Simmons v. Nu-Mode Manufacturing Company

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedApril 26, 1996
DocketI.C. No. 262063
StatusPublished

This text of Simmons v. Nu-Mode Manufacturing Company (Simmons v. Nu-Mode Manufacturing Company) 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
Simmons v. Nu-Mode Manufacturing Company, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1996).

Opinion

The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Lorrie L. Dollar. Plaintiff waived oral argument before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence except for minor changes throughout and the additions of Findings of Fact 4, 5, 10 and 11.

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

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties in a Pre-Trial Agreement filed 16 June 1994 and at the hearing before Deputy Commissioner Dollar as:

STIPULATIONS

1. The parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act, and an employment relationship existed between the parties on 13 August 1992.

2. Defendant was a duly-qualified self-insured, with Associated risk Management Service as the servicing agent.

3. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $270.00, which yields a compensation rate of $180.01.

4. The issue for determination is whether plaintiff sustained a compensable injury on 13 August 1992, and if so, to what benefits is she entitled under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

5. At the hearing, the following exhibits were received:

a. Defendant's Exhibit (1) — Incident Report, dated 21 September 1992;

b. Defendant's Exhibit (2) — Private Investigator's Report, dated 14 June 1994; and

c. Defendant's Exhibit (3) — Videotape of Plaintiff.

6. The following Industrial Commission Forms are made a part of the record.

a. I.C. Form 19, filed 21 September 1992;

b. I.C. Form 18, filed 24 September 1992;

c. I.C. Form 33, filed on or about 3 February 1993; and

d. I.C. Form 33R, filed on 23 February 1994.

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

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On 13 August 1992, plaintiff was a 48 year old female who had been employed for six years with defendant-employer, which is a manufacturer of wooden frames for chairs, ottomans, and love-seats.

2. Plaintiff had a long-standing history of low blood sugar, and every two to three months she experienced "spells" in which she would become pale, her teeth would chatter, and she would need to sit or lie down during episodes when her blood sugar level would become too low. Plaintiff and her husband had instructed Jennifer Byerly, who was a vice president and co-owner of defendant, to provide plaintiff with a drink of alcohol for the spells. Ms. Byerly had occasionally had to drive plaintiff home during these spells.

3. In her position with defendant-employer, plaintiff worked as the lift-off person for the tail saw operator, Joe Dingus. Plaintiff had worked on this same job the entire time that she was employed with defendant-employer. Plaintiff's duties involved lifting one or two boards at a time from the saw table, after Mr. Dingus had sawed them to the proper size, and then placing the pieces on the appropriate buggy. The wood processed was oak board which was quarter inch board, generally in thirteen to eighteen inch lengths. Plaintiff worked within one to three feet from Mr. Dingus.

4. At approximately 11:50 a.m. on 13 August 1992, plaintiff lifted a board and experienced the sudden onset of severe pain in her groin. Also, on that date Mr. Dingus noticed that plaintiff was pale just before lunch time.

5. On 13 August 1992 plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant-employer when she experienced the sudden onset of pain while lifting a board. This occurrence constituted a specific traumatic incident of the work assigned.

6. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff told Ralph Herman, a maintenance man, to get someone, as she was having a spell. Ms. Byerly and Warren White, the other co-owner, found plaintiff pale, and they assisted her to Ms. Byerly's office. Plaintiff told them she was having a spell and to call her husband. Plaintiff reclined on Ms. Byerly's couch and sipped brandy while Ms. Byerly telephoned Mr. Simmons.

7. Mr. Simmons believed plaintiff was experiencing a spell and assisted her to bed after he transported her home.

8. On 13 August 1992, Mr. Simmons observed plaintiff to have a small lump in the crease of her right leg.

9. When plaintiff failed to recover, she plaintiff sought medical attention on 15 August 1992 and went to the Alexander Medical Clinic. Dr. Richard P. Frances admitted plaintiff to Alexander County Hospital at that time. Plaintiff was diagnosed as having an incarcerated femoral hernia, which Dr. Frances performed surgery to repair and the treatment required a resection of a portion of the small intestine due to the extreme condition of the hernia.

10. Plaintiff's hernia was caused by the specific traumatic incident she sustained on 13 August 1992.

11. The hernia which plaintiff sustained on 13 August 1992 appeared suddenly and had not existed prior to that date.

12. During her hospitalization, plaintiff experienced a small bleeder in the inguinal incision area, which was opened and packed. Plaintiff was discharged on 27 August 1992, and thereafter received a number of home health visits until the inguinal site closed.

13. Dr. Frances released plaintiff from his care, with no permanent impairment rating on 7 December 1992. He noted that plaintiff had healed nicely. At no time during the treatment by Dr. Frances did plaintiff complain of any back pain, right or left leg pain, hip pain, or hand pain. Plaintiff has not sought work nor attempted to return to work since that time.

14. On or about 17 August 1992, an employee saw plaintiff in the hospital, and reported this to Ms. Byerly. Ms. Byerly went over to the hospital to see plaintiff. Ms. Byerly prepared a Form 19 report of injury or about 27 August 1992.

15. Plaintiff notified defendant-employer by letter on or about 1 September 1992, that her femoral hernia was the result of lifting boards.

16. On or about 18 September 1992, plaintiff prepared a Form 18 which provided that her femoral hernia was caused by lifting boards off of a cutoff saw and stumbling.

17. In the Request for Hearing, plaintiff lists the injury as being a right femoral hernia and right lower abdomen.

18. Beginning in 1993, plaintiff has self-referred to Dr. Neal, a general surgeon in Statesville, to Dr. Smith, a neurologist in Hickory, and to a number of other doctors for complaints of back and leg problems. All tests have reported as normal.

19. On 23 November 1993, defendant referred plaintiff to Dr. William Gessinger for an evaluation. Plaintiff presented with complaints of inability to eat, frequent partially formed stools, shoulder pain, numbness in the left hip and leg, pain radiating into the left leg, and left leg weakness. Plaintiff's abdominal examination and upper and lower gastrointestinal x-rays were all normal. Plaintiff exhibited variable and inconsistent responses to stimuli in the same areas, and also kept changing the history of her conditions and problems. Dr. Gessinger found plaintiff to not be believable. Dr. Gessinger found no evidence to relate any of plaintiff's symptoms to the femoral hernia in August of 1992. Plaintiff also complained of numbness in her hands, which was not causally related to the hernia.

20. Beginning in the fall of 1993, plaintiff began serving as the live-in companion, sitter, and reading for Minnie Mitchell, who is an elderly woman.

21. On 21 March 1994, Mr.

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

Related

Wilhite v. Liberty Veneer Co.
278 S.E.2d 234 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1981)
Wilhite v. Liberty Veneer Co.
267 S.E.2d 566 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Simmons v. Nu-Mode Manufacturing Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-nu-mode-manufacturing-company-ncworkcompcom-1996.