Snyder v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 8, 2011
DocketI.C. NO. W15536.
StatusPublished

This text of Snyder v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Snyder v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company) 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
Snyder v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and arguments of the parties before the Full Commission. Defendants have not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, and upon reconsideration, the Full Commission affirms with modifications 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 as:

STIPULATIONS
1. At all relevant times, defendant-employer regularly employed three or more employees and was bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. The employer *Page 2 and the employee relationship existed between the employer and the employee on or about April 16, 2009, the date of the alleged onset of occupational disease to his right shoulder.

2. Defendants are entitled to a credit for all "net" A S benefits received by Plaintiff for any period of time for which he is claiming entitlement to disability benefits. The parties further stipulate that "net" A S benefits are defined as gross A S benefits less any taxes deducted from gross benefits.

3. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $1,083.90, per week, yielding a weekly compensation rate for 2009 of $722.96.

4. The parties stipulated to the admissibility of the following documents, which were received into evidence:

• Exhibit 1: Pre-Trial Agreement (Pages 1-4);

• Exhibit 2: Industrial Commission Forms (Pages 1-8);

• Exhibit 3: Medical Records (Pages 1-36);

• Exhibit 4: Medical Bills Chart (Pages 1-10);

• Exhibit 5: Average Weekly Wage Report (Page 1);

• Exhibit 6: Job Description (Pages 1-4);

• Exhibit 7: Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Pages 1-26); and

• Exhibit 8: Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Pages 1-41).

***********
Based upon the preponderance of the evidence of the record, the Full Commission makes the following: *Page 3

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is forty-seven (47) years old, right hand dominant and weighed approximately 280 pounds. Plaintiff completed the tenth grade of high school.

2. On August 11, 1987, Plaintiff commenced work for defendant-employer as a tire sorter, a job which he performed for approximately seven years. A tire sorter removes tires from a conveyor line and stacks them in columns of seven to ten. Each truck tire weighs between 30 to 50 pounds.

3. In April 1994, Plaintiff became a stage II RLT truck tire builder, working 12 hour shifts, from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., for three days, and then having three days off. The next week, Plaintiff would work two days, with two days off. Plaintiff rotated on this schedule throughout the year. Plaintiff made between 260 to 310 tires in a twelve hour shift. In Plaintiff's last position with defendant-employer, he worked on tire machine 2411, for approximately ten years.

4. As a stage II RTL truck tire builder, and as noted in the job summary, Plaintiff was required to frequently lift and carry up to 60 pounds from 56 inches, carry 10 feet and place at 64 inches and 24 inches; frequently pull and pinch ends of tread together; frequently lift and carry up to 25 pounds from 15 inches and 70 inches, carry 5 feet and place at 56 inches; grip and pinch bilaterally to position belt/band on building drum; frequently lift and carry up to 30 pounds from 24 inches and 84 inches, carry 10 feet and place at 40 inches; frequently pull up to 50 pounds at 84 inches and 24 inches to remove carcass from truck; occasionally lift and carry liner take up roll from 40 inches, carry 10 feet and place at 48 inches; occasionally lift 55 pounds from 64 inches and 24 inches, carry 10 feet and place at 20 inches; and occasionally push up to 100 pounds with another associate to move tread trap. *Page 4

5. The functional job summary for a stage II RLT truck tire builder indicated that a worker must stand, walk, bend, and reach constantly, and frequently lift, carry, push, pull, grip, pinch, and bend.

6. Plaintiff testified at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner that in approximately early 2009, while working as a stage II RLT truck tire builder, he began to experience right shoulder pain.

7. On January 10, 2009, Plaintiff was initially treated at Northside Urgent Care by Dr. Robert L. Ferguson, the Medical Director and an internist, with complaints of ongoing right shoulder pain that was worse with overhead use. Plaintiff was referred for an MRI of his right shoulder, which was scheduled for March 10, 2009.

8. The MRI report revealed inferior osteophyte formation at the level of the right acromioclavicular joint and the lateral aspect of the acromion process of the right scapula, signal changes of tendinopathy were present within the lateral aspect of the right supraspinatus tendon, an ovoid area of fluid signal was noted in the soft tissues anterior to the right shoulder, this is in the region of the right subscapularis bursa, which may represent right subscapularis bursitis.

9. At a follow up visit with Northside Urgent Care on April 6, 2009, Plaintiff was referred to an orthopedic surgeon.

10. On April 16, 2009, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Douglas S. McFarlane, an orthopedic surgeon with Cape Fear Orthopaedic Clinic, with complaints of right shoulder pain. Dr. McFarlane recorded that Plaintiff was a tire builder with defendant-employer and is constantly lifting and performing repetitive work with both arms, but more frequently with the right arm as he is right-hand dominant. *Page 5

11. Dr. McFarlane's medical record reflects that Plaintiff's right shoulder revealed fairly full range of motion; however, the extremes of abduction and rotation do cause some pain. Dr. McFarlane opined that Plaintiff suffered from an impingement syndrome, administered a cortisone injection in Plaintiff's right shoulder and referred Plaintiff for physical therapy. The steroid injection only provided limited relief from Plaintiff's right shoulder pain. Dr. McFarlane's medial record opines that Plaintiff's right shoulder impingement syndrome has been certainly contributed to if not caused by the type of work that he does.

12. On May 28, 2009, Plaintiff again presented to Dr. McFarlane at which time Plaintiff reported that his work is a constant aggravation to his shoulder and his neck. Plaintiff also reported that halfway through his shift he starts to have problems and by the end he is experiencing significant pain. Dr. McFarlane noted that Plaintiff does not have many alternatives because he does not wish to quit his job and is not aware of lighter work at the plant for which he would be qualified. Dr. McFarlane gave a second cortisone injection into Plaintiff's right shoulder and again referred him for physical therapy.

13. On March 5, 2010, Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Peter Dalldorf, an orthopedic surgeon with Guilford Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Center, with the complaint of experiencing right shoulder pain for approximately one year. Dr. Dalldorf noted that Plaintiff is a tire builder and works in his job with difficulty. Dr.

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

Related

Hardin v. Motor Panels, Inc.
524 S.E.2d 368 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn
301 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Snyder v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-goodyear-tire-and-rubber-company-ncworkcompcom-2011.