Swift v. Research and Analytical Laboratories

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 16, 2000
DocketI.C. NO. 633844.
StatusPublished

This text of Swift v. Research and Analytical Laboratories (Swift v. Research and Analytical Laboratories) 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
Swift v. Research and Analytical Laboratories, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2000).

Opinion

The appealing party has shown good ground to reconsider the evidence in this matter. Having reconsidered the evidence of record, the Full Commission 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 as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All necessary parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and this claim. The parties are bound by and subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff-employee and defendant-employer at all times relevant herein.

3. Defendant-employer was an approved self-insured with Riscorp acting as its servicing agent.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage at the time of the injury was $350.40, yielding a compensation rate of $233.61, with either party being able to present evidence at the hearing as to the correct average weekly wage.

5. On April 19, 1996, plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident when he accidentally fell going up metal steps of a customer of defendant-employer's.

6. Plaintiff's disability from said admittedly compensable injury began on April 29, 1996. On May 11, 1996, defendant-employer agreed to pay and plaintiff agreed to accept temporary total disability compensation benefits beginning April 29, 1996.

7. Defendant-employer paid temporary total disability benefits to plaintiff from April 29, 1996 through June 2, 1996, at the rate of $233.61 per week.

8. Plaintiff returned to work for defendant-employer on June 3, 1996. Plaintiff last worked for defendant-employer on June 6, 1996.

9. On July 25, 1996, plaintiff filed his hearing request seeking reinstatement of his temporary total disability benefits, effective June 7, 1996. On August 8, 1996, defendant reinstated temporary total disability benefits to plaintiff, retroactive to June 7, 1996, without waiving the right to contest reinstatement of benefits under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-32.1 or Industrial Commission Rule 404A(4).

10. The issues to be determined are:

(a) Whether plaintiff's return to work from June 3, 1996 was an unsuccessful return to work.

(b) Whether defendant is entitled to terminate disability benefits to plaintiff, effective June 7, 1996.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Upon consideration of all of the evidence submitted, the Full Commission finds facts as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was fifty-five years old. He had completed the tenth grade and first started working for defendant-employer on September 13, 1989.

2. Plaintiff was employed by the defendant-employer as an Environmental Monitoring Technician, Field Technician and Courier. In this position plaintiff would collect water samples from defendant-employer's various customers. Plaintiff was required to drive as much as 1,000 miles per week and carry coolers weighing as much as sixty pounds.

3. The parties stipulated to the compensable injury of Friday, April 19, 1996. On that date plaintiff was performing his work duties for R A and was delivering some bottles to Proctor Silex in Mount Airy, NC. It was raining that day as he started to climb steps located outside the building where he was delivering bottles. As he started up the steps, his right foot slipped off the wet metal step, his right ankle twisted around, and he lost his balance, twisted his body around, and fell, landing on the corners of the metal steps on his right leg, right buttocks and hip and lower back.

4. Plaintiff was initially seen and treated by Dr. Lowe at PrimeCare on Holden Road, Greensboro, NC, on May 7, 1996. Plaintiff informed Dr. Lowe that he had fallen at work, sustaining a blow to the lateral aspect of his right hip. Since then, he had pain in the hip and back. Plaintiff also informed Dr. Lowe that Dr. Taft had operated on his back on May 22, 1986, that he had some left leg pain prior to surgery and occasional pain in the right leg, but nothing like the character of pain that he had when he saw Dr. Lowe after sustaining the April 19, 1996 injury.

5. On May 22, 1986 plaintiff had undergone a hemilaminectomy and excision of a ruptured disc at the L5-S1 disc space on the left, due to severe lower back pain which radiated down his left leg. The operating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Charles Taft, assigned a 15 percent permanent partial impairment to plaintiff's back upon recovery in 1986.

6. From the time of Plaintiff's employment at R A in 1989 until February 27, 1996, and despite his prior back surgery, he had only minor complaints of right leg pain and some complaints of lower back pain off and on, but did not miss work due to any back or right leg pain problems except as set forth in paragraph 7 immediately following.

7. On February 27, 1996 plaintiff saw his family physician Dr. Leo Record, who recorded a history that Plaintiff experienced the onset of low back pain while driving his truck down the road, and the back pain was of 4 days, duration. Dr. Record also recorded a history of a little low back pain all the time, but hurting much more by February 27, 1996, with no radiation of the pain into either leg. Due to his increased lower back pain Plaintiff was unable to work at R A for about 9 days during the period of about March 2 through about March 10, 1996, when he returned to his regular duties, with his increased back pain condition resolved.

8. When Dr. Lowe initially saw plaintiff on May 7, 1996 he was out of work and he continued him out of work until June 3, 1996. Dr. Lowe treated plaintiff's condition with physical therapy and medication. On May 21, 1996, Dr. Lowe noted that plaintiff was much better and indicated that he had reached maximum medical improvement; however, the Full Commission finds that plaintiff had not reached maximum medical improvement. Dr. Lowe released plaintiff to return to work the following Tuesday with no permanent partial disability secondary to his injury and did not schedule plaintiff for another appointment, but plaintiff could return if he had difficulties.

9. Thereafter, plaintiff tried to keep working, but his right leg kept hurting; he was unable to sleep much at night due to right leg pain which also interfered with his ability to walk and with his ability to get in and out of his truck. He also complained of pain in his right hip, both front and back, and in the side of his right hip down to his knee, with some tingling in his leg and right foot such that by April 29, 1996 he became unable to continue working due to right leg pain. Since plaintiff's twist and fall onto the metal steps on April 19, 1996, he has had constant right leg pain made worse with any period of prolonged standing, sitting or walking.

10. Dr. Lowe did not see plaintiff after May 21, 1996, but plaintiff called Dr. Lowe's office on June 10, 1996, complaining of pain in his leg and tingling in his foot. Plaintiff indicated that, while working for the defendant post April 19 he had been lifting boxes and standing over a sink and had done nothing to his knowledge to aggravate his hips, and that his hips were not hurting after physical therapy. Dr. Lowe removed him from work and scheduled an epidural steroid injection; plaintiff was not to return to work until he had seen Dr. Taft or someone in Dr. Lowe's office.

11.

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
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-32
North Carolina § 97-32
§ 97-32.1
North Carolina § 97-32.1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Swift v. Research and Analytical Laboratories, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swift-v-research-and-analytical-laboratories-ncworkcompcom-2000.