Tobar v. Robert Abbey, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedApril 10, 2008
DocketI.C. NO. 571157.
StatusPublished

This text of Tobar v. Robert Abbey, Inc. (Tobar v. Robert Abbey, 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
Tobar v. Robert Abbey, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

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 oral argument before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award except for minor modifications. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

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

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

2. An employee-employer relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant-Employer.

3. The carrier liable on the risk is correctly named above, and Defendant-Carrier came on the risk on September 1, 2004.

* * * * * * * * * * *
EXHIBITS
The following documents were accepted into evidence as stipulated exhibits by the Deputy Commissioner:

• Exhibit 1: Executed Pre-Trial Agreement

• Exhibit 2: Industrial Commission Forms, including Form 22

• Exhibit 3: Letters from AIG Claim Services, Inc. and Defendant-Carrier

• Exhibit 4: Plaintiff's medical records

• Exhibit 5: Executed Compromise Settlement Agreement in "I.C. File Nos. 571146 and 571157"

• Exhibit 6: DVD showing various jobs at Defendant-Employer's plant

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

• Dr. Allen Edwards

• Dr. Robert W. Hart

• Dr. Scott M. McCloskey

• Dr. Jerry L. Barron

* * * * * * * * * * *
EVIDENTIARY RULINGS *Page 3 The objections raised by counsel at the depositions taken in this matter are ruled upon in accordance with the law and the opinion in this Opinion and Award.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 54 years old. Her native language is Spanish and she speaks very little English. Plaintiff testified at the hearing through an interpreter.

2. Plaintiff has worked for Defendant-Employer for over 17 years, primarily as a lampshade assembler. As a lampshade assembler, Plaintiff attaches metal rings to the fabric of the lampshade utilizing a machine that, appears somewhat like a sewing machine, to apply tape that binds the rings to the fabric. She then uses scissors to cut the tape and must clean up the tape binding, which sometimes requires the further application of glue manually. The lampshades vary in size from very small to rather large, representative of the range of sizes typically found in a home.

3. The lampshade assembler position requires repetitive use of the hands and arms, with frequent extension of the arms at or above shoulder level from a seated position. The position also requires frequent use of scissors. Plaintiff works 40-45 hours per week, five days a week. Depending upon the size of the lampshades being assembled, Plaintiff may assemble up to 200 a day, fewer if she is working on larger lampshades.

4. Plaintiff began having symptoms of pain and numbness in her hands and arms several years ago. *Page 4

5. On January 12, 2004, Plaintiff presented to Hart Industrial Clinic with symptoms in her elbows. She was diagnosed with right lateral epicondylitis. Plaintiff's symptoms improved with limited work duty, injections, medications and a splint. Consequently, by March 17, 2004, Hart Industrial Clinic noted that her right lateral epicondylitis was resolving, and Plaintiff was released with no follow-up planned.

6. Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim, alleging a date of onset of January 8, 2004 for her bilateral hands, arms and shoulders. The claim was assigned I.C. No. 571146. Commerce Industrial Insurance Company was the carrier on said claim, with AIG Claim Services, Inc. as the third-party administrator. Plaintiff ultimately settled said claim via the execution of a compromise settlement agreement on October 9, 2006.

7. After March 17, 2004, Plaintiff continued working in the lamp assembler job, and her symptoms worsened and expanded.

8. Defendant-Employer sent Plaintiff back to Hart Industrial Clinic on July 13, 2005. She presented with pain in both upper extremities from her hands to her shoulders, with significant numbness and tingling in her hands that worsened at night. Based on her history, examination and the results of nerve conduction studies obtained by Plaintiff's family doctor, Dr. Young, Plaintiff was diagnosed with mild bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The carpal tunnel syndrome was a new condition that had developed since Plaintiff was last seen in March of 2004. She was further diagnosed with upper extremity pain and paresthesias, with clinical evidence of tendonitis in both arms.

9. Following the July 13, 2005 doctor's visit, Defendant-Employer changed Plaintiff to a lamp assembly position, in which required Plaintiff to put parts together to assemble lamp bases and wire the lamps. This position was also repetitive and involved the frequent use of a *Page 5 power screwdriver, wire cutters and pliers. Plaintiff did not experience relief from her symptoms while she was doing this job.

10. Plaintiff underwent a course of physical therapy over the next two weeks, but she was still having a lot of pain in her shoulders. Therefore, Hart Industrial Clinic referred Plaintiff for an orthopedic evaluation.

11. Plaintiff saw Dr. William Pekman on August 3, 2005 and September 8, 2005. Dr. Pekman injected both of Plaintiff's carpal tunnels, but the injections did not help her symptoms.

12. Defendant-Carrier stopped providing medical treatment to Plaintiff after her September 8, 2005 appointment with Dr. Pekman.

13. Plaintiff filed her Form 18 in the instant claim on or about October 26, 2005, alleging an onset date of July 11, 2005 for pain in both hands, arms and shoulders arising out of her repetitive work. She filed a Form 33 Request for Hearing on or about December 30, 2005. Defendants never filed a Form 61, and they did not file a Form 33R until the day of the hearing.

14. Although the instant claim number was set out along with I.C. No. 571146 in the caption of the agreement, the text of the agreement set out, in part, that "the payment recited herein is for all claims allegedly occurring during the period of coverage for Employer-Defendant by Commerce Industrial Insurance Company, Carrier-Defendant, and AIG Claim Services, Inc., Third-Party Administrator-Defendant, for their period of coverage prior to September 1, 2004, and is only intended to release the Defendants released herein.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-25.1
North Carolina § 97-25.1
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-32
North Carolina § 97-32
§ 97-57
North Carolina § 97-57

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tobar v. Robert Abbey, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tobar-v-robert-abbey-inc-ncworkcompcom-2008.