Towery (Ledford) v. Kroehler Furniture Mfg. Co.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJanuary 26, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 051782
StatusPublished

This text of Towery (Ledford) v. Kroehler Furniture Mfg. Co. (Towery (Ledford) v. Kroehler Furniture Mfg. Co.) 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
Towery (Ledford) v. Kroehler Furniture Mfg. Co., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

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 affirms with modifications 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 in a Pre-Trial Agreement and at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The employee is Robin Towery (Ledford). The employer is Kroehler Furniture Mfg. Co., Inc.

2. At all times relevant to this claim, the employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

3. The carrier on the risk is N.C. Guaranty Association.

4. The date of the injury is 1 April 2000.

5. The average weekly wage is $955.20, yielding a weekly compensation rate of $588.00.

6. A Form 60 was filed on 22 June 2000 in this matter.

7. Defendant-employer regularly employs three or more employees and all parties are bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

In addition, the parties stipulated into evidence the following: Industrial Commission Forms and a packet of medical records. The issues are: (a) whether the Form 24 termination of benefits as of 14 November 2000 was inadvertently entered on 9 January 2001; (b) whether plaintiff is entitled to temporary total disability from 14 November 2000 to 22 August 2001; (c) whether plaintiff is permanently and totally disabled; (d) who should be plaintiff's treating physician; and (e) what medical treatment plaintiff should receive.

***********
Based on the foregoing stipulations and the evidence presented, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. As of the date of hearing before the deputy commissioner, plaintiff was forty-three years old. Plaintiff began working for defendant-employer, a furniture manufacturer, in 1996 as a cushion sewer.

2. As a result of her job duties with defendant-employer, plaintiff contracted bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Defendant-employer admitted liability for plaintiff's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome on a Form 60 agreement filed 22 June 2000.

3. Dr. Kirkland performed right carpal tunnel release surgery on plaintiff on 18 July 2000 and a left carpal tunnel release on 9 August 2000. Dr. Kirkland determined that plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement on 22 September 2000 with a 3% permanent partial disability rating to the right hand and a 3% permanent partial disability rating to the left hand. He released her to return to work without restrictions.

4. Plaintiff did not return to work on 22 September 2000. A patient work status report signed by Dr. Timothy H. Kirkland on 22 September 2000 indicated that plaintiff was not able to return to work on that date because she did not feel that she could work at that time. However, on 8 October 2000, defendant-carrier filed a Form 28 return to work report indicating that plaintiff had returned to work on 22 September 2000. On 9 October 2000, defendant-carrier terminated plaintiff's workers' compensation payments.

5. Plaintiff, who was without counsel at that time, filed an undated handwritten motion to the Industrial Commission asking that her compensation be reinstated. Plaintiff's motion was granted on 6 November 2000 and defendants were ordered to pay a 10% late penalty on all compensation that had not been paid within 14 days of becoming due.

6. On 26 September 2000, plaintiff filed a change of physician request. A special deputy commissioner denied plaintiff's motion for change of treating physician on 19 October 2000.

7. On 14 November 2000, after the Industrial Commission reinstated plaintiff's compensation, defendants filed a Form 24 application to terminate plaintiff's benefits. Plaintiff, who was still unrepresented, did not file a response to the Form 24.

8. Plaintiff received a check from defendant-carrier for benefits covering the time period of 2 October 2000 to on or about 14 November 2000. Plaintiff wrote a handwritten note, dated 16 November 2000, protesting the amount of the check she received from defendants. In the note, she stated that the check should have covered the time period from 22 September 2000 to 12 November 2000.

9. A special deputy commissioner allowed defendants' Form 24 request to terminate plaintiff's benefits on 9 January 2001.

10. Plaintiff obtained counsel and the Industrial Commission was informed of her representation on 24 January 2001. Defendants voluntarily resumed compensation payments to plaintiff on 22 August 2001. Plaintiff filed a Form 33 request for hearing on the issue of whether plaintiff was totally disabled from 14 November 2000 to 22 August 2001. This was the issue before the deputy commissioner at the 25 June 2003 hearing.

11. Defendants paid temporary total disability compensation to plaintiff from 22 May 2000 to 14 November 2000. Defendants resumed payment of compensation on 22 August 2001. The issue before the Full Commission is whether plaintiff is entitled to temporary total disability compensation from 14 November 2000 to 22 August 2001.

12. At the time Dr. Kirkland released plaintiff to return to work, she had complaints of cervical pain and was referred by him to Dr. Alfred E. Geissele, a spine specialist. A cervical MRI performed on plaintiff on 29 September 2000 showed degenerative disc disease in the cervical area, disc bulges and spondylosis, most marked at C6-7. Plaintiff visited Dr. Ralph J. Maxy upon a referral by Dr. Kirkland. On 9 October 2000, Dr. Maxy prescribed Vicodin and Soma for plaintiff's neck pain and began a series of epidural steroid injections in the cervical spine.

13. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Kirkland on 26 October 2000 and was angry with him for his failure to relate her cervical problems to her employment. On 31 October 2000, Dr. Maxy noted that plaintiff had no improvement in her pain from the medication and three epidural steroid injections. He also did not relate the cervical problem to plaintiff's employment.

14. Dr. Kathryn A. Caulfield, a board-certified hand specialist, saw plaintiff on 27 February 2001 for a second opinion and recommended a repeat nerve conduction study. During plaintiff's 27 April 2001 visit, Dr. Caulfield reviewed the nerve conduction study and was of the opinion that plaintiff had recurrent bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Caulfield recommended a right carpal tunnel release via a dorsal wrist procedure and anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve on the right. On the left, she recommended carpal tunnel release surgery and anterior transposition. Dr. Caulfield recommended that plaintiff remain out of work.

15. Dr. Warren B. Burrows, II became plaintiff's primary treating physician for her occupational disease by agreement of the parties. He examined plaintiff on 22 August 2001. Dr. Burrows diagnosed plaintiff with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome and status post right and left carpal tunnel release with recurrent residual symptoms. He recommended median and ulnar nerve release surgery with the right side being done first and a similar procedure to the left. On 4 September 2001, Dr. Burrows performed the following surgeries: right carpal tunnel release, pronator release and cubital tunnel release with neurolysis of the ulnar nerve and anterial submuscular transposition.

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

Related

Hodges v. Equity Group
596 S.E.2d 31 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Towery (Ledford) v. Kroehler Furniture Mfg. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/towery-ledford-v-kroehler-furniture-mfg-co-ncworkcompcom-2005.