Sikes v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 16, 1996
DocketI.C. No. 425656
StatusPublished

This text of Sikes v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. (Sikes v. Family Dollar Stores, 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
Sikes v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 1996).

Opinion

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

Plaintiff's motion for interest after the initial hearing pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-86.2 is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for expenses on appeal, including attorney's fees, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88 is hereby DENIED.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

STIPULATIONS

1. Prior to hearing the parties entered in a Pre-Trial Agreement, which is incorporated by reference and where they agreed to a number of jurisdictional and other factual stipulations.

2. The depositions of Doctors Joyce, Hill and Kingery as well as the package of medical records attached to the November 15, 1995 correspondence of plaintiff's counsel are received into the evidentiary record.

The Full Commission adopts the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff is a right-handed, 35 year old divorced female, who did not have an antecedent history of neck, shoulder or arm problems prior to becoming employed by defendant-employer. She is a high school graduate and attended Central Carolina Piedmont Community College for two years taking nursing skills before stopping school to work full-time. While still in school plaintiff worked at Hardees. She was subsequently employed full-time by the Photo Corporation of America as a photo inspector for five and a half years until shortly after her marriage.

2. On August 29, 1983, plaintiff became employed as a repack order filler at defendant-employer's distribution center and worked in the same capacity until September of 1994 when she was no longer able to continue that type of work because of the occupational disease giving rise to this claim requiring her to be placed on modified duty. As a repack order filler she was responsible for packing merchandise in either boxes or containers for delivery to defendant-employer's retail stores.

3. Upon arrival at the distribution center in boxes from defendant-employer's vendors, the premises stockers would take the merchandise out of the boxes and place it on shelved racks in the repack area. Each rack had shelves ranging in height from approximately floor level to above plaintiff's head.

4. Although during her initial three years plaintiff primarily handled heavier clothing items that were located on the bottom shelves of the racks which did not require her to reach above shoulder level to obtain them, in 1986 she was assigned to health and beauty aids and worked there until developing her shoulder and arm problems in 1993.

5. In health and beauty aids, plaintiff handled such items as shampoo, medicines, tooth brushes, ball point pens and plastic ashtrays, whose weights ranged from several ounces for medicine to as much as seven pounds for cases of shampoo or plastic ashtrays.

6. For each order to be repacked plaintiff would receive a computer printout indicating the type and number of items to be pulled for the particular order. Plaintiff would pack the same orders in either boxes or containers, which she obtained from overhead hooks requiring her to reach overhead to obtain either the boxes, which were stacked one in another and weighed two pounds, or the containers, which were similarly stacked one inside another and weighed seven pounds, seven ounces. Plaintiff would then place either the box or container in which she was repacking the particular order on a 260 foot long conveyor belt with mechanical rollers and reach out to push the box or container along the same line as she walked down the three foot isle between the conveyor line and fifty racks from which she pulled the needed health and beauty aids. Once each box or container was loaded with a maximum of sixty pounds of merchandise plaintiff would push it off the mechanical line onto an automated conveyor line that delivered the repacked merchandise to another department. Once or twice per week plaintiff was also required to temporarily remove the boxes of merchandise she was packing off the conveyor line and then return them to it.

7. Plaintiff averaged packing approximately 250 lines of merchandise an hour, each of which would require her to twice reach onto the racks of health and beauty aids to obtain the needed merchandise resulting in her packing an average of 500 items of merchandise an hour, each of which she would obtain from the racks and turn placing them in the box or container being packed on the conveyor line and then turn back to the racks for another item. Plaintiff was not only required to reach 500 times an hour for items of merchandise, but in so doing had to frequently reach above shoulder level to obtain it from the racks' upper shelves.

8. The involved claim is one for disabling bilateral thoracic outlet syndrome, more severe on the left, due to the manner in which plaintiff had to repetitively reach and lift, frequently above shoulder level, to obtain needed merchandise in the course of her repack order filler's job, wherein, as compared to members of the general public and other employments at large, there is an increased risk of developing the same disease or condition.

9. Thoracic outlet syndrome occurs when either the nerves, or brachial plexus, or blood vessels that go into the arm are compressed as they pass through a tunnel formed on the top by the musculature of the shoulder, the bottom or floor by the rib cage, one wall or side by the clavicle and the other wall or side by the shoulder blade resulting in symptoms of compression of the same structures, including pain, weakness and numbness in the hands and arms, shoulders and neck as well as headaches and other symptoms.

Repetitive reaching and lifting regardless of the weight being lifted, particularly done above shoulder level, narrows or compresses the thoracic outlet or tunnel through which the brachial plexus and blood vessels exit to the arm and can cause thoracic outlet syndrome in an individual with a congenital anatomical narrowing of the thoracic outlet or tunnel when they are engaged in that activity for a number of years as plaintiff was as part of her regular repack order filler's job at health and beauty aids. Once the damage is done to the nerves, or brachial plexus, and/or blood vessels in the thoracic outlet an individual may continue to experience symptoms when they use their arms in any activity even after removal from the offending work environment requiring surgical decompression of the thoracic outlet when conservative treatment fails as similarly occurred in plaintiff's case.

10. Due to the above-described repetitive manner that she had to reach and lift, particularly above shoulder level on a frequent basis, in the course of her regular repack order filler's job in health and beauty aids for a number of years plaintiff has developed disabling bilateral thoracic outlet syndrome manifested by pain, numbness and weakness in her hands and arms, shoulders and neck as well as headaches.

11. Her symptoms began in 1993 with the onset of bilateral shoulder, arm and neck pain, which symptoms were worse at work and once they began progressively worsened. On December 30, 1993, she sought medical treatment from Dr.

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

Related

§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-30
North Carolina § 97-30
§ 97-53
North Carolina § 97-53(13)
§ 97-86.2
North Carolina § 97-86.2
§ 97-88
North Carolina § 97-88

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sikes v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sikes-v-family-dollar-stores-inc-ncworkcompcom-1996.