Raper v. Mansfield Systems, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 2, 2007
DocketI.C. NO. 377149.
StatusPublished

This text of Raper v. Mansfield Systems, Inc. (Raper v. Mansfield Systems, 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
Raper v. Mansfield Systems, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Houser 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.

***********
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. On May 28, 2003, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. *Page 2

2. An employment relationship existed between plaintiff-employee and defendant-employer Mansfield Systems, Inc.

3. Defendant-employer Mansfield Systems, Inc. is insured by Federated Mutual Insurance Company.

4. All parties have been correctly designated and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

5. That the date of the alleged injury was the May 28, 2003.

6. At and subsequent to the hearing, the parties submitted the following:

a. A Packet of Medical Records, which was admitted into the record, and marked as Stipulated Exhibit (2);

b. A Packet of Industrial Commission Forms as supplemented with Defendants' Form 61, which was admitted into the record, and marked as Stipulated Exhibit (3);

c. A Packet of Social Security Administration Related Documents, which was admitted into the record, and marked as Stipulated Exhibit (4);

d. An Agreement of Final Settlement and Release between Plaintiff and former Defendants Mansfield Oil Company and the Travelers, which was admitted into the record, and marked as Stipulated Exhibit (5);

e. An Itemization of Benefits Paid by St. Paul Travelers, which was admitted into the record, and marked as Stipulated Exhibit (6), and;

f. A Packet of Discovery Responses, which was admitted into the record, and marked as Stipulated Exhibit (7).

*********** *Page 3
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff originally filed a claim against Mansfield Oil Company and St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company for the same May 28, 2003 injury which is the subject of plaintiff's current claim against defendant Mansfield Systems, Inc. St. Paul Travelers then began paying indemnity and medical compensation through October 1, 2003. Thereafter, St. Paul Travelers formally denied the compensability of plaintiff's claim by filing an Industrial Commission Form 61 on November 12, 2003 on the basis that plaintiff was not an employee of Mansfield Oil Company at the time of the alleged accident, but instead was an employee of its subsidiary, Mansfield Systems, Inc. Prior to filing its Form 61, St. Paul Travelers paid plaintiff a total of $6,841.99 in indemnity benefits based on an average weekly wage of $603.68 and a compensation rate of $402.39. St. Paul Travelers also paid medical expenses in the amount of $6,401.63. Plaintiff reached a settlement with Mansfield Oil Company and St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company in the amount of $8,000.00, and this agreement was approved by Deputy Commissioner Houser on August 17, 2005.

2. At the time of the hearing before Deputy Commissioner Houser, plaintiff was fifty-five (55) years of age. Plaintiff obtained his GED from Wilson Technical Community College in 1982. Plaintiff's work history consists mainly of truck driving positions in which his duties required him to lift, push and pull significant weight.

3. Plaintiff worked for defendant-employer as a gas tanker truck driver. On a typical day, plaintiff would travel to defendant-employer's terminal, load his truck with gas, and then drive to a station to "drop" (unload) the fuel. The hoses used for this task were kept on a trough *Page 4 located on the side of the truck. Plaintiff would take down the hose, connect it to a pipe in the ground to unload the gas and then disconnect the hose, and return the hose to the trough. The hoses used are approximately twelve inches in diameter and weigh between thirty-five (35) and fifty (50) pounds.

4. As of May 28, 2003, plaintiff had been working for defendant-employer as a driver for approximately six months. On that date, after he filled a tank in his usual manner, plaintiff reached down to pick up the hose. Then, when plaintiff was approximately fifty-percent (50%) upright, he experienced a snapping sensation in his right shoulder area. Upon feeling the snap, instead of placing the hose in the trough in his usual manner, plaintiff threw it onto the trough to avoid dropping it and the possibility of not being able to pick it up again. According to plaintiff, the trough is above the height of his shoulders.

5. Following this incident, plaintiff reported the incident to his dispatcher who instructed plaintiff to seek treatment at Smithfield Urgent Care. At that time, plaintiff's symptoms included pain running from the right side of his neck, down into his right shoulder and hand. Additionally, plaintiff was experiencing numbness and tingling of the right second, third and fourth digits, and weakness of the right arm. Plaintiff had received treatment for various ailments at Smithfield Urgent Care since December 11, 2001. The medical records from this facility contain no reference of neck, right shoulder, or right hand pain prior to May 28, 2003 and there is also no indication of numbness or tingling in the fingers of plaintiff's right hand.

6. On May 29, 2003, plaintiff was examined at Smithfield Urgent Care. Medical records from that date note symptoms in plaintiff's right trapezius muscle and cervical spine, with the right side being worse than the left. These medical records also indicate that plaintiff was only able to turn his neck and head one-half as much as is normal. Plaintiff returned to *Page 5 Smithfield Urgent Care on June 2, 2003, at which time he was diagnosed as having sustained a cervical sprain and injury to his trapezius muscle. On June 9, 2003, plaintiff was also diagnosed as having cervical radiculopathy. Thereafter, plaintiff was referred to Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic.

7. On September 26, 2003, plaintiff was evaluated at Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic by Dr. Carol B. Siegel, whose medical records reflect that plaintiff had sustained an injury to his neck and right shoulder while lifting a gas tanker hose on May 28, 2003. Dr. Siegel also noted in her records that plaintiff was experiencing numbness and tingling in his right hand fingers. Following numerous diagnostic tests, including an EMG and nerve studies of his right upper extremity, plaintiff was diagnosed as having right carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Siegel has opined that because plaintiff denied having hand and finger symptoms prior to May 28, 2003, she could only attribute his carpal tunnel syndrome to the injury occurring on that date. For his carpal tunnel syndrome and continued shoulder symptoms, Dr. Siegel referred plaintiff for a consultation with Dr. Fajgenbaum. To date, this consultation has not occurred due to the denial of this claim.

8. On May 3, 2004, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Josephus Thomas Bloem.

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

Related

Fish v. Steelcase, Inc.
449 S.E.2d 233 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Raper v. Mansfield Systems, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raper-v-mansfield-systems-inc-ncworkcompcom-2007.