Sur v. Stanadyne Corp.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 29, 2007
DocketI.C. NO. 374753 399483.
StatusPublished

This text of Sur v. Stanadyne Corp. (Sur v. Stanadyne Corp.) 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
Sur v. Stanadyne Corp., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Donovan and the briefs and arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, and upon reconsideration, the Full Commission affirms in part and modifies in part the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matter of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS *Page 2
1. The parties are subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employee-employer relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

3. The carrier on the risk is St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage as shown on the Form 22 Wage Chart is $419.83, yielding a compensation rate of $279.90 per week.

5. Plaintiff was diagnosed with right carpal tunnel syndrome on or about August 18, 2003.

6. Plaintiff's compensable right carpal tunnel syndrome arose out of and in the course of plaintiff's employment.

7. The parties stipulated the following documentary evidence:

a. Stipulated Exhibit #1: I.C. Forms, Employment Security Commission file, discovery responses

b. Stipulated Exhibit #2: Medical records

8. The issues before the Full Commission are whether plaintiff's left carpal tunnel syndrome constitutes a compensable occupational disease; whether plaintiff's ganglion cyst constitutes a compensable injury; whether plaintiff's August 5, 2004 surgery is compensable; whether plaintiff is disabled as a result of a compensable occupational disease or injury; and whether plaintiff's benefits should be terminated because she is no longer disabled and/or she refused suitable employment.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the Deputy Commissioner's hearing, plaintiff was 32 years old and had completed the eleventh grade in high school.

2. Plaintiff began her employment with defendant-employer on December 17, 1997. Plaintiff worked in the fuel injector area for approximately three years and began work in the pump side department in 2002.

3. Plaintiff's job duties in the pump side required her to work on an assembly line that built 75 pumps per hour and 700 pumps per day. Plaintiff was responsible for putting components into the pump as it came down the line. The components were located in a bin beside her and plaintiff was required to use a drill to torque the parts into pump. Plaintiff divided her day between working on the line and working in the assembly area where she put components together to install into the pump as it came down the line.

4. In June 2002, plaintiff noticed that a lump had formed on her right wrist. Over the course of the next year, the lump increased in size. In late July 2003, plaintiff told her supervisor about the lump and that she was having numbness and tingling from her right fingers to her elbow, along with pain and swelling. Plaintiff's supervisor instructed her to find a doctor and have it checked. Plaintiff made arrangements for an appointment with Dr. Derrick Hickey for August 10, 2003. Because of the pain, plaintiff bought a brace to wear at work until her appointment. The plant manager approached plaintiff about the brace and directed her to see the plant safety director. The safety director made an appointment for plaintiff to be evaluated by Dr. Maxwell Kasselt on August 18, 2003. *Page 4

5. On August 10, 2003, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hickey, who diagnosed her with carpal tunnel syndrome and a ganglion cyst in her right hand. Dr. Hickey recommended surgery to release her carpal tunnel and also to remove the cyst.

6. On August 18, 2003, plaintiff presented to Dr. Kasselt. Dr. Kasselt also diagnosed plaintiff with carpal tunnel syndrome in her right hand. Dr. Kasselt ordered EMGs and gave plaintiff braces to wear while she was at work.

7. On August 25, 2003, Dr. Hickey performed arthroscopic surgery on plaintiff's right wrist for debridement and excision of the cyst. Plaintiff was out of work from August 25, 2003 through September 18, 2003. Dr. Hickey was unable to state whether there was a causal relationship between plaintiff's employment with defendant-employer and the development of the cyst.

8. Plaintiff returned to work after her surgery. She continued to have problems with her right wrist and continued to treat with Dr. Kasselt for carpal tunnel syndrome. Defendant-carrier authorized Dr. Kasselt to perform right carpal tunnel surgery on plaintiff, and the surgery was performed on December 23, 2003. Dr. Kasselt returned plaintiff to light-duty work on December 24, 2003, with restrictions of wearing a wrist splint, no heavy lifting, and no repeated tight gripping; however, due to the Christmas holiday, plaintiff did not return to work until January 7, 2004.

9. Plaintiff returned to work in the bond room. Plaintiff's responsibilities included adding a part to the nozzles before they could be packed into boxes of 50. Plaintiff had to screw on a seal called a "doughnut" before placing the item into the machine for it to be tightened. Then, plaintiff would fill the boxes, seal them and move them to the crates. Plaintiff rotated through other jobs in the bond room, including taking paint off of the nozzles, putting seals onto *Page 5 the nozzles, and capping the nozzles. Plaintiff stated that all of the positions required her to grip and twist with her right hand. As a result, plaintiff had difficulties meeting her production standards.

10. After her return in January 2004, plaintiff began to experience pain and numbness in both of her hands. Plaintiff reported the condition to supervisors Pat Peterson and Kathy Parikh. On January 22, 2004, plaintiff presented to Dr. Kasselt with complaints of severe pain in her right hand radiating up to the elbow and occasionally to the shoulder. She also complained of "altered sensation in all aspects of her hand." Dr. Kasselt stated that plaintiff's complaints and other factors led him to believe that plaintiff was amplifying her symptoms.

11. On February 26, 2004, plaintiff presented to Dr. Kasselt with complaints of pain in her left wrist and limb. Dr. Kasselt diagnosed plaintiff with probable carpal tunnel syndrome that was probably work-related, but he requested to review a video of plaintiff's job before offering a definitive opinion regarding causation.

12. On April 20, 2004, plaintiff sought a second opinion with orthopedic surgeon Dr. Kevin Scully, upon referral from Dr. Kasselt. Plaintiff complained of bilateral numbness in her hands, worse on the right. Dr. Scully ordered nerve conduction studies and EMGs. The tests failed to demonstrate any significant ulnar neuropathy; however, Dr. Scully opined that plaintiff might have ongoing neurologic dysfunction, perhaps related to the ulnar nerve compression or to some degree recurring carpal tunnel issues. Plaintiff requested an exploration of both the median and ulnar nerves of the right wrist. Dr. Scully planned to schedule surgery upon approval by defendant-carrier.

13. In a letter dated June 2, 2004, Dr.

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

Related

Demery v. Perdue Farms, Inc.
545 S.E.2d 485 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Norris v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Inc./Masco
534 S.E.2d 259 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Whitley v. Columbia Lumber Mfg. Co.
336 S.E.2d 642 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
Hansel v. Sherman Textiles
283 S.E.2d 101 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1981)
Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.
290 S.E.2d 682 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)
Booker v. Duke Medical Center
256 S.E.2d 189 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)
Isenhour v. Hutto
517 S.E.2d 121 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1999)
Chambers v. Transit Management
636 S.E.2d 553 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sur v. Stanadyne Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sur-v-stanadyne-corp-ncworkcompcom-2007.