Sims v. Burns Aerospace Corp.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 9, 1997
DocketI.C. No. 413638
StatusPublished

This text of Sims v. Burns Aerospace Corp. (Sims v. Burns Aerospace Corp.) 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
Sims v. Burns Aerospace Corp., (N.C. Super. Ct. 1997).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives. Upon reconsideration of the evidence, the Full Commission MODIFIES and AFFIRMS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

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

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. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. The employer-employee relationship existed between the defendant-employer and the plaintiff-employee at all relevant times herein.

3. The carrier on the risk at all relevant times herein was Cigna Property Casualty.

4. The employee's average weekly wage at the time of the alleged injuries or contraction of an occupational disease was $466.80, which yields a compensation rate of $311.22.

5. The parties stipulate that plaintiff was out of work from January 13, 1994 until April 18, 1994.

6. The issues to be determined are, whether plaintiff has sustained either a compensable injury by accident or an occupational disease to her shoulders; and whether a prior Compromise Settlement Agreement obviated plaintiff's claim.

The Full Commission modifies in part and adopts in part the findings of fact by the Deputy Commissioner and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff's date of birth is January 16, 1951. At the time of her alleged injury or contraction of an occupational disease, plaintiff had worked for defendant-employer for more than twenty years and had worked as a metal treater for approximately two years. Plaintiff's various jobs with defendant-employer involved use of her hands and upper extremities.

2. Plaintiff's job as a metal treater involved pulling baskets of parts weighing twenty to seventy pounds for distances of ten to twenty feet across the floor using a metal hook; lifting, counting, reaching and stamping parts and sometimes overhead lifting and reaching.

3. On August 1, 1993 plaintiff pulled a heavy basket of metal parts weighing approximately sixty to seventy pounds across the floor using a metal hook for pulling. Plaintiff testified at the hearing that due to the weight of the basket she had to "jerk" the hook "real hard" to get the basket to move. After moving a short distance, she had to stop, rest and repeat the same motion again. After pulling the basket, plaintiff reached overhead to stamp a part and felt a severe pain in her right shoulder. At the time of the onset of the right shoulder pain, plaintiff was performing her normal work duties in her usual manner. Plaintiff had returned to work approximately two weeks prior after a long absence due to work-related carpal tunnel surgery, which was accepted as a compensable occupational disease and the parties resolved that claim by Compromise Settlement Agreement.

4. Plaintiff reported her pain to her supervisor immediately and went to the First Aid station where she received assistance from a co-worker. Plaintiff continued to work without seeking medical treatment for three weeks. During this three-week period, plaintiff primarily used her left upper extremities due to pain on her right side.

5. Plaintiff sought medical treatment with Dr. Gregg Cregan, an orthopaedic surgeon, on August 23, 1993. Dr. Cregan had previously treated plaintiff extensively for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (including surgery) and for shoulder pain. Plaintiff complained of pain associated with grinding and crepitance (a crunchy-like feeling) in the right shoulder.

6. Dr. Cregan treated plaintiff conservatively with a cortisone shot and physical therapy for approximately two months. On November 5, 1993 he obtained bilateral MRI scans of plaintiff's shoulders which showed a right shoulder spur at the acromion joint (AC), and increased signal consistent with an incomplete tear of the rotator cuff. On the left side plaintiff had a normal AC joint, increase in signal consistent with tendinitis. Dr. Cregan diagnosed plaintiff's right shoulder problem as an incomplete rotator cuff tear secondary to impingement syndrome. Dr. Cregan performed surgery on plaintiff's right shoulder on January 14, 1994.

7. On December 5, 1994 Dr. Cregan rated plaintiff with a ten percent permanent partial impairment to the right arm resulting from the rotator cuff tear and other interior problems of the shoulder. No surgery was needed on plaintiff's left shoulder and Dr. Cregan did not believe plaintiff had any permanent partial impairment of the left shoulder.

8. Dr. Cregan opined that the problems for which he treated plaintiff on August 23, 1993 could have been caused by a single incident of trauma such as pulling and jerking a heavy basket across the floor, or a single incident of reaching overhead; or could have been caused by repetitive lifting, pulling and reaching (sometimes overhead) of heavy objects in the type of work plaintiff did with defendant-employer.

9. Based upon the greater weight of the evidence including the testimony of Dr. Cregan, plaintiff's only treating physician and the only medical expert rendering an opinion in this case, plaintiff's employment with defendant-employer which involved the repetitive pulling and lifting of heavy objects and repetitive reaching, sometimes overhead, for many years caused plaintiff's crepitance and grinding in the right shoulder, the impingement and spur and the partial rotator cuff tear in plaintiff's right shoulder and tendinitis of plaintiff's left shoulder. Plaintiff's surgery was reasonably required to provide relief from and to lessen the disability from the pain and interior problems with plaintiff's right shoulder.

10. Plaintiff's employment placed her at an increased risk of developing internal problems in her shoulders over that of the general public. Dr. Cregan opined that wear and tear from general daily activities would be more common in older persons and that plaintiff was a little young to be having the kind of wear and tear from wearing out that he saw in plaintiff's shoulders. Due to plaintiff's young age (41 years old at the time), Dr. Cregan was of the opinion that plaintiff's shoulder problem came from more use than the normal individual (the general public) would have.

11. Plaintiff has proven by the greater weight of the evidence that her employment was a significant contributing factor in the development of her bilateral shoulder problems. Plaintiff has contracted occupational diseases which are due to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to her employment with defendants and her employment placed her at an increased risk of developing such diseases.

12. Plaintiff was out of work due to her right shoulder surgery from January 13, 1994 through April 18, 1994. There is no evidence that plaintiff has suffered any disability or incapacity to work due to her left shoulder condition. On January 13, 1994 plaintiff became disabled due to the contraction of an occupational disease.

13. Plaintiff received $170.00 per week through a disability plan wholly funded by defendant-employer. Defendant is entitled to a credit for said payments to plaintiff.

14. Plaintiff's bulging cervical disk is unrelated to her occupational disease.

15. Plaintiff's previous Compromise Settlement Agreement did not cover the injuries for which she is complaining in this case. Plaintiff's prior claim was for carpal tunnel syndrome.

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Full Commission concludes as follows:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.

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

Related

Bigelow v. Tire Sales Company
182 S.E.2d 856 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)
Perry v. American Bakeries Company
136 S.E.2d 643 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Dillingham v. Yeargin Construction Co.
348 S.E.2d 143 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sims v. Burns Aerospace Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-burns-aerospace-corp-ncworkcompcom-1997.