Strong v. Burlington Industries Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJune 17, 1999
DocketI.C. No. 480670.
StatusPublished

This text of Strong v. Burlington Industries Inc. (Strong v. Burlington Industries 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
Strong v. Burlington Industries Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 1999).

Opinion

Upon review of all of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence MODIFIES IN PART and AFFIRMS IN PART the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties in an executed Pre-Trial Agreement, as:

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

2. An employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant at all relevant times herein.

3. Defendant was a duly qualified self-insured at all relevant times herein with Crawford Company as its servicing agent.

4. Plaintiff suffered a low back strain at work on or about June 10, 1994 in Hoke County, North Carolina.

5. There was no Industrial Commission Form 21 entered as plaintiff's injury was treated as a medical only claim by defendant.

6. An Industrial Commission Form 22 showed plaintiff's average weekly wage was $350.63, yielding a compensation rate of $233.77.

7. The parties stipulated to plaintiff's medical records from Drs. R. G. Townsend; Cecil H. Neville, Jr.; Mark E. Brenner; Ralph E. Carter III; and Glen R. Harris; Burlington Industries Medical Department; Maxton Medical Services; and Scotland Memorial Hospital; and the physical therapy records of Pinehurst Rehabilitation Center, Inc.

***********

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was a 39 year old male with an eighth grade education. Plaintiff was employed by defendant on March 14, 1994, after having worked for a period as a temporary worker. In 1994, plaintiff was 5'11" tall and weighed 260 pounds. At the time of the hearing, plaintiff was 5'11" tall and weighed 280 pounds.

2. On June 10, 1994, plaintiff was performing his job as a "filler hauler" for defendant, when he sustained an injury by accident to his lower back as he was pulling lids of boxes containing empty yarns. The claim was treated by defendant as a "medical only" claim since following plaintiff's injury, he did not miss any time from work. He returned to light duty work immediately and returned to full duty work by mid August of 1994.

3. Following his injury of June 10, 1994, plaintiff received medical treatment June 10 and 11, 1994, from Dr. R. G. Townsend who initially diagnosed him with muscle spasms. As of June 15, 1994, Dr. Townsend indicated that plaintiff could return to light-duty work with no prolonged standing, bending or stooping for one week.

4. Plaintiff was treated by Maxton Medical Services prior to and following his injury of June 10, 1994. Prior to June 10, 1994, plaintiff had been diagnosed with hypertension or high blood pressure.

5. Plaintiff was treated at Maxton Medical Services on June 14, 1994, due to a second degree chemical burn of about 3x4 inches over the right paravertebrals, starting at the midline and extending out at L4 and L5 which apparently had resulted from some type of material which had been sprayed on his back June 10, 1994 when plaintiff was treated for his back injury by a physician's assistant in Dr. Townsend's office.

6. As of June 30, 1994, a form was completed indicating that plaintiff could return to regular-duty work, and that plaintiff had no other medical problems with the exception of hypocholesterolemia. Plaintiff was again seen at Maxton Medical Services July 1, 1994, for a blood sugar check. There was no indication of any other medical problem at that time.

7. On June 17, 1994, plaintiff saw Dr. Cecil Neville who diagnosed him with acute back strain, a chemical burn to the skin, and degenerative changes at L3-4 and L4-5 on the anterior margin of the vertebrae, noting that the degenerative changes were compatible with obesity. On June 30, 1994, Dr. Neville noted that plaintiff was dramatically better than he was on June 17, 1994 and the burn had healed. Dr. Neville found negative straight leg raising pain and only minimal back pain. The neurological exam was normal. On July 28, 1994, Dr. Neville noted that plaintiff had only occasional pain in his back and had good flexion without muscle spasm, but still had limitations as far as his lumbar flexion. Dr. Neville noted that plaintiff appeared to have made a good recovery and talked to plaintiff about returning to regular work four hours per day and doing light work for four hours per day for two weeks and then resuming his full activities. Dr. Neville felt plaintiff did not have any residual difficulties as a result of his back pain and as of August 1, 1994, Dr. Neville felt plaintiff warranted a 0% disability rating for his back.

8. Plaintiff presented to Dr. Mark Brenner, an orthopaedic surgeon, on December 15, 1994, upon the referral of his attorney. Dr. Brenner found that plaintiff had a limited range of motion and tenderness at L4-5 and L5-S1. Straight leg raising was negative and motor and sensory examinations were normal. Dr. Brenner ordered an MRI scan and bone scan. The bone scan was unremarkable and the MRI showed degenerative disc disease and a pathology consistent with a chronic degenerative arthritis of the low back. Dr. Brenner noted plaintiff's MRI was consistent with the x-rays from Dr. Neville, noting degenerative changes at L3-4 and L4-5.

9. As of December 29, 1994, Dr. Brenner noted that plaintiff reported to him that he was out of work for medical leave secondary to increased hypertension. Plaintiff never indicated to Dr. Brenner that he was out of work because of his back. Dr. Brenner testified that he filled out disability forms for plaintiff because of plaintiff's hypertension, weight problem and a variety of other problems, not because of any condition relating to his workers' compensation claim. Dr. Brenner noted that when he saw plaintiff February 9, 1995, plaintiff was still out of work, but was much better; although plaintiff was having dizzy spells secondary to high blood pressure.

10. Dr. Brenner released plaintiff with respect to his workers' compensation claim March 1, 1995, but plaintiff still had some other ongoing health problems. Dr. Brenner also noted that as of October 10, 1995, plaintiff was having some swelling in both legs and was not doing well regarding his low back. Dr. Brenner was of the opinion that symptoms of swelling in both legs would be evidence of cardiac fluid retention secondary to heart failure, lung problems, retaining fluids because of lung problems, liver problems and retaining fluid on the basis of liver disease or kidney disease. Dr. Brenner further testified that while he treated plaintiff, there were times when plaintiff got better and times when he got worse, exactly as one would expect from degenerative disc disease and that plaintiff's symptoms of back pain in December of 1995, were not necessarily related to his injury of June 10, 1994.

11. Dr. Brenner opined that plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement eight weeks after his injury on June 10, 1994; that his workplace injury did not cause his long-term disability and that plaintiff's injury warranted a 5% permanent partial disability rating. Greater weight is given to the impairment rating of Dr. Brenner over that of Dr. Neville.

12. Plaintiff also presented to Dr. Ralph E. Carter III, an orthopaedic surgeon, who evaluated him on November 13, 1996. Dr.

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

Related

Biddix v. Rex Mills, Inc.
75 S.E.2d 777 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Strong v. Burlington Industries Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strong-v-burlington-industries-inc-ncworkcompcom-1999.