Swaney v. Saft America

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 8, 2008
DocketI.C. NO. 466628.
StatusPublished

This text of Swaney v. Saft America (Swaney v. Saft America) 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
Swaney v. Saft America, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

***********
Upon review 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 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 were entered into by the parties at the hearing as:

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

2. An employee-employer relationship existed between the named employee and named employer.

3. The carrier liable on the risk is Crum Forster/U.S. Fire Insurance Company.

4. The employee's average weekly wage is $749.65.

5. The employee sustained an injury on or about September 10, 2004.

The injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and is compensable.

7. The parties Stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit # 1, Pre-Trial Agreement, as modified and initialed by the parties, and as referenced by the Table of Contents, to include North Carolina Industrial Commission forms and medical records.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable work-related electrical shock on September 10, 2004, while attempting to replace the ballast in an overhead light fixture. After being knocked loose from the light fixture by a co-employee, Plaintiff fell seven to ten feet to the ground landing on his left side.

2. Plaintiff was initially treated on September 10, 2004 at Hart Industrial Clinic where he was diagnosed with an electrical burn through his right hand to his back, lacerations, abrasions and contusions. The electricity entered Plaintiff's body through the right ring finger and exited through his back. Sutures were applied to the laceration above Plaintiff's left eye and to the exit wound in the left scapular area. Plaintiff was referred to a hand specialist and advised to return to Hart Industrial Clinic on an as needed basis. *Page 3

3. On the same date, September 10, 2004, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Mark R. McGinnis of Hickory Orthopedic Center. Dr. McGinnis diagnosed small electrical burns of the right ring finger and small finger with abrasions of the left elbow, laceration of the left lateral eyebrow and very superficial tiny electrical burns of the tips of the fingers of the left hand. Dr. McGinnis dressed the right ring and small finger and prescribed pain medication.

4. On September 17, 2004, Dr. McGinnis released Plaintiff to return to light duty work with limited use of both hands.

5. To expedite treatment and decrease the chance of significant scarring with potential flexion contractures, on September 27, 2004, Dr. McGinnis performed a full thickness skin graft of the right ring finger with a total surface area of 3 square centimeters and a full thickness skin graft of the right small finger with a total surface area of approximately 1.2 square centimeters.

6. On October 7, 2004, Dr. McGinnis released Plaintiff to one-handed employment.

7. On November 18, 2004, Dr. McGinnis noted that Plaintiff was doing fairly well with a little bit of tightness from the palmar scar of the right ring finger. Plaintiff had no significant tenderness on palpation of the scar tissue. Dr. McGinnis noted that Plaintiff may have a problem with the right ring finger with regard to a tightness or slight flexion contracture of the DIP joint. Dr. McGinnis assigned a 2% permanent partial impairment rating of the left ring finger and a 0% permanent partial impairment rating of the small finger. Although Dr. McGinnis referenced the left fingers in his ratings, it appears clear that this was a typographical error as the injuries and skin graft were to the right fingers. Dr. McGinnis indicated that Plaintiff could continue to work with no restrictions. Plaintiff was advised to follow up on an as needed basis. *Page 4

8. Plaintiff returned to work at his pre-injury employment and pre-injury wages on or about November 1, 2004. Defendants paid temporary total disability benefits during the period Plaintiff was out of work. Plaintiff had a new position with the Defendant-Employer as of the date of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, and was earning the same wages. Plaintiff had requested or bid for this change to the new position with Defendant-Employer. Plaintiff's new job with Defendant-Employer was not due to his work related injury.

9. Upon the motion of Plaintiff, Deputy Commissioner Rowell Ordered Defendants to provide evaluations and follow-up treatment for Plaintiff through neuropsychiatrist, Dr. C Thomas Gualtieri, and orthopedic spine specialist, Dr. Jeffery A. Knapp.

10. Dr. Gualtieri was deposed on May 4, 2006. He opined that the problems Plaintiff reported of pain, soreness, tingling, headaches, back pain and mild cognitive impairment were expected with an electric shock injury. Dr. Gualtieri opined that Plaintiff's problems "are likely to resolve" during the second year following the electric shock injury. According to Dr. Gualtieri, by resolve, he meant "it's no longer an active problem. It's not something that the patient continues to complain of or worry about or seek help over."

11. Despite Dr. Gualtieri's opinion that Plaintiff's problems would likely resolve in approximately two years after the injury, he gave Plaintiff a 15% whole person impairment rating. According to Dr. Gualtieri, this rating was based on Plaintiff's initial visit of November 8, 2005. Dr. Gualtieri based the whole person rating on the AMA Guidelines.

12. Dr. Guatieri also opined that ideally, a patient should not be rated until two years after a mild brain injury, since 99 times out of 100, if the rating had waited until two years after the accident, the disability rating would be lower. *Page 5

13. Upon Order of the Full Commission on December 4, 2007, Plaintiff was ordered to return to Dr. Gualtieri for a follow-up re-evaluation since he was more than two years post injury. Based on the January 24, 2008 stipulated report of Dr. Guaitieri, Plaintiff continues to have persistent problems with headaches and muscle spasms. Plaintiff reported problems with irritability, temper outbursts, personality change and continuing memory problems. Plaintiff's objective testing showed a sharp decline in his neurocognitive performance, but his subjective ratings questionnaire was almost identical to scores from two years earlier. Tests showed "no evidence for exacerbation and malingering." Dr. Gualtieri recommended a brain MRI with and without contrast and treatment for Plaintiff's symptoms, including depression. Dr. Gualtieri recommended that Plaintiff return to him for several more visits and every year for re-evaluation.

14. Dr. Gualtieri noted in his January 24, 2008 re-evaluation report that he gave Plaintiff a 15% whole person impairment rating two years before, related to memory problems and headache from concussion, but he did not discuss changing the rating up or down. The Full Commission finds based on the greater weight of the evidence that Plaintiff's neurocognitive condition has not improved since his 2005 evaluation; therefore, the 15% whole body impairment rating given by Dr. Gualtieri has not decreased.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Swaney v. Saft America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swaney-v-saft-america-ncworkcompcom-2008.