Snipes v. Jimmy's Meat Market

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 18, 2008
DocketI.C. NOS. 496962 PH-1424.
StatusPublished

This text of Snipes v. Jimmy's Meat Market (Snipes v. Jimmy's Meat Market) 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
Snipes v. Jimmy's Meat Market, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Hall. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the Opinion and Award, except for minor modifications. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Hall.

*********** *Page 2
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission, and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

2. All parties have been correctly designated. The Defendant should be Jimmy's Meat Market, Inc., a North Carolina corporation. There is a question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties in that Defendant objects to the addition of Walter Harvey Simmons, Jimmy A. Nixon, and Susan Simmons as additional Defendants shown for the first time on the hearing docket for January 24, 2006.

3. In addition to the other stipulations contained herein, the parties stipulate and agree with respect to the following:

a. This case is subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

b. An employment relationship existed between Thadders Snipes (hereinafter "decedent") and Defendant-Employer Jimmy's Meat Market and there was not a carrier on the risk on the date of injury of 12/24/2004.

c. Decedent's average weekly wage was $450.00, yielding a compensation rate of $300.00 subject to Form 22 verification.

d. Copies of the medical records and reports of Decedent's various health care providers may be introduced into evidence without further proof of authenticity. Defendants ask that this be subject to competence, relevance, and materiality.

*Page 3

e. Copies of Discovery and responses thereto may be introduced into evidence without further proof of authenticity. Defendants ask that this be subject to competence, relevance, and materiality.

f. Copies of the documents filed with the Industrial Commission pertaining to this matter may be introduced into evidence without further proof of authenticity.

4. It was further stipulated at the time of the hearing that Decedent's urosepsis, which resulted as a complication of his right shoulder surgery, was a natural and direct result of his right shoulder injury.

***********
The following were marked and received into evidence at the March 24, 2006 hearing as:

EXHIBITS
1. Stipulated Exhibit No. 1 — NCIC forms, medical records, medical releases, employer correspondence, payroll verification, TTD verification, and impairment rating.

2. Stipulated Exhibit No. 2 — Pre-Trial Agreement.

3. State's Exhibit No. 1 — NCIC coverage screen.

4. State's Exhibit No. 2 — Articles of Incorporation and two annual reports.

5. State's Exhibit No. 3 — ESC records.

***********
The following were marked and received into evidence at the February 14, 2007 hearing as: *Page 4

EXHIBITS
1. Stipulated Exhibit No. 3 — Pre-trial Agreement, NCIC forms, medical records, medical releases, death certificate, and Administratrix of estate order.

***********
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Decedent was employed by Defendant, Jimmy's Meat Market, Inc. as a delivery driver. As part of his duties, he was required to deliver products consisting of, but not limited to, beef, chicken, seafood, and vegetables weighing from 20 to 60 pounds per box. He would typically make deliveries to Defendant's customers using Defendant's truck and would use a hand-truck to load the products on the truck and to offload the products into the customer's business. He was given the hand-truck by Defendant and both Decedent and Defendant testified that it was required that a hand-truck be used to move the products.

2. December 24, 2004 was a Friday and also Christmas Eve. Decedent had asked his son to ride with him on December 24, 2004 while he made his deliveries for Defendant.

3. Decedent made part of his normal Friday deliveries on Wednesday, but still had a substantial number of deliveries to make that Friday because Saturday was Christmas day and Defendant would be closed. Decedent not only had to make his remaining Friday deliveries, but also the Saturday deliveries.

4. Decedent made one run of deliveries and then returned to load up Defendant's delivery vehicle for a second run. He made these Friday deliveries using Defendant's vehicle and the hand-truck as was customary. *Page 5

5. One of Decedent's deliveries was to a restaurant in Mt. Airy where it was discovered that Decedent had brought the wrong box of shrimp. Decedent had to return to Defendant's place of business to switch out the wrong box of shrimp for the correct box of shrimp and redeliver it. It was approximately 6:30 P.M. by the time decedent obtained the correct box of shrimp.

6. As it was Christmas Eve, Decedent was in a hurry to go home after making the last delivery. Therefore, he put the box of shrimp in his personal vehicle to drive it back to the Mt. Airy restaurant so he could go directly home from there.

7. When Decedent arrived at the Mt. Airy location he realized that he had forgotten to bring the hand-truck. Because Decedent did not have the hand-truck, he hoisted the 50-pound box of shrimp up onto his right shoulder to take it into the customer's location. When Decedent hoisted the box of shrimp onto his shoulder, he had an immediate onset of sharp pain in his right shoulder. He then gave the box of shrimp to his son, who carried it inside to complete the delivery. Decedent's son was with him the whole day and testified that his father was in a lot of pain after the injury.

8. Decedent and Mr. Nixon both testified that this event was an abnormal occurrence from Decedent's normal work routine because employees were expected to use the hand-truck for deliveries. It was also unusual due to the impending holiday in that Decedent used his own vehicle to make the delivery that is the subject of this claim and did not have the hand truck for unloading the box of shrimp.

9. Decedent suffered an injury by accident while making a delivery for the benefit of Defendant on December 24, 2004 when he lifted a box of shrimp and, upon throwing it onto his *Page 6 shoulder, experienced the immediate onset of pain such that he had to ask his son to take the box for him.

10. Due to the Christmas holiday, Decedent was not expected to report back to work until December 27, 2004. Decedent's shoulder pain continued December 25 and December 26. When he arrived at work on December 27, 2004 at 6:00 A.M., he told Mr. Nixon of his injury and ongoing pain.

11. Decedent was seen at UNC Hospital on December 27, 2004 and on January 1, 2005 for his ongoing shoulder complaints.

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

Related

Shockley v. Cairn Studios Ltd.
563 S.E.2d 207 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Snipes v. Jimmy's Meat Market, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snipes-v-jimmys-meat-market-ncworkcompcom-2008.