Trexler v. Ruddick Corp./harris Teeter

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 15, 2004
DocketI.C. NOS. 137795 224506
StatusPublished

This text of Trexler v. Ruddick Corp./harris Teeter (Trexler v. Ruddick Corp./harris Teeter) 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
Trexler v. Ruddick Corp./harris Teeter, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2004).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award based on the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission AFFIRMS with some modifications the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
The Full Commission finds as a fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by parties as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, the parties are properly before the Commission, and the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act at all relevant times.

2. Defendant was a duly qualified self-insured, with RSKCo as the servicing agent.

3. The employee-employer relationship existed between the employee-plaintiff and employer-defendant on or about August 6, 2000.

4. The parties agreed by stipulation that these claims were consolidated for hearing and determination. I.C. File Number 137795 is assigned to the August 6, 2000 right wrist/hand claim. I.C. File Number 224506 is assigned to the May 2, 2000 right carpal tunnel claim.

5. The issues for determination are:

a. Did plaintiff contract a compensable occupational disease, and if so, to what benefits is she entitled under the Act?

b. Did plaintiff sustain an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment on August 6, 2000, and if so, what are the compensable consequences?

6. The parties entered the following exhibits into the record at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

a. Stipulated Exhibit 1 medical records, 176 pages,

b. Stipulated Exhibit 2 record of hours and days worked, wage verification, job description, record of long term and short term disability payments,

c. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 termination letter.

d. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 recorded statement.

e. Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 March 29, 2000 termination.

f. Defendant's Exhibit 1 termination/exit report.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was forty-three years old and had completed the tenth grade. She is right-hand dominant. Plaintiff had prior experience as a cashier and stocker at K-Mart.

2. On January 10, 2000, plaintiff began working as a part-time cashier with defendant's supermarket in Salisbury. Her duties included scanning and punching in codes for grocery and produce items at the cash register, lifting grocery items to be purchased from the carts, placing them on a conveyor and assisting to place the items in the bags for the customers. She worked twenty to twenty-five hours per week, normally from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. or from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. When there were no customers, plaintiff dusted the candy racks at the checkout counter, cleaned around her register area and wiped down the counter or conveyor. As with any retail grocery establishment, some days were busy while others were not.

3. As part of her job duties, the heaviest items to be lifted were cases of beverages and twenty-five to fifty-pound bags of dog food.

4. After working 15 weeks, plaintiff testified she began to notice her fingers on the right hand going to sleep. Her right hand would also wake her at night.

5. Between May 22, 2000 and November 28, 2000, plaintiff received short-term disability benefits through the employer-funded plan.

6. On May 31, 2000, plaintiff sought treatment with Dr. Christopher Nagy, who ordered nerve conduction studies. Dr. Nagy performed right carpal tunnel release surgery on July 3, 2000.

7. As a result of the carpal tunnel release surgery, Dr. Nagy authorized plaintiff to remain out of work from July 3, 2000 to July 31, 2000. He released her to return to regular duty as of July 31, 2000.

8. Although plaintiff returned to work on August 1, 2000 at regular duty, her employer offered to allow a coworker to assist with heavy lifting when possible.

9. On August 6, 2000, plaintiff was waiting on a male customer who had a large order. She asked for assistance with lifting the items, but no one was available, as the extra staff was outside collecting grocery carts from the parking lot. After lifting the second or third case of beverages, plaintiff felt a pop in her right wrist and her fingers began to swell.

10. Plaintiff testified she reported the incident and asked to go home but was not permitted to leave. This testimony is specifically rejected as not being credible.

11. On August 22, 2000, plaintiff returned to Dr. Nagy at which time she reported doing okay, but was having difficulty with lifting at work. Plaintiff did not report the incident which she alleges occurred on August 6, 2000, nor did she report any popping sensation or swelling to the doctor.

12. Dr. Nagy authorized plaintiff to remain out of work for two weeks. By September 13, 2000, Dr. Nagy ordered occupational therapy and continued her out of work.

13. On October 11, 2000, Dr. Nagy placed plaintiff in a short-arm cast to immobilize her wrist. He subsequently referred her to Dr. Jeffrey A. Baker for a second opinion.

14. On December 14, 2000, plaintiff reported to Dr. Baker she had developed right wrist pain with popping and clicking after lifting twelve cases of beer. Dr. Baker diagnosed her with a triangular fibrocartilage tear and a DC-type deformity of her lunate.

15. From December 2000 through the present, plaintiff received long-term disability benefits through an employer-funded plan.

16. Dr. Baker performed a right wrist arthroscopy on January 11, 2001, at which time he found a scapholunate tear with scarring over the ulnar aspect of the wrist and generalized synovitis.

17. On March 13, 2001, Dr. Baker released plaintiff to return to work for four hours per day for two weeks, with lifting restrictions.

18. On April 24, 2001, plaintiff returned to Dr. Baker, describing another work injury while lifting bottles of water. Dr. Baker applied a thumb spica cast. Plaintiff subsequently developed a CMC laxity which Dr. Baker casted. By January 31, 2002, Dr. Baker noted plaintiff had degenerative changes of the radiocarpal joint and may need a fusion in the future.

19. By June 27, 2002, Dr. Baker diagnosed plaintiff with a large disc herniation at C5-6 and C4-5. This condition is not a workers' compensation injury or claim. Dr. Baker performed a two-level anterior cervical fusion and diskectomy, and he felt the bulk of plaintiff's right upper extremity problems were due to the cervical disc herniation.

20. On May 5, 2001, plaintiff was terminated after she became belligerent and irate with manager Crystal Helms over the number of closing duties she was to perform. Ms. Helms asked plaintiff to go outside the store to cool off, and plaintiff returned and announced she was quitting. After plaintiff walked off the job without completing her shift, a termination report was generated.

19. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner Dollar, plaintiff testified she was fired after refusing to clean the top of a soft drink machine which was eight or nine feet tall.

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

Related

Key v. Wagner Woodcraft, Inc.
235 S.E.2d 254 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)
Landry v. US Airways, Inc.
563 S.E.2d 23 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
Harding v. THOMAS AND HOWARD COMPANY
124 S.E.2d 109 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Hansel v. Sherman Textiles
283 S.E.2d 101 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1981)
Young v. Hickory Business Furniture
538 S.E.2d 912 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2000)
Landry v. US Airways, Inc.
571 S.E.2d 586 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2002)
Poe v. Acme Builders
316 S.E.2d 338 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Trexler v. Ruddick Corp./harris Teeter, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trexler-v-ruddick-corpharris-teeter-ncworkcompcom-2004.