Pierce v. Southern Industrial Constructors, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJanuary 8, 2009
DocketI.C. No. 650706.
StatusPublished

This text of Pierce v. Southern Industrial Constructors, Inc. (Pierce v. Southern Industrial Constructors, 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
Pierce v. Southern Industrial Constructors, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award, based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Rideout and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the Opinion and Award, except for minor modifications. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Rideout with minor modifications.

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

STIPULATIONS *Page 2
1. An employment relationship existed between the named plaintiff and the named employer on or about July 6, 2006, the date of the alleged incident;

2. The named employer is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of North Carolina and having its principal place of business in Raleigh, North Carolina;

3. It is stipulated that all parties have been correctly designated and there is no question as to mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties.

4. Defendant-carrier, Zurich Insurance Company, is the insurance carrier liable on the risk;

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $880.00 and compensation rate is $566.66; plaintiff has not received any temporary total disability benefits, to date; and

6. On or about August 9, 2007, plaintiff underwent cervical fusion surgery.

***********
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On July 6, 2006, plaintiff worked as a pipefitter for defendants. As of the date of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was forty-two years old and had a tenth grade education.

2. On July 6, 2006, plaintiff was attempting to move a pipe support across a catwalk when he felt as if he pulled a muscle in his back. Plaintiff also indicated he "snatched" his arm while trying to lower the pipe support over the railing using a chain. Plaintiff did not seek medical attention on that date. *Page 3

3. Following the date of accident, plaintiff continued to work for the defendant-employer. Approximately two weeks after the injury, plaintiff missed work due to dehydration and diarrhea.

4. On July 25, 2006, plaintiff sought treatment at Family Medicine of Harrellsville for dehydration and diarrhea.

5. The following day, July 26, 2006, plaintiff presented to Dr. Bidwell at the Family Practice of Franklinsville. On July 27, 2006, plaintiff underwent an MRI of the cervical spine that showed a herniated disc at C5-6 and disc protrusion at C6-7 with bilateral neural foraminal narrowing and spinal canal stenosis at C5-6 and C6-7.

6. Dr. Bidwell testified that it was reasonable that plaintiff stayed out of work from that day forward. During a telephone conference with plaintiff, Dr. Bidwell indicated plaintiff should stay out of work pending evaluation by a specialist.

7. Plaintiff presented to the Emergency Department at Roanoke-Chowan Hospital on August 31, 2006, and reported pain in his neck. Plaintiff was discharged on the same date with pain medication and advised to follow-up in one week.

8. On October 16, 2006, plaintiff returned to Family Medicine of Harrellsville in Harrellsville, North Carolina and reported back pain. On November 2, 2006, plaintiff returned to Family Medicine of Harrellsville for follow-up of back pain. He reported that he was in a wreck the previous week and was placed in jail. On November 6, 2006, plaintiff returned to Family Medicine of Harrellsville and complained of continued cervical pain and numbness and tingling in his cervical area radiating bilaterally. He reported that he had been out of medication for two days and was scheduled to see Dr. Voos for follow-up. *Page 4

9. Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Kurt Voos at the Center for Scoliosis and Spinal Surgery on December 11, 2006. Plaintiff was advised to undergo epidural steroid injections of the cervical spine and given pain medication. Plaintiff indicated that he was interested in surgical intervention, but was advised to exhaust conservative options first.

10. Plaintiff underwent a lumbar spine MRI without contrast at Roanoke-Chowan Hospital in Ahoskie, North Carolina, on December 18, 2006. The findings were mild degenerative changes at L5-S1 and L4-5 without central canal stenosis or nerve root compression. He had minimal foraminal narrowing at L4-5.

11. On December 20, 2006, plaintiff presented to Larabee Chiropractic and Rehab with complaints of right side leg and right arm pain. Plaintiff attended treatment sessions at this facility several times per week and his last visit was May 3, 2007.

12. Plaintiff presented to Dr. Raymond Minard at Pitt County Memorial Hospital in Greenville, North Carolina, on January 17, 2007, for a cervical epidural steroid injection.

13. On January 24, 2007, the Plaintiff returned to Dr. Kurt Voos at the Center for Scoliosis and Spinal Surgery in Greenville, North Carolina, for a follow-up examination of his lumbar and cervical spine. Dr. Voos opined that the MRI of the lumbar spine showed no significant pathology that would need to be addressed with surgery. He was advised to undergo physical therapy for low back pain and scheduled for an additional injection to the cervical spine.

14. Plaintiff underwent another cervical epidural steroid injection with Dr. Minard at Pitt County Memorial Hospital on January 31, 2007.

14. On February 6, 2007, Plaintiff was incarcerated as a result of his conviction for assault on a female. *Page 5

15. Plaintiff contacted Dr. Voos' office on February 21, 2007, and reported that he was incarcerated. He requested a note that he could sweep and mop floors. On February 23, 2007, Dr. Voos wrote a note advising that the Plaintiff could sweep and mop floors as tolerated.

16. On April 1, 2007, the Plaintiff was released from incarceration.

17. Plaintiff presented no evidence of a job search following his release from incarceration.

18. On May 3, 2007, plaintiff returned to Family Medicine of Harrellsville and reported right shoulder pain that was occasional or constant as well as aching in his left shoulder.

19. Plaintiff underwent an MRI of the right shoulder on May 6, 2007. The impression was right rotator cuff tendonopathy with articular surface partial tear and moderately severe acromioclavicular hypertrophy.

20. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Voos on May 16, 2007, and reported that the epidural steroid injections provided him with fairly good pain relief, but that the relief was short-lived. He was advised to undergo a CT myelogram in anticipation of surgical intervention of the cervical spine.

21. On May 23, 2007, plaintiff presented to Dr. Lawrence Larabee at Northeastern Orthopedics in Ahoskie, North Carolina. He was diagnosed with a right shoulder partial rotator cuff tear and moderate AC joint arthritis. Dr. Larabee recommended a possible AC joint injection during the next visit if his symptoms were not improved.

22. On June 11, 2007, plaintiff presented to Eastern Radiology for a cervical myelogram and CT of the cervical spine.

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

Related

Demery v. Perdue Farms, Inc.
545 S.E.2d 485 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Click v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.
265 S.E.2d 389 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.
290 S.E.2d 682 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pierce v. Southern Industrial Constructors, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-southern-industrial-constructors-inc-ncworkcompcom-2009.