Walters v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedAugust 26, 2011
DocketI.C. NOS. 844022 W23368.
StatusPublished

This text of Walters v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. (Walters v. Goodyear Tire Rubber 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
Walters v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Baddour and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the prior Opinion and Award. Accordingly, the Full Commission AFFIRMS with modifications, the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
1. Whether plaintiff's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is a compensable occupational disease and if so, to what indemnity and medical compensation, if any is plaintiff entitled? *Page 2

2. Whether plaintiff's osteoarthritis in his hands is a compensable occupational disease and if so, to what indemnity and medical compensation, if any is plaintiff entitled?

***********
DEPOSITIONS
1. The deposition of Dr. Krishna P. Bhat has been admitted into the record.

2. The deposition of Dr. Bradley J. Broussard has been admitted into the record.

3. The deposition of Dr. George S. Edwards has been admitted into the record.

***********
EXHIBITS
The following exhibits were admitted into evidence:

1. Stipulated Exhibit 1: Pre-Trial Agreement.

2. Stipulated Exhibit 2: Indexed and Paginated Set of Exhibits.

3. Stipulated Exhibit 3: Job Video.

4. Stipulated Exhibit 4: Job Description.

5. Stipulated Exhibit 5: Medical Records of Dr. Sanjay Garg

6. Stipulated Exhibit 6: Payroll Records for 2006 — 2007

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

STIPULATIONS
1. The Employee is Michael W. Walters.

2. The Employer is The Goodyear Tire Rubber Co.

3. The Carrier is Liberty Mutual Insurance Group. *Page 3

4. At all relevant times, defendant-employer regularly employed three or more employees and was bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. An employer and the employee relationship existed between the employer and the employee on or about 1 April 2009 (IC File No. W23368), the date of the alleged onset of occupational disease to his hands including bone spurs due to thirty (30) years of repetitive use, and on or about 19 November 2007 (IC File No. 844022), the date of the alleged onset of occupational disease to his hands with bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome and osteoarthritis due to thirty (30) years of repetitive use.

5. Defendants are entitled to a credit for all "net" AS benefits received by the employee for any period of time for which he is claiming entitlement to disability benefits. The parties further stipulate that "net" AS benefits are defined as gross AS benefits less any taxes taken out on said gross benefits.

6. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $1,202.13, which is sufficient to generate the maximum weekly compensation rate for 2007 of $754.00, and which results in a weekly compensation rate for 2009 of $801.82.

***********
Based upon the foregoing Stipulations, and upon the preponderance of the evidence in view of the entire record, the Full Commission enters the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff, a high school graduate, began working with defendant-employer on 28 November 1977.

2. Plaintiff built tires for defendant-employer for approximately thirty-two (32) years. During this period, plaintiff was a stage 1 RLT tire builder for approximately twenty-six (26) years, a stage 1 R1 tire builder for approximately two (2) years, and a conventional tire *Page 4 builder for approximately four (4) years. Defendant-employer provided a job description for the 1 RLT tire builder position showing the following duties and physical requirements: 1) change inner liner roll, requiring plaintiff to occasionally lift and carry thirty-five (35) pounds, lift and carry sixty to eighty (60-80) pounds, push and pull approximately fifty (50) pounds, grip bilaterally one hundred (100) pounds; 2) replace sidewall component rolls mounted on a dolly, requiring plaintiff to occasionally push and pull sixty (60) pounds, lift and carry forty (40) pounds, and grip bilaterally fifty (50) pounds; 3) position ply stock into the position and thread onto the conveyor, requiring plaintiff to occasionally push and pull sixty (60) pounds, lift five (5) pounds, and lift and carry twenty (20) pounds; 4) replace toe guard roll on the let-off, requiring plaintiff to occasionally lift and carry thirty-eight (38) pounds, lift and carry ninety (90) pounds, and grip bilaterally one hundred (100) pounds; 5) change the building drum using the hoist, requiring plaintiff to occasionally lift and carry eighty-five (85) pounds, push and pull fifty (50) pounds, and push forty (40) pounds; 6) build stage 1 carcass on a building drum and attach various components, requiring plaintiff to continually grip bilaterally fifty (50) pounds, pinch bilaterally fifteen (15) pounds, pull thirty (30) pounds, push fifty (50) pounds, and grip with preferred hand sixty (60) pounds; 7) pull the completed carcass from the building drum and place on the carcass truck, requiring plaintiff to continually pull fifty (50) pounds, lift and carry thirty (30) pounds, and grip bilaterally fifty (50) pounds; and 8) push the loader carcass truck into a pickup position, requiring plaintiff to occasionally push eighty (80) pounds.

3. Plaintiff's shift was from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and he worked forty-three (43) hours per week. During a twelve (12) hour shift, plaintiff built between one hundred and eighty and two hundred (180-200) tires. The components for a RLT tire are thicker, bigger, and heavier than those of a regular tire. There is a high ridge on the green tire which causes the green tire to *Page 5 stick to the drum, which required plaintiff to use scissors and his hands to try to pry the green tire off the drum once it was built. Plaintiff also used a hot knife while building tires.

4. On 19 November 2007, plaintiff was informed that at the end of the prior shift there had been a code change and when the test tire was built, it was left on the machine because it was stuck. Plaintiff tried unsuccessfully for approximately twenty (20) minutes to get the stuck tire off his tire machine, before calling a service person who was able to remove the tire. Thereafter, plaintiff attempted to build tires for approximately forty-five (45) minutes, however he began experiencing pain, stiffness, and numbness in his hands. Plaintiff reported the incident to his supervisor and completed an Associate Report of Incident. Plaintiff returned to Goodyear Medical on 27 December 2007 due to ongoing problems with his hands.

5. Upon referral by defendant-employer, Dr. Krishna P. Bhat, a board certified physician in physical medicine and rehabilitation, examined plaintiff on 1 February 2008. Following a nerve conduction study and EMG, Dr.

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

Related

Counts v. Black Decker Corporation
465 S.E.2d 343 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn
301 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
Young v. Hickory Business Furniture
538 S.E.2d 912 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Walters v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walters-v-goodyear-tire-rubber-co-ncworkcompcom-2011.