Staley v. Pike Electric, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedAugust 30, 2010
DocketI.C. NO. 634220.
StatusPublished

This text of Staley v. Pike Electric, Inc. (Staley v. Pike Electric, 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
Staley v. Pike Electric, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

***********
Upon review of the competent evidence of record, with reference to the errors assigned, and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, the Full Commission finds no good grounds to receive further evidence, or to rehear the parties or their representatives. Upon reconsideration of the evidence, the Full Commission affirms, with modifications, 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 the parties entered into in their Pre-Trial Agreement and at the hearing as:

STIPULATIONS *Page 2
1. The parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission, and the North Carolina Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over this matter.

2. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

3. The parties are properly designated, and there is no question as to the joinder or the non-joinder of any party.

4. On May 17, 2006, Plaintiff sustained a compensable work injury to his left shoulder.

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $489.32 at all times relevant to these proceedings, yielding a compensation rate of $326.23.

6. The parties stipulated to the following documents being admitted into evidence as stipulated exhibits:

a. Stipulated Exhibit One: Pre-Trial Agreement;

b. Stipulated Exhibit Two: Plaintiff's medical records;

c. Stipulated Exhibit Three: North Carolina Industrial Commission forms and filings.

***********
ISSUES
The issues to be determined are:

1. Whether Plaintiff's right shoulder condition is a direct and natural consequence of his admittedly compensable May 17, 2006 work injury to his left shoulder?

2. Whether Plaintiff's left wrist condition is causally related to his admittedly compensable May 17, 2006 work injury? *Page 3

3. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to any further workers' compensation benefits?

4. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1?

***********
Based upon the competent and credible evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is 39 years old, with a date of birth of July 5, 1971. Plaintiff has a high school diploma. In addition, Plaintiff completed some correspondence courses in sales and trade.

2. As of 2006, Defendant-Employer employed Plaintiff as a lineman. Plaintiff's employment duties varied according to the need, but he primarily assisted with groundwork, including installing power. Eventually, Plaintiff began working with a crew that ran power to residential homes.

3. On May 17, 2006, while near the top of a light pole, Plaintiff began to fall but was able to catch himself with his left arm and hand after falling one and one-half to two feet. Plaintiff immediately felt pain in his left shoulder that he described as feeling like a pulled muscle. Later in the evening, Plaintiff began to experience a burning sensation and pain that radiated into the left side of his chest.

4. On May 18, 2006, Plaintiff presented to Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital in Elkin, North Carolina, where he received pain medication. A subsequent visit to Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of Plaintiff's left shoulder revealed a low-grade mild partial articular surface tear. Plaintiff never had any prior injury or complaints related to his shoulders. Plaintiff followed up with his primary care physician, who treated him with steroid injections and took him out of work for two weeks. *Page 4

5. Plaintiff returned to work in a light-duty capacity, but he continued to experience pain in his left shoulder and numbness in his hands. After approximately three weeks of working in a light-duty capacity, Plaintiff stopped working due to the pain and numbness in his left upper extremity.

6. Defendants accepted the compensability of Plaintiff's May 17, 2006 work injury via a Form 60 dated July 13, 2006, which described the injury as a "rotator tear to left shoulder."

7. On July 19, 2006, Plaintiff presented to Dr. William Eric Refvem, an orthopaedist, who diagnosed him with left shoulder impingement syndrome and a partial rotator cuff tear. Dr. Refvem released Plaintiff to return to work with no use of his left hand. Plaintiff testified that when he returned to work his hand stayed numb all the time and that he was having difficulties with his left wrist.

8. Plaintiff continued to seek treatment from Dr. Refvem during July and August 2006. Plaintiff's complaints of left shoulder pain increased to the point that he could not pick up anything with his left upper extremity of any significant weight, and he even experienced left shoulder pain at rest. Plaintiff reported to Dr. Refvem that his left hand was numb and he was finding it difficult to hold onto objects with it. On August 22, 2006, Dr. Refvem noted that Plaintiff's condition was turning out to be more than an instability issue, and recommended that he obtain a second opinion from a shoulder specialist.

9. On September 15, 2006, Plaintiff presented to Dr. William Stephen Furr, an orthopaedist specializing in shoulder surgery. Dr. Furr diagnosed Plaintiff with a subluxed and dislocated left shoulder with a high-grade, full thickness rotator cuff tear, and continued the restrictions of no use of his left arm. In September 2006, Dr. Furr performed an open *Page 5 acromioplasty with a rotator cuff repair and minor arthroscopic debridement of Plaintiff's left shoulder. Following Plaintiff's surgery, Dr. Furr instructed him to wear a sling on his left arm.

10. On January 10, 2007, Dr. Furr noted that Plaintiff had recurrent numbness in his left hand. Dr. Furr was of the opinion that Plaintiff's symptoms were "probably left carpal tunnel syndrome, post traumatic with possibility of ulnar neuropathy as well." Dr. Furr ordered nerve conduction studies, which revealed "prolonged distal latency, normal amplitude and decreased conduction velocity across the left wrist," which he found to be consistent with "evidence of a mild left carpal tunnel syndrome."

11. In February 2007, Dr. Furr noted that Plaintiff continued to experience some "dead arm syndrome . . . consistent with an inferior subluxation of the shoulder." On April 27, 2007, Dr. Furr performed a second surgery on Plaintiff's left shoulder and instructed him to keep his left arm in a sling until his next office visit. Between May 2007 and November 2007, Plaintiff continued to have pain associated with his left shoulder. In October 2007, Plaintiff reported that it hurt him to carry a small soda bottle.

12. On January 30, 2008, Dr. Furr performed a third surgery on Plaintiff's left shoulder and again instructed him to use a sling. On April 24, 2008, Dr. Furr noted that Plaintiff was complaining of "more increasing pain in the right shoulder. He states that ever since he has had to rely on this for the last year and a half or two years . . . he has started to have pain. This past episode of surgery and being in the sling for so long without use of the left arm made his pain even worse."

13.

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

Related

Adams v. METALS USA
608 S.E.2d 357 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Roper v. J. P. Stevens & Co.
308 S.E.2d 485 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Staley v. Pike Electric, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staley-v-pike-electric-inc-ncworkcompcom-2010.