage procedure versus open capsulorraphy to his left shoulder.

9. On March 23, 1998, plaintiff began physical therapy at Carolinas Physical Therapy Network. On May 12, 1998, plaintiff returned to see Dr. Singer complaining of spasms and pain while performing overhead movement in physical therapy. Dr. Singer ordered that he continue with physical therapy. Plaintiff again returned to see Dr. Singer on June 12, 1998 where he complained of significant weakness and shaking in his shoulder with any movement of his left arm above his shoulder. Dr. Singer again ordered plaintiff to continue with physical therapy.

10. On August 7, 1998, plaintiff returned to see Dr. Singer who noted that plaintiff had continued to work in physical therapy, continued to describe a pop in his left shoulder and continued to have pain with any overhead activity. Dr. Singer nonetheless renewed physical therapy. He also restricted plaintiff to lifting no more than five pounds nor any overhead work with his left arm.

11. Defendant did not accommodate these restrictions and plaintiff remained out of work and continued to receive weekly indemnity benefits.

12. Plaintiff again returned to see Dr. Singer on August 28, 1998 still complaining of shaking in his left shoulder when attempting to lift overhead which was noted by Dr. Singer. Dr. Singer returned plaintiff to work at this time limiting plaintiff to working only four hours per day.

13.

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

Related

§ 97-18.1
North Carolina § 97-18.1
§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Payne v. Continental General Tire, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-continental-general-tire-ncworkcompcom-2002.