Smith v. Intl. Paper Co.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 10, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 150854, I.C. NO. 187411
StatusPublished

This text of Smith v. Intl. Paper Co. (Smith v. Intl. Paper Co.) 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. Intl. Paper Co., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Jones. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award except for minor modifications and the award of attorney's fees to plaintiff pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 97-88; therefore, the Full Commission AFFIRMS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
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 and at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

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

2. At all relevant times, an employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

3. Defendant is a duly self-insured and The Schaffer Companies, Ltd., is the Third Party Administrator.

4. Plaintiff sustained injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer on February 23, 2000 and January 11, 2001.

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage for IC Claim No. 150854 is $683.55.

6. Plaintiff's average weekly wage for IC Claim No. 187411 is $632.66.

7. Plaintiff's medical records were stipulated into evidence as a portion of Stipulated Exhibit 1.

8. Industrial Commission Forms and filings were stipulated into evidence as parts of Stipulated Exhibit 1.

9. The issues before the Full Commission are: (i) whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation as result of these claims; (ii) whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent disability compensation as result of the compensable injuries; and (iii) whether defendant is obligated to pay for medical treatment provided by Mark Rodger, M.D., Paul Chipley, M.D., and Columbus Physical Therapy Associates.

10. The depositions of Robert Mark Rodger, M.D., and Alan Tamadon, M.D. are a part of the evidentiary record in this case.

***********
Based upon the evidence of record and the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner, the Full Commission finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the deputy commissioner hearing, plaintiff was forty-five (45) years old and had been working for defendant-employer for seventeen (17) years. Plaintiff was working as a stick placer for approximately nine (9) to ten (10) years before being promoted to the job of mechanic. As a mechanic, plaintiff is required to perform heavy labor, including pushing, pulling, bending, lifting and climbing ladders. Plaintiff would periodically provide overtime for defendant-employer.

2. On March 4, 1997, plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident to his low back. Plaintiff was treated by several physicians relating to this injury and eventually underwent a lumbar diskectomy on July 18, 1997. Dr. Mark Rodger performed this surgery.

3. Plaintiff returned to work after the surgery for his March 4, 1997 injury in July 1998.

4. On September 8, 1998, Dr. Rodger assigned plaintiff a ten (10%) permanent partial disability to his spine. Dr. Rodger also restricted plaintiff to light duty with no lifting over thirty-five (35) pounds and no repetitive bending, stooping or climbing.

5. Following plaintiff's return to work plaintiff entered into a compromise settlement agreement with defendant-employer that was subsequently approved by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. At the time of the settlement, plaintiff was subject to restrictions prescribed by Dr. Rodger which restricted plaintiff to working no more than eight (8) hours a day. In the compromise settlement agreement, plaintiff waived his rights to recover further benefits for wage loss as result of this restriction.

6. Following his return to work in July 1998, plaintiff adhered to his work restrictions as much as possible. However after plaintiff had returned to work, plaintiff's supervisor, Donald Clark, placed plaintiff on a schedule to work more than eight (8) hours per day. Plaintiff questioned Mr. Clark about being placed on this work schedule which was in excess of his restrictions. Plaintiff was informed he needed to work the schedule assigned and did work more than eight (8) hours a day for a period of time after his return to work in July 1998. Plaintiff's supervisors were aware of his restrictions; nevertheless, he was scheduled for shifts that exceeded eight (8) hours.

7. On February 23, 2000, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer when he was pushing a wrench to loosen some bolts. As he did so, plaintiff felt a sharp pain in the middle of his back. Plaintiff did not move for a period of time and was helped to the maintenance office by Ennis Sanders.

8. Plaintiff reported his injury immediately after it had occurred and was sent for treatment at Medac Corporate Health Services. Plaintiff was seen by Dan Shapiro, P.A., who diagnosed him with a lumbosacral strain. Plaintiff received pain medication, was referred to physical therapy, and was released to return to work with the restrictions of no lifting over ten (10) pounds and avoiding stooping, bending, crouching, or climbing.

9. On April 3, 2000, plaintiff was referred to Dr. Alan Tamadon, M.D., a physiatrist, for an evaluation. Dr. Tamadon diagnosed plaintiff with a lumbosacral strain without clinical evidence of radiculophahy or neuromusculoskeletal instability and recommended further electrical diagnostic studies.

10. After the diagnostic studies had been performed, Dr. Tamadon indicated plaintiff had no evidence of recurring disc disease or nerve damage. Dr. Tamadon indicated plaintiff was at maximum medical improvement and released him from his care.

11. Plaintiff received conservative treatment from Dr. Mark Rodger from March 29, 2000 through May 26, 2000 for symptoms resulting from the February 23, 2000 injury. On March 29, 2000, plaintiff presented to Dr. Rodger with pain in his right buttock. Dr. Rodger felt plaintiff had probably re-injured his disc at L5-S1 on the right and wrote him out of work for a couple of weeks.

12. On April 17, 2000, Dr. Rodger ordered an MRI after having been notified of Dr. Tamadon's release. The MRI of plaintiff's back indicated there was no evidence of physical pressure on a nerve that would require surgery. Dr. Rodger prescribed an additional course of physical therapy and released plaintiff to return to work with his prior restrictions.

13. On May 26, 2000, plaintiff was feeling better and Dr. Rodger indicated plaintiff was at baseline, or in the same condition as he was prior to his February 23, 2000 injury.

14. Plaintiff lost no time from work as a result of his injury by accident on February 23, 2000. Dr. Rodger indicated plaintiff's work related injury on February 23, 2000 very likely caused the symptoms for which plaintiff presented and required treatment. Plaintiff's condition did improve as a result of Dr. Rodger's treatment.

15. Initially, plaintiff's February 23, 2000 claim was denied by defendant-employer but was subsequently accepted on September 20, 2002.

16. On January 11, 2001, plaintiff was standing on the fourth step of a ladder working on a Prentiss loader when the loader moved. As the loader moved, it struck the ladder upon which plaintiff was standing.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31
§ 97-88
North Carolina § 97-88

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Smith v. Intl. Paper Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-intl-paper-co-ncworkcompcom-2003.