Ward v. Orange Recycling Services, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedApril 4, 1996
DocketI.C. Nos. 423957 466695
StatusPublished

This text of Ward v. Orange Recycling Services, Inc. (Ward v. Orange Recycling Services, 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
Ward v. Orange Recycling Services, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 1996).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Lawrence B. Shuping Jr. 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 or to amend the Opinion and Award except for the addition of Finding of Fact (24), Conclusion of Law (5) and Award paragraph (5) on the issue of attorney's fees pursuant to G.S. § 97-88 and other minor structural changes.

This matter involves two separate injuries. The first one, I.C. File No. 423957, involves admittedly compensable bilateral hernias sustained on 16 March 1994 that were subject of a prior Industrial Commission Award. The second, I.C. File No. 466695, involves an alleged left inguinal hernia plaintiff sustained on 25 August 1994.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Full Commission finds as facts and concludes as matters of law the jurisdictional and other Stipulations agreed upon by the parties prior to the hearing before Deputy Commissioner Shuping in a Pre-Trial Agreement, which is incorporated herein.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Full Commission adopts the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff was a thirty-seven (37) year old male on the date of the hearing before Deputy Commissioner Shuping. Also at that time plaintiff was enrolled at Vance-Granville Community College attempting to obtain retraining so that he could obtain a light duty position earning wages comparable to those he was accustomed to in his prior positions. Previously, plaintiff's work history involved heavy work requiring him to regularly lift more than fifty pounds. Should plaintiff return to that type of work he would face a substantial risk of recurrent hernias. Plaintiff, since graduating from high school, has also taken courses at Weidner University, Delaware County Community College and the University of Pennsylvania, obtaining a certificate in coatings and adhesive at Weidner University, and he obtained licenses as a water treatment plant operator I and II at Wake Tech.

2. Plaintiff's other work history includes working for GAF Corporation from 1975 until the 1980's as a quality control technician, fork lift operator and utility operator, as a quality control technician at Chemical Coating and Engineering, delivering newspapers for a paper in Pennsylvania and driving a trash truck for Waste Industries after moving back to North Carolina. All of these positions required him to regularly lift more than fifty pounds, which he can no longer do because of the direct left inguinal hernia giving rise to his current claim in I.C. file number 466695 for the reasons more fully hereinafter described.

3. Since 21 March 1995 plaintiff has been employed by Dillard Paper Company as a van driver responsible for delivering reams of paper weighing only in the ten to fifteen pound range. This was substantially lighter than the work he had always done requiring regular lifting of more than fifty pounds as with each of his jobs with Orange Recycling and Carolina Sunrock. Plaintiff is only able to earn $340.00 per week during this lighter duty work rather than the $413.59 he was able to earn as a quality control technician for defendant-employer Carolina Sunrock prior to the 25 August 1994 injury giving rise to his concurrent claim in I.C. file number 466695.

4. In March of 1994 plaintiff was employed by defendant-employer Orange Recycling Services as a truck driver responsible for loading and unloading recycling requiring him to regularly lift as much as a 100 to 150 pounds.

5. Prior to being employed by Orange Recycling plaintiff had suffered three work-related hernias lifting, a left sided one in April 1988 and right sided ones in July 1990 and November 1991. Each of these incidents were surgically repaired and his treating surgeons had released without restrictions to return to work and again lift more than fifty pounds. Plaintiff was able to do this each time, but subsequently sustained further hernias lifting.

6. While picking up recycled library cards at UNC Library on 16 March 1994 plaintiff sustained the admittedly compensable injury giving rise to the Industrial Commission's prior Award in I.C. file number 423957. The injury occurred as he attempted to stack one barrel of recycled library cards on top of another and resulting in bilateral hernias requiring him to undergo further surgery on 15 April 1994 by Dr. David Powell, a surgeon associated with Wake Surgical Center in Raleigh.

7. The left sided hernia that plaintiff sustained on 16 March 1994 was an indirect inguinal hernia occurring at the site of the internal ring where the spermatic cord exits the abdominal wall and one that Dr. Powell repaired by use of a mesh plug. Conversely, the direct left inguinal hernia giving rise hereto that was located at an entirely different site centrally toward the midline.

8. By 31 May 1994 plaintiff was totally healed from the repair of his bilateral hernias and Dr. Powell released him to return to light work with limited lifting for two weeks, followed by return to unrestricted work.

9. Although defendant-employer Orange Recycling Service had suitable light work available for him on 1 June 1994 and he was capable of returning to his regular job there two weeks later, plaintiff unjustifiably refused to return to work for the same employer. Plaintiff refused to return to work despite not only Dr. Powell releasing him to do so, but each of the three other surgeons that had repaired his earlier hernias doing so as well. This is despite plaintiff's contention that none of his surgeons should have released him to return to work without providing some type of lifting restrictions given his prior history of having sustained five work related hernias lifting.

10. After Dr. Powell had released him to return to work plaintiff requested that his family physician, Dr. James McGrath, a board certified family practitioner, arrange for him to be evaluated by another surgeon to determine whether he should return to work involving unrestricted lifting. At his request Dr. McGrath referred plaintiff to Dr. Phillip Shadduck, a general surgeon associated with Regional Surgical Associates in Durham, who saw him on 11 July 1994 and concurred in Dr. Powell's opinion that plaintiff did not have any type of permanent disability limiting him from returning to unrestricted work.

At the time of this evaluation, Dr. Shadduck's diagnosis was uncertain as to whether plaintiff had sustained a recurrent hernia although Dr. Shadduck was able to determine that there was a small questionable bulge in plaintiff's right groin area.

11. Although he had earlier sought employment after being terminated by Orange Recycling Services, plaintiff was not able to obtain any until returning to work for Carolina Sunrock on 25 July 1994 as a quality control technician. In that position plaintiff's responsibilities included taking rock and asphalt samples which required him to lift two and a half and five gallon buckets of the same materials weighing in the fifty to eighty-five pound range.

12. Prior to being employed by defendant-employer Carolina Sunrock Corporation plaintiff had undergone a pre-employment physical by the company physician, Dr. Tamara Stall, who was aware of his history of bilateral hernia repair, but who did not yet diagnose a hernia at that time. Plaintiff began work for Carolina Sunrock three days later.

13. Despite experiencing pain as a normal consequence of having undergone hernia repair, plaintiff, who had undergone a bilateral hernia repair only four months earlier, was concerned because he was experiencing pain and swelling. Therefore, he called Dr.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ward v. Orange Recycling Services, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-orange-recycling-services-inc-ncworkcompcom-1996.