Salvie v. Medical Center Pharmacy of Concord

North Carolina Industrial Commission·Decided November 22, 2010·No. I.C. NO. 487070.·Published

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and arguments of the parties. *Page 2 The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties and their representatives. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms with modifications the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Gheen.

***********
The following were entered into the record as:

EXHIBITS
1. Stipulated Exhibit #1 — Medical Records.

2. Stipulated Exhibit #2 — Industrial Commission Forms and Orders.

3. Deposition of Puneet Aggarwal, M.D.

4. Deposition of Brian DeLay, M.D.

5. First Deposition of Stephen Hipp, M.D.

6. Second Deposition of Stephen Hipp, M.D.

7. Deposition of Lynn Key, Adjuster.

8. Deposition of Daniel Murray, M.D.

9. Deposition of Alan Ward, M.D.

10. Deposition of Pamela Reddeck, R.N.

11. Deposition of Sonya Rismiller, M.D.

12. Deposition of Andrea Schwebel, PhD.

13. Deposition of Louise Stewart, R.N.

14. Deposition of Dean Volk, P.T.

15. Deposition of John Welshofer, M.D.

16. Deposition of Amanda Zopp, M.D.

*********** *Page 3
The Full Commission finds as facts and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties as:

STIPULATIONS
1. At all relevant times the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act (hereinafter "Act").

2. At all relevant times an employer-employee relationship existed between the Plaintiff, and Defendant-Employer.

3. At all relevant times Defendant-Employer was insured for injuries sustained under the Act by W.R. Berkley Corporation and its subsidiaries Key Risk Insurance Company and AIMCO Mutual Insurance Company. The claim was administered by W.R. Berkley subsidiary Key Risk Management Services.

4. The parties entered into a post hearing stipulation after the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner regarding Plaintiff's need for psychological and psychiatric treatment as follows:

The parties stipulate that Plaintiff's need for psychological and psychiatric treatment is related to the physical symptoms he is experiencing. Defendants agree to provide said treatment and will do so in accordance with the Act unless the Industrial Commission determines that Plaintiff's physical symptoms are not related to the injury of January 20, 2004, or until further order of the Commission.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT *Page 4
1. Plaintiff is 65 years-old. His employment history is that of a general and remodeling contractor, performing physical labor all of his adult life. Plaintiff began working for Defendant on June 23, 2003.

2. Defendant was the owner of several companies, including Medical Center Pharmacy. Defendant hired plaintiff to dig ditches, landscape, operate heavy equipment, renovate and upfit various properties, including commercial properties, and shore up roofs while floors were being ripped out underneath. He was paid an annual salary of $30,000.00 and provided rent-free housing owned by Defendant, with a rental value of $750.00 per month. Plaintiff resided in the rent-free housing provided by Defendant beginning from the date of his employment with Defendant in June 2003 until the end of the year in 2003. After Plaintiff moved out from the housing provided by Defendant, Plaintiff's salary increased by $300 per pay period.

3. Medical Center Pharmacy's operations included, in part, delivery of medications and durable medical equipment. Plaintiff worked among all of Defendant's businesses as assigned.

4. On January 20, 2004, Plaintiff was working for Medical Center Pharmacy helping deliver a lift chair/recliner weighing between one hundred and fifty and two hundred pounds. Plaintiff was on the bottom, as he helped the regular delivery person take the chair up a staircase into a private residence. The co-worker's grip slipped and the chair fell back against Plaintiff, pushing his legs into a chair rail, twisting his torso and pushing his shoulders into the wall. Plaintiff experienced an immediate onset of pain up his back and into his neck.

5. After two days of discomfort, Plaintiff sought treatment at the emergency room at Northeast Medical Center in Concord. He recalls feeling pain in his shoulders, neck and lower *Page 5 back. The emergency room physician, Dr. Amanda Zopp, noted only lumbar pain and no numbness in the lower extremities. Dr. Zopp did not order x-rays or other diagnostic tests.

6. Plaintiff returned to work the following Monday and focused on completing lighter duty tasks for several days, such as changing air conditioner filters at all of Defendant's properties.

7. Plaintiff returned to the heavy tasks required for his job. He developed sensations of tingling in his hands and fingers and heaviness in his legs that he described as having bags of water on his legs. He returned to the emergency room on December 6, 2004 reporting these symptoms and occasionally dropping items unexpectedly. Plaintiff was referred to an orthopaedist.

8. A Form 19 was filed by Defendants on December 8, 2004 stating injury to the "lower lumbar back." Plaintiff filed a Form 18 on December 14, 2004 claiming injuries to the "back-neck-shoulders." Defendant's adjuster noted a conversation with Plaintiff on December 17, 2004 in which he reported pain after the incident to his "back, neck and shoulders." On December 20, 2004, Defendants accepted the Plaintiff's claim by filing a Form 60 that specified a twisting injury to the back. During a Motion hearing before Deputy Commissioner George Glenn on March 25, 2008, Defendants clarified that the Form 60 was intended to admit compensability to Plaintiff's "back" as opposed to "lower back." On the Form 60, Defendants listed plaintiff's average weekly wage as $761.60 with a compensation rate of $507.76.

9. Plaintiff sought treatment with Dr. James Loftus, Jr., an orthopedic surgeon at Northeast Orthopedics in Concord. Defendants paid for treatment by Dr. Loftus, who ordered x-rays, MRIs and a nerve conduction study. Dr. Loftus diagnosed possible cervical spinal stenosis, degenerative disc disease and rotator cuff tendonitis bilaterally. Dr. Loftus determined that *Page 6 Plaintiff needed surgery to repair his right rotator cuff and bilateral surgeries to correct Plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome. A referral was made to Dr. Michael Getter to rule out the possibility of a surgical lesion of the spine. Dr. Getter interpreted the diagnostics as indicating myelomalacia of the spine requiring surgical correction. Dr. Getter recommended deferring spinal surgery until the shoulder and carpal tunnel problems were treated.

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

Salvie v. Medical Center Pharmacy of Concord, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Salvie v. Medical Center Pharmacy of Concord (Salvie v. Medical Center Pharmacy of Concord) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Horne v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Processors
459 S.E.2d 797 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1995)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Young v. Hickory Business Furniture
538 S.E.2d 912 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2000)