Stinson v. Wal-Mart

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 22, 2011
DocketI.C. NOS. 573557 646846.
StatusPublished

This text of Stinson v. Wal-Mart (Stinson v. Wal-Mart) 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
Stinson v. Wal-Mart, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Harris, and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties or their representatives. Having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Harris with minor modifications.

* * * * * * * * * * *
ISSUES
1. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement of indemnity compensation? *Page 2

2. Whether Plaintiff is barred from receiving further indemnity compensation pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-32?

3. To what, if any, further compensation is Plaintiff entitled?

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties as:

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

2. An employment relationship existed between the parties at all relevant times.

3. Defendant-Employer was insured (or self-insured) for workers' compensation coverage at all relevant times.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $383.07 with a compensation rate of $255.39.

5. Deputy Commissioner J. Brad Donovan issued an Opinion and Award on July 7, 2008 awarding temporary total disability (TTD) compensation to Plaintiff in the amount of $255.39 per week beginning May 11, 2006, and continuing.

6. Plaintiff returned to work pursuant to an Industrial Commission Form 28T on August 25, 2008, and continued to be employed until March 22, 2009, when he voluntarily left his position.

7. Plaintiff filed an Industrial Commission Form 28U signed by his family doctor (not the authorized treating physician) on April 22, 2009.

8. Defendants have not reinstated TTD compensation.

* * * * * * * * * * *
EXHIBITS *Page 3
The following documents were accepted into evidence as stipulated exhibits:

• Exhibit 1: Executed Pre-Trial Agreement

• Exhibit 2: Plaintiff's medical records

• Exhibit 3: Defendants' discovery responses

• Exhibit 4: Personnel file

• Exhibit 5: Social Security disability documentation

• Exhibit 6: FMLA certifications

• Exhibit 7: Job descriptions

• Exhibit 8: Pay stubs

• Exhibit 9: Plaintiff's discovery responses

• Exhibit 10: Transcript of deposition of Dr. Cammarata dated 3/17/08

• Exhibit 11: Industrial Commissions Forms 33, 33R and 28U

• Exhibit 12: Correspondence between counsel

• Exhibit 13: Records of Plaintiff's hours worked

Transcripts of the depositions of the following were also received post-hearing:

• Dr. Charles Murray

• Dr. James J. Hoski (with Plaintiff's Exhibits 1-3)

• Dr. Jesse L. West, IV (with Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 2)

• Charlie Robbins, LPT (with Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 2)

• Dr. James McCarrick (with Plaintiff's Exhibit 1)

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon all the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following: *Page 4

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is 52 years of age, with a date of birth of October 28, 1958. Plaintiff began working for Defendant-Employer in December 2004 as a stock worker. Plaintiff's work history includes working for Beacon Manufacturing Company for 24 years and working in various jobs since the age of 10.

2. Plaintiff sustained admittedly compensable injuries to his back and left elbow on August 18, 2005, while working for Defendant-Employer as a stocker.

3. Dr. Angelo Cammarata treated Plaintiff for his compensable left elbow injury and performed an arthroscopy. As of April 28, 2006, Dr. Cammarata found Plaintiff to have reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) for his compensable left elbow condition and assigned a six percent permanent partial impairment (PPI) rating for Plaintiff's left arm. Dr. Cammarata released Plaintiff to return to full duty work without restrictions.

4. In his July 8, 2008 Opinion and Award, Deputy Commissioner Donovan concluded that Plaintiff had also sustained a separate compensable aggravation of his compensable back injury on May 11, 2006, while working for Defendant-Employer as a stocker. Deputy Commissioner Donovan awarded Plaintiff continuing temporary total disability compensation

5. Plaintiff treated with Dr. James Hoski for his back condition following the May 11, 2006 injury. Plaintiff complained of low back pain and left leg pain. An MRI showed a disk herniation at L5-S1, and Dr. Hoski diagnosed the left leg pain as radicular in nature.

6. On June 22, 2006, Dr. Hoski performed surgery to address the herniation at L5-S1. *Page 5

7. On May 11, 2007, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Hoski with complaints of recurrent leg pain. Dr. Hoski ordered an MRI, which showed some irritation of the nerve but no evidence of a herniated disk or nerve root compression. Dr. Hoski concluded that Plaintiff's left leg complaints were now likely due to degenerative arthritis and that this condition did not warrant surgical intervention. Dr. Hoski referred Plaintiff to a pain management specialist, Dr. White.

8. On July 9, 2007, Dr. White recommended that Plaintiff continue with conservative treatment such as medication.

9. On November 14, 2007, at his first deposition in this matter, Dr. Hoski opined that Plaintiff had reached MMI for his compensable back condition and assigned a 10 percent PPI rating. Dr. Hoski also approved the "people greeter" position with Defendant-Employer as being physically suitable for Plaintiff.

10. In the July 8, 2008 Opinion and Award, Deputy Commissioner Donovan also designated Dr. Hoski as the authorized treating physician for Plaintiff's compensable back condition, upon Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff had initially treated with Dr. Goebel for his compensable back injury.

11. In August 2008, Defendant-Employer offered Plaintiff a position as a people greeter, and Plaintiff accepted a full-time position as an "overnight people greeter." When Plaintiff returned as a people greeter, he was paid $1.00 less per hour than in his pre-injury job and was not provided the benefits he had prior to injury.

12. According to Defendant-Employer's job description, in the people greeter position Plaintiff was physically required to, among other things, provide shopping carts to customers by pushing or pulling up to 10 pounds of pressure, frequently lift items up to 10 pounds without assistance, and regularly lift items over 10 pounds with assistance. *Page 6

13. After Plaintiff began working as a people greeter for Defendant-Employer, in addition to his standard greeter duties, he was also required to maintain the front area of the store, which included keeping the windows and the drink and game machine area clean. In doing these tasks, Plaintiff sometimes had to shove the drink and game machines in order to clean around them.

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

Related

Perez v. American Airlines/AMR Corp.
620 S.E.2d 288 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Stinson v. Wal-Mart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stinson-v-wal-mart-ncworkcompcom-2011.