Steinbrecher v. Raleigh Housing Authority

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJune 20, 2007
DocketI.C. NOS. 412915 458155.
StatusPublished

This text of Steinbrecher v. Raleigh Housing Authority (Steinbrecher v. Raleigh Housing Authority) 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
Steinbrecher v. Raleigh Housing Authority, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned reviewed the prior Opinion and Award, based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Gillen. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Gillen 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 before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and this is the court of proper jurisdiction for this action.

2. All parties have been correctly designated, and there is no question as to misjoinder or non-joinder of the parties. *Page 2

3. On plaintiff's date of injury, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

4. At all relevant times, an employment relationship existed between the parties.

5. The Raleigh Housing Authority is self-insured, with NCHARRP as its servicing agent.

6. Plaintiff's date of injury is August 8, 2003. Defendant accepted plaintiff's right trigger thumb and mild carpal tunnel syndrome conditions as compensable and have since paid both medical and indemnity benefits related thereto.

7. The following were received into evidence by the Deputy Commissioner as stipulated exhibits:

a. The parties' Pre-Trial Agreement, marked as stipulated exhibit 1.

b. Plaintiff's medical records, tabbed 1-31 and marked as stipulated exhibit 2.

c. Plaintiff's vocational records, collectively paginated 1-52 and marked as stipulated exhibit 3.

d. Industrial Commission forms in this matter, marked as stipulated exhibit 4.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 53 years old and continued to work full-time for defendant-employer as a work order clerk. *Page 3

2. Plaintiff was hired by defendant as a work order clerk in 1997. Her job duties in this position include answering the phone, retrieving messages from an answering machine, operating a two-way radio, as well as printing, sorting, and filing work orders into the mailboxes of maintenance personnel. Plaintiff did some data entry wherein she would input information received as to repairs needed for the Raleigh Housing Authority units into a computer program that provided a template. Plaintiff entered small bits of information into indicated spaces within that template.

3. Plaintiff began to suffer from symptoms to her right thumb and, subsequently, to both of her hands in August 2003. In March 2004, plaintiff was referred to Dr. George Edwards, a hand specialist. Plaintiff's workers' compensation claim for these conditions was accepted as compensable via a Form 60. On March 10, 2004 Dr. Edwards diagnosed plaintiff's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as "mild" and not requiring surgery, but recommended surgery for the right trigger thumb. Plaintiff's trigger thumb release surgery was authorized and performed by Dr. Edwards on March 16, 2004. Defendant paid temporary total disability benefits for the period she was out of work subsequent to this surgery. Dr. Edwards evaluated plaintiff several times after this surgery before releasing plaintiff to return to work without restrictions on April 28, 2004. Plaintiff returned to work for defendant at full duty soon thereafter.

4. On June 17, 2004 Dr. Edwards saw plaintiff for another follow-up appointment and described plaintiff in his notes as doing "quite well . . . has excellent [range of motion]." Furthermore, Dr. Edwards renewed plaintiff's release without restrictions and evaluated plaintiff to have reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) with a 3% permanent partial disability to her right hand. On this date Dr. Edwards also found that her left hand had "improved," writing: "there is no rating on this side and no restrictions." *Page 4

5. Dr. Darrell was plaintiff's longtime family doctor. Dr. Darrell's medical notes and testimony reflect that, prior to August 2003, plaintiff had multiple other chronic medical and psychiatric conditions, unrelated to any hand problems, for which she received regular treatment and medication.

6. Those pre-existing, chronic medical conditions included, among other ailments, migraine headaches, neck pain, shoulder pain, hip pain, and fibromyalgia. The stipulated medical records reflect that plaintiff, in the 10 years prior to her hand problems of August 2003, had been treated by her primary care physician, five different orthopedists at Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic, Urgent Care, multiple headache/pain management specialists, and a neurologist. Plaintiff was treated for these various ailments using multiple medications (including narcotics and antidepressants), trigger point injections, physical therapy, and epidural steroid injections.

7. Plaintiff claims that her compensable hand condition caused her numerous other chronic medical conditions to become aggravated or exacerbated. Plaintiff also alleges that she suffers from depression as a result of the hand condition. Plaintiff admitted during testimony at the hearing that she was trying to relate all of her long-standing health problems to her compensable hand condition.

8. Plaintiff testified at the hearing that she had never been diagnosed with a mental health condition. The medical records and Dr. Darrell's deposition testimony, however, reveal that plaintiff was prescribed and took antidepressant medications for years prior to August 2003.

9. Plaintiff started treating with Dr. Charles Matthews at the North Carolina Comprehensive Headache Clinic upon referral from Dr. Darrell prior to August 2003. Dr. Matthews began prescribing plaintiff's medications and at various times prescribed multiple *Page 5 medications at a time, including narcotics and antidepressants. Plaintiff exhibited drug-seeking behavior with Dr. Darrell and other doctors during this claim.

10. Plaintiff began treatment with the Rex Healthcare Pain Clinic in January 2003, where she treated with multiple physicians for neck pain, depression, migraines, low back pain, right leg pain, asthma, and shoulder pain. Dr. Thomas Buchheit, at the Pain Clinic, began treating plaintiff in July 2003.

11. Dr. Buchheit testified that he first saw plaintiff on July 31, 2003. At that time and continuously thereafter he has intermittently treated her for neck pain, low back pain, right leg pain, shoulder pain, fibromyalgia, stress and anxiety, as well as for her hand and arm pain. Dr. Buchheit testified that when he first saw plaintiff she was already taking seven medications, including Methadone. Dr. Buchheit subsequently diagnosed her as having cervical post-laminectomy pain, chronic narcotic use, and tension headaches.

12. On August 10, 2004 plaintiff was confronted by Dr. Buchheit with the fact that the urine test taken at her June 2004 appointment was positive for marijuana and for Vicodin, a narcotic that he had not prescribed. Plaintiff was very tearful and crying.

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

Related

Holley v. Acts, Inc.
581 S.E.2d 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2003)
Hodgin v. Hodgin
583 S.E.2d 362 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
Harrington v. Adams-Robinson Enterprises
495 S.E.2d 377 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1998)
In Re Harrington v. Adams-Robinson Enterprises
504 S.E.2d 786 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1998)
Young v. Hickory Business Furniture
538 S.E.2d 912 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Steinbrecher v. Raleigh Housing Authority, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinbrecher-v-raleigh-housing-authority-ncworkcompcom-2007.