Rogers v. Roadway Express

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJune 3, 2005
DocketI.C. Nos. 244140 361010
StatusPublished

This text of Rogers v. Roadway Express (Rogers v. Roadway Express) 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
Rogers v. Roadway Express, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Rowell. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence or rehear the parties or their representatives. The Full Commission AFFIRMS with some modifications the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. At the time of the alleged injuries on December 27, 2002 and August 14, 2003, or the contracting of and first disability from the alleged occupational diseases, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act, defendant employed three or more employees, and the employee-employer relationship existed between the parties.

2. Defendant was a duly qualified self-insured employer under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act at all times material to these claims. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., is the servicing agent for defendant.

3. Plaintiff's average weekly wage at the time of the alleged injury or disability from the alleged occupational disease on December 27, 2002 was $749.98, yielding a compensation rate of $500.01.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage on August 14, 2003 was $805.84, yielding a compensation rate of $537.25.

5. Plaintiff was out of work because of the condition in his right forearm from December 28, 2002 through April 22, 2003 and from August 14, 2003 through May 2, 2004.

6. The issues for decision by the Commission in I.C. Claim No. 244140 are (a) whether plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant on December 27, 2002; (b) if not, whether the condition in plaintiff's right forearm is compensable as an occupational disease for which defendant has liability under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act; and (c) if the condition in plaintiff's right forearm is compensable as an injury by accident or occupational disease for which defendant has liability, the compensation for medical expenses, for temporary disability and for permanent partial disability, if any, which plaintiff is entitled to receive as a result of this condition.

7. The issues for decision by the Commission in I.C. Claim No. 361010 are (a) whether plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant on August 14, 2003; (b) if not, whether the condition in plaintiff's right arm beginning August 14, 2003, is compensable as an occupational disease for which defendant has liability under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act; and (c) if the condition in plaintiff's right arm beginning August 14, 2003 is compensable as an injury by accident or occupational disease for which defendant has liability, the compensation for medical expenses and for temporary disability, if any, which plaintiff is entitled to receive as a result of this condition. The issue of compensation for permanent partial disability as a result of the August 14, 2003 condition is reserved for future decision.

8. The stipulations and exhibits contained in the Pre-Hearing Agreement dated September 22, 2003 and in the Amendment to Pre-Hearing Agreement dated December 11, 2003, as well as the deposition of Dr. Andrew Koman, are incorporated into the record.

9. The parties stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit #1, the Pre-Hearing Agreement and attached notebook containing stipulated exhibits of the parties. Subsequent to the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the parties amended the Pre-Hearing Agreement by letter filed on December 18, 2003. After the hearing, the parties submitted additional documentation by letters dated September 30, 2003, October 17, 2003, December 18, 2003, January 8, 2004, and January 30, 2004. This documentation as listed was made a part of Stipulated Exhibit #1 and made a part of the record.

***********
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 33 years old, had a high school education and some technical training in welding and auto mechanics. Plaintiff has been employed as a dockworker at defendant's Kernersville trucking terminal since October 1998. Plaintiff also worked for defendant at this facility on an on-call basis for a few years prior to October 1998.

2. Plaintiff's job consisted of loading and unloading freight from truck trailers and sorting the freight for the proper destination. Plaintiff used a forklift to handle pallets containing freight, in addition to handling freight by hand. Plaintiff lifted and carried freight weighing from five to 100 pounds.

3. Defendant's terminal consists of two docks. One dock is for inbound freight and the other is for outbound freight. The inbound dock has 152 loading doors where trailers can back up and unload. Each loading door has a metal dock plate. The dock plate serves as a bridge between the dock and the trailer. Prior to use, the dock plate hangs resting down flat against the back of the dock. It is hinged at the top and toward the middle of the plate. Once a trailer backs up to the dock, the dockworker opens the back of a trailer and unloads freight, if necessary, to create sufficient space to insert the end of the dock plate into the trailer.

4. Plaintiff's job as a dock worker involves the use of a three foot long metal bar with a hook on the end, or dock hook, to pull up the end of the dock plate and pull it into the back of a trailer. Plaintiff places the hook into a slot in the dock plate and lifts the end of the plate and extends it into position inside the trailer. When pulling the plate up with the dock hook, plaintiff lifts approximately 50 to 75 pounds. Plaintiff pulls up the end of a dock plate two or three times a day to unload trucks.

5. Plaintiff did not experience pain in his right wrist prior to reporting to work at 10:30 p.m. on December 27, 2002. Plaintiff unloaded approximately 150 boxes from the back of a trailer to make room to put the dock plate into the trailer. While standing in the back of the trailer, plaintiff took the dock hook in his dominant right hand and placed the end of the hook in the slot at the bottom of the dock plate. Plaintiff pulled on the dock hook to pull the plate up and into the back of the trailer. The dock plate was very hard to pull up on this occasion, and plaintiff felt a pop. Plaintiff immediately felt pain shooting through his right wrist. Plaintiff grabbed the hook with his left hand and completed pulling the dock plate into the back of the trailer. Plaintiff continued to work with pain in his right wrist. After three hours, however, plaintiff's hand became so painful and swollen that he could no longer use it, so he stopped working.

6. Prior to December 27, 2002, plaintiff, who at the time was 32 years old, five foot nine inches and 228 pounds, had not experienced difficulty using the dock hook to pull up a dock plate. On December 27, 2002, however, it was very hard for plaintiff to pull up the dock plate, more so than at any time before and was so difficult that it caused one of the bones in plaintiff's wrist to fracture. Plaintiff reported his injury to the supervisors during his shift on December 27, 2002.

7. Plaintiff was referred by defendant to a Concentra Medical Center for treatment.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rogers v. Roadway Express, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-roadway-express-ncworkcompcom-2005.