Skenandore v. Swift Denim

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMay 6, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 078674.
StatusPublished

This text of Skenandore v. Swift Denim (Skenandore v. Swift Denim) 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
Skenandore v. Swift Denim, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Ledford and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has shown good ground to reconsider the evidence. Accordingly, the Full Commission reverses the Opinion and Award of the deputy commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following which were entered into by the parties through the Pre-trial Agreement and at the hearing as

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter pursuant to the North Carolina Worker's Compensation Act.

2. All parties have been correctly designated and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

3. The date of plaintiff's alleged injury by accident is August 3, 2000.

4. At the time of the compensable injury by accident, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Worker's Compensation Act and there was an employee-employer relationship between plaintiff and defendant-employer with the employer being insured by Royal and Sun Alliance.

5. Plaintiff-employee's compensation rate at the time of his injury was $286.64.

6. The depositions of Dr. Ibrahim Oudeh, Dr. Jon Kolkin and Dr. Kevin Speer were submitted and received into evidence.

7. The parties also stipulated into evidence the following documents:

• Stipulated Exhibit 1 — A set of medical records;

• Stipulated Exhibit 2 — Industrial Commission Forms;

• Stipulated Exhibit 3 — Accident Report;

• Stipulated Exhibit 4 — Job Description;

• Stipulated Exhibits 5, 6, and 8 — Discovery Responses;

• Stipulated Exhibit 7 — Employment Security Commission Documents.

***********
Based upon the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following additional

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was 45 years of age on the date of hearing before the deputy commissioner. He worked for defendant-employer for 21 years. Plaintiff had worked as a fork truck bin picker since January of 1999.

2. As a fork truck bin picker, plaintiff operated a tow motor to move large beams of yarn. These beams were metal pieces 6 to 7 feet long. The tow motor had two arms, which were used to pick up the beam. In addition, plaintiff sometimes had to turn or rotate these beams by hand so that attached tickets would be visible.

3. Plaintiff was also employed by Travel World/Pep Mart, Inc. as a janitor from September 3, 1999 while working for defendant-employer. Plaintiff's duties as a janitor included sweeping, mopping, vacuuming, emptying trashcans that weighed approximately 10-12 pounds, and cleaning out bathrooms with a hose.

4. Plaintiff alleged that on August 3, 2000 he felt a stinging sensation in his right wrist after turning a beam. Plaintiff was doing his regular job duties at the time of the incident and indicated that nothing out of the ordinary had happened. Bernice Wynn indicated on the Supervisor's Accident Investigation Report that plaintiff was performing his normal job duties and that "strain or undue force is not required to turn the beam."

5. On September 18, 2000, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Richard G. Juberg of Harnett Family Medicine. Dr. Juberg's notes indicate that Plaintiff reported that he "twisted his right wrist while unwrapping supplies" and had burning radicular pain since. Dr. Juberg initially assessed "tenosynovitis" of the right wrist, and prescribed splints, Vioxx, and assigned light duty for 10 days.

7. Plaintiff returned to see Dr. Juberg on September 28, at which time Dr. Juberg injected the tender areas with a Betadine skin prep, Lidocain and another substance (illegible in the medicals). Dr. Juberg recommended that plaintiff use the splint while working for the next couple of weeks.

8. On plaintiff's visit of October 5, 2000, Dr. Juberg noted that the injection seemed to have helped plaintiff's condition. Plaintiff reported only mild soreness, although he complained of some stinging and burning in his forearm at rest. Plaintiff also reported that he was able to do his regular job. On that visit, Dr. Juberg's assessment was "tendonitis of extensor tendon of his thumb and extensor carpi radialis and/or carpal metacarpal joint, #1."

9. Dr. Juberg saw plaintiff in follow-up on October 20 and 31, 2000. On October 31, plaintiff complained of pain in his left shoulder, apparently due to not using his right arm, and overusing his left arm at work. Dr. Juberg found that plaintiff's left shoulder demonstrated mild tenderness in the pectoralis muscle with flexion.

10. At plaintiff's November 21, 2000 visit, Dr. Juberg recorded his assessment of "mild residual extensor wrist tendonitis on the right side." At that time, Dr. Juberg found that plaintiff had a normal range of motion in the wrist, with no edema or erythema. His grip strength was 5/5 and plaintiff had normal sensory. Dr. Juberg released plaintiff to return to his regular job with no restrictions.

11. Dr. Juberg is now deceased and therefore could not testify in this case. However, his medical records indicate that he diagnosed plaintiff with tendonitis/tenosynovitis, treated him and released plaintiff to return to work full duty on November 21, 2000.

12. Defendant-employer's plant closed on November 23, 2000. Plaintiff filed for and received 13 weeks of unemployment benefits on February 26, 2001. Plaintiff certified that he was capable of working and willing to accept suitable work at that time. Plaintiff cited the reason for separation as "lack of work".

13. Plaintiff continued working at Travel World after his job with defendant-employer ended, until he was fired. Plaintiff admitted that the reason he was given for his termination from Travel World was because he had a bad attitude and was being lazy.

14. After the Swift Denim plant closed, plaintiff also worked at a funeral home. His duties there included carrying flowers and arranging chairs for funerals.

15. Plaintiff did not seek further treatment for his wrist until May 23, 2001, six months after his last employment with defendant-employer. At that time, he went to see Dr. Kevin Speer at Garner Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Specialist, with complaints of left shoulder pain. Dr. Speer examined Plaintiff on this one occasion. Physical examination of the shoulder showed a full passive range of motion, and that the rotator cuff was fine. X-rays of the left shoulder showed severe osteoarthritis of the AC joint.

16. Dr. Speer indicated that plaintiff's arthritis could become symptomatic due to activities of everyday life. The activities that plaintiff had performed while working as a janitor and at the funeral home could easily have caused his shoulder pain. Plaintiff's shoulder pain could have been caused by plaintiff's overuse of that shoulder to compensate for his right wrist pain. Dr. Speer concluded that the shoulder would not be the focus of any treatment, as it would resolve when plaintiff stopped overcompensating for his right wrist pain. He prescribed Voltaren, an anti-inflammatory medicine and referred plaintiff to the Raleigh Hand Center, for further evaluation of the right wrist.

17. On July 3, 2001, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Jon Kolkin of the Raleigh Hand Center. Dr.

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

Related

Norris v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Inc./Masco
534 S.E.2d 259 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Lineback v. Wake County Board of Commissioners
486 S.E.2d 252 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)
Duncan v. City of Charlotte
66 S.E.2d 22 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn
301 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
Davis v. Raleigh Rental Center
292 S.E.2d 763 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)
Dildy v. MBW Investments, Inc.
566 S.E.2d 759 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
Futrell v. Resinall Corp.
566 S.E.2d 181 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
State v. Jones
139 N.C. 613 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Norris v. Kivettco, Inc.
293 S.E.2d 594 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Skenandore v. Swift Denim, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skenandore-v-swift-denim-ncworkcompcom-2005.