Pinney v. City of Fayetteville

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 15, 1998
DocketI.C. NO. 626650
StatusPublished

This text of Pinney v. City of Fayetteville (Pinney v. City of Fayetteville) 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
Pinney v. City of Fayetteville, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1998).

Opinion

Upon review of all the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence MODIFIES in part and AFFIRMS in part the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

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 and in a Pre-Trial Agreement, admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #1, as

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission and are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employment relationship existed between plaintiff-employee and defendant on 28 November 1995.

3. The defendant was self-insured on 28 November 1995.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $312.90 on 28 November 1995.

5. Plaintiff's medical records regarding this claim are admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #2. These include:

1) Cape Fear Valley Medical Center and including the Industrial, Orthopaedic and Sports Therapy Center;

2) Fayetteville Family Medical Center;

3) Physician's Total Rehab;

4) Fayetteville Ambulatory Surgery Center;

5) Carolina Neurosurgical Services;

6) Pinehurst Rehabilitation Center;

7) Pinehurst Surgical Clinic;

8) American Works, Incorporated; and

9) Village Surgical Associates.

6. Plaintiff's employment and personnel records from defendant are admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #3.

7. Interrogatories and Answers from both parties are admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #4.

8. A videotape of a van driver, taken 26 July 1996, is admitted into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #5.

9. The issues to be determined are whether plaintiff sustained a compensable occupational disease from her employment with defendant; and if so, what, if any, benefits is she entitled. Plaintiff has additionally requested attorney fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1.

***********
Based upon the competent evidence of record herein, the Full Commission adopts in part and modifies in part the Findings of Fact of the deputy commissioner and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of hearing before the deputy commissioner, plaintiff was a 54 year old female of German nationality who spoke English as her second language. Plaintiff had been employed by defendant as a part-time van driver from October, 1991 through April, 1992 and full-time from April, 1992 through 23 August 1996.

2. Plaintiff's duties as a van driver required her to transport disabled individuals in a large van. Plaintiff transported as many as twenty (20) persons per day to and from their homes and needed medical treatment. As many as eight (8) of the persons plaintiff transported per day were non-ambulatory and some were very obese. Much of the time, there was no one at home to assist plaintiff with transporting persons from their homes to the van.

3. Plaintiff had to operate the wheelchair lift on the van for the patients in wheelchairs. The vans plaintiff operated did not have automatic hydraulic lifts that unfolded the metal platform. Plaintiff had to manually raise and lower the heavy metal platform. The platform of the lift on the van plaintiff drove during the early portion of her employment was heavier than the one on the newer model that plaintiff drove through August 1996. Plaintiff had to manually push the patients in wheelchairs, some weighing in excess of two hundred fifty (250) pounds. Plaintiff would manually lower the heavy platform by pulling it down; push the wheelchair onto the platform; apply the wheelchair brakes; activate the lift after plaintiff and the wheelchair patient were on the platform; push the wheelchair patient into the van and operate a system of two pulleys and straps to secure the wheelchair in place. Plaintiff had to exert pressure with her hands in order to perform the tasks necessary to assist non-ambulatory patients onto and off the van and secure the wheelchair in place. Additionally, plaintiff also operated a lever inside the van to open and close the door for the ambulatory patients, which required her to use hand pressure. Plaintiff had to reverse the above described procedures when patients exited the van.

4. In approximately 1993, plaintiff began having problems with her hands and wrists hurting. Plaintiff reported these problems to her supervisor, Mr. Thompson.

5. Plaintiff was out of work from February, 1995 until July, 1995 for unrelated brain surgery due to an aneurysm. This surgery was performed by Dr. Bruce Jaufmann. Plaintiff returned to work on or about 9 July 1995 and worked until the end of September, 1995. Plaintiff then began to lose time due to a ganglion cyst. This cyst is the issue in Industrial Commission File Number 589257. No request for hearing has been filed in this matter and it is not an issue in this Opinion and Award.

6. Plaintiff returned to work in mid-November, 1995. On 28 November 1995, plaintiff was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome by Jim Heine, a physician's assistant. Dr. Jaufmann, a neurosurgeon, confirmed this diagnosis.

7. As a result of plaintiff's job duties which required use of her hands in a forceful, pushing and pulling manner in pushing wheelchairs, closing the ramp on the back of the van, opening and closing the door of the van, using the pulley and locking device for securing wheelchairs, and using her hands for performing other duties related to operating the van and transporting patients; plaintiff sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Nerve conduction tests performed in December, 1995, supported this diagnosis.

8. Plaintiff's employment with defendant placed her at an increased risk of contracting and aggravating bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as compared to members of the public not so employed. The Full Commission places greater weight on the testimony of Dr. Jaufmann, plaintiff's treating physician, than the medical records of Dr. Mark Brenner who did an independent medical examination of plaintiff, with respect to causation and increased risk.

9. As a result of contracting carpal tunnel syndrome from her duties as a van driver for defendant, plaintiff underwent a right carpal tunnel release on 27 December 1995. Plaintiff improved after this right carpal tunnel release and underwent a left carpal tunnel release on 17 January 1996.

10. On 9 April 1996, Dr. Jaufmann placed a five pound lifting restriction on the use of plaintiff's left hand, noted that she was unable to efficiently use her right hand, recommended continued occupational therapy, and further indicated that plaintiff could return to work, light duty, within these restrictions on 15 April 1996. Dr. Jaufmann did not approve plaintiff to return to her former position as a van driver or to a custodian position.

11. Plaintiff presented her restrictions to defendant, but no light duty was provided. It was the defendant's policy to only provide light duty for accepted workers' compensation claims; defendant had denied plaintiff's claim.

12. Defendant terminated plaintiff from employment on 23 August 1996.

13. As a result of her carpal tunnel syndrome, plaintiff was unable to work or earn wages from 28 November 1995 through 24 August 1996.

14.

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

Related

§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-53
North Carolina § 97-53(13)
§ 97-88
North Carolina § 97-88
§ 97-88.1
North Carolina § 97-88.1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pinney v. City of Fayetteville, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinney-v-city-of-fayetteville-ncworkcompcom-1998.