Smith v. Acme Stone Company, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 11, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 020852
StatusPublished

This text of Smith v. Acme Stone Company, Inc. (Smith v. Acme Stone Company, 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
Smith v. Acme Stone Company, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the Chief Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award based on the record of the proceedings before the Chief Deputy Commissioner. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission hereby affirms the Opinion and Award with minor modifications.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. On December 16, 1999, the parties were bound by and subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. On said date, the employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.

3. On said date, Comp Trust AGC of the Carolinas provided the coverage to the employer.

4. On said date, plaintiff was earning an average weekly wage of $420.00.

5. The parties further stipulated into evidence a Pre-Trial Agreement dated January 22, 2001, together with attached medical records and other attached documents.

6. Subsequent to the hearing the parties stipulated into evidence medical records from the VA Hospital in Durham, North Carolina, dated March 12, 2001 and March 26, 2001.

***********
The competent evidence of record engenders the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was a forty-seven year old high school graduate on the date of the accident, December 16, 1999, and was employed by defendant-employer as a stone monument engraver. As of the date of the accident, defendant-employer had employed plaintiff continuously for approximately one year. Plaintiff had worked "off and on" for defendant-employer since approximately 1972. Plaintiff's employment history encompasses exclusively manual labor, including a tour of duty in the US Army as a helicopter mechanic, work as an engraver at other stone companies, carpentry work and as an asphalt paver.

2. On December 16, 1999, plaintiff sustained an injury when he was moving a piece of stone on a cart, weighing a total of approximately 1,000 pounds, to his work area with a co-employee, Jessie Crotts. Plaintiff attempted to turn the stone when his left hand slipped, and he immediately felt a sharp burning pain, which he described as "fire," in his neck that radiated into his left arm to the fingers. The acute pain subsided but a tingling remained. Plaintiff worked the balance of the day of injury and the next day. Plaintiff hoped to complete the workweek and to recoup over the coming weekend. Plaintiff's symptoms worsened the next day but he completed the workweek.

3. On Sunday, December 19, 1999, plaintiff awoke with acute pain in his neck that radiated through his left arm into the left fingers. Plaintiff sought treatment at the North Hospital of Surry County (hereinafter "Surry County Hospital") emergency room. The attending physician obtained radiographs. Prescription medications were administered and prescribed. Plaintiff was released with a diagnosis of acute left shoulder scapula pain and nerve impingement syndrome.

4. Plaintiff reported the accident to defendant-employer's management staff on December 20, 1999. An accident report was prepared.

5. Defendants initially arranged medical treatment for plaintiff with Dr. William E. Refvem, who saw plaintiff on December 23, 1999. Dr. Refvem ordered an MRI, however, the MRI was not performed because defendants declined to authorize any additional medical treatment after plaintiff's initial evaluation. Dr. Refvem's initial diagnosis was cervical strain, cervical spondylosis, and left radiculopathy. Dr. Refvem authorized plaintiff to return to light duty with restrictions of no lifting over five pounds, no bending, and no stooping.

6. Plaintiff sought treatment from the VA Hospital in Salem, Virginia (hereinafter "VAHS") starting on December 29, 1999. Dr. Gary Joe Harpold, plaintiff's treating physician, ordered appropriate tests and undertook conservative treatment. Dr. Refvem has directed plaintiff to the VA Hospital of Durham, North Carolina, for evaluation for cervical surgery.

7. The undisputed medical evidence is that plaintiff has severe spondylosis involving the mid cervical spine and left foraminal stenosis at C5. Similar changes are present at the C6-C7 and C4-C5 levels, with mild to moderate spinal canal narrowing.

8. It is equally indisputable that plaintiff's cervical pathology is degenerative in etiology, especially as evidenced by the muscular atrophy in his left arm and hand documented by both treating physicians, which would occur only over a substantial period of time before December 16, 1999.

9. Both of plaintiff's treating physicians, however, opined that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between the accident and the onset of plaintiff's symptoms and the resulting evaluation for surgical intervention. Dr. Harpold in particular testified that he was "satisfied" that the December 16, 1999 accident produced plaintiff's osteophyte disk complex abnormality. Both opinions are contingent on plaintiff's credibility in relating the history of injury because both treating physicians concede that the degree of plaintiff's degenerative cervical condition could produce symptoms absent a specific injury.

10. Plaintiff denies that he experienced problems with his neck or shoulder prior to his accident except for a cortisone shot that was administered at the VAHS in his shoulder for "bursitis." He could not remember in what year he received the injection.

11. Defendants attempted to impeach plaintiff's testimony that he was asymptomatic prior to the accident. First, a VAHS report, which appears to document one of Dr. Harpold's examinations of plaintiff as January 19, 2000, records plaintiff as stating that he had been having symptoms "into both of his arms, left greater than right for a number of months." Dr. Harpold testified that the date of the medical note was incorrect as this conversation occurred in July, 2000. Dr. Harpold actually dated the report July 26, 2000, which is entirely consistent with his explanation of the dating error. Second, VAHS records indicate that plaintiff was treated for psoriasis of the left shoulder in 1995 when the possibility of arthritis in the left shoulder was noted. Third, defendant-employer's Vice-President testified that plaintiff told him that he developed a shoulder problem when he quit consuming alcohol prior to the accident. Fourth, Dr. Harpold noted in his July 2000 medical note that the date of plaintiff's accident was last "Fall." As to using the term "Fall" as the date of plaintiff's injury, Dr. Harpold testified that he would not have used that term to describe an injury in December and the term probably was used by plaintiff.

12. The greater weight of the competent evidence supports the finding that plaintiff sustained an injury on December 16, 1999, which at a minimum aggravated or accelerated his degenerative cervical condition. First, the medical notes from Surry County Hospital, where plaintiff was initially treated on December 19, 1999, clearly document plaintiff was reporting the injury as occurring on December 16, 1999. Plaintiff reported to every physician treating him that the injury occurred at work while he was moving a monument stone.

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

Related

Kennedy v. Duke University Medical Center
398 S.E.2d 677 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1990)
Anderson v. Northwestern Motor Co.
64 S.E.2d 265 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Wilder v. Barbour Boat Works
352 S.E.2d 690 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Smith v. Acme Stone Company, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-acme-stone-company-inc-ncworkcompcom-2002.