Wilbourne v. Ss Rock Service, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 27, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 258714.
StatusPublished

This text of Wilbourne v. Ss Rock Service, Inc. (Wilbourne v. Ss Rock Service, 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
Wilbourne v. Ss Rock Service, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
This matter was reviewed by the Full Commission based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Stanback, along with the briefs and arguments on appeal. Accordingly, the Full Commission AFFIRMS in part and MODIFIES in part the Deputy Commissioner's holding and enters the following Opinion and Award.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission, and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

2. All parties have been correctly designated, and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

3. This case is subject to the North Carolina Workers Compensation Act.

4. An employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and Defendant/Employer on March 28, 2002.

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $633.11

6. Plaintiff seeks temporary total disability from May 31, 2002 through the present.

7. Document stipulated into evidence include the following:

Stipulated Exhibit #1 — Plaintiff's medical records.

***********
Based upon the evidence of record, the Full Commission enters the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was born January 2, 1966 and was 37 years old at the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. Plaintiff has a ninth grade education.

2. Plaintiff had been employed as a driller with the defendant-employer for twelve years at the time of his report of injury. Defendant-employer's business is drilling and blasting rock with dynamite.

3. Plaintiff's job duties included drilling, which involves the constant moving of levers to run a mechanical drill. Moving these levers would sometimes require a fair amount of force. The crew may drill up to 100 holes per day. Plaintiff would also be required to drill with a percussion drill much like a jackhammer. As part of his job duties, the plaintiff also "loaded holes." Loading holes involves carrying gravel in five gallon buckets, pouring the gravel into the holes, and then tapping the gravel down with a pole. The plaintiff also had to carry dynamite. Carrying dynamite involves carrying 55 to 60 pound boxes of dynamite over 20 to 100 feet. More duties included "snapping caps" and shoveling gravel. Snapping caps requires hooking blasting caps onto the detonating wire and the dynamite. Shoveling gravel involves shoveling gravel into the holes. Plaintiff would also have to pole holes to see how deep they were. At least half of the time poling was done in mud, requiring exertion and strenuous grasping of the pole. Plaintiff then would push dynamite into the holes. Pushing dynamite into the holes with a pole involves the same type of work as poling the holes. Then plaintiff would be required to pour "ampho" into the holes, which is a fertilizer-like substance that comes in 50-pound bags. Plaintiff was required to carry the bags and then pour the material into the holes. This would ordinarily be done after all the holes were drilled. He would measure the ampho by moving a pole up and down constantly while it is being poured. He would also be required to open up boxes to lay out caps. Plaintiff had to change steel on the drill bits as required. These bits were 80 to 100 pound lengths of steel that had to be changed or added to the drill to drill deeper into the rock. Plaintiff would manually unscrew a bit from the drill and then add another, longer bit. He would unscrew broken bits from the drill and replace them with new bits. Plaintiff also twisted up cones, which involves cutting roofing paper and then rolling it into a cone shape and plugging the holes with it to prevent moisture. He also marked the holes using a measuring stick and spray paint.

4. The plaintiff reported symptoms of "right arm pain, thumb, hand and all the way up" to Roxboro Internal Medicine Pediatrics on March 28, 2002. Dr. McDaniels found positive Phalen's and positive Tinel's signs, and diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. He referred the plaintiff to Dr. Peter Bronec, neurosurgeon. Plaintiff had begun experiencing numbness and pain in his upper extremities as early as November, 2001.

5. Plaintiff underwent nerve conduction studies and EMGs on May 9, 2002 with Dr. Ugo Goetzl, a neurologist. The results of these tests confirmed Dr. Bronec's diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

6. Plaintiff also underwent a cervical MRI on April 19, 2002, but Dr. Bronec interpreted the results of the MRI as showing no significant nerve compression.

7. Dennis Carver worked for the defendant-employer in 1995 while in high school, and then again for approximately two years from 1995 — 1997 after graduating from high school. Mr. Carver saw the plaintiff doing everything on the job, including shoveling everyday. While running the hand drill himself, Mr. Carver's hands would become numb. According to Mr. Carver, the defendant-employer used buckets for carrying gravel when he worked for the defendant-employer as early as 1995, and the workers would need buckets and gravel on a job nine times out of ten.

8. B.J. Wilson worked for the defendant-employer on two separate occasions, for approximately three and one half years on the first occasion; he left for approximately one year, and then returned to the defendant-employer. He saw the plaintiff using the big drills and the hand drill. He witnessed the plaintiff doing all of the above-mentioned job duties for the defendant-employer.

9. At the time of the hearing, Michael Thaxton worked for Mainline Contracting and had known the plaintiff for a few years. Mr. Thaxton also previously worked for the defendant-employer while the plaintiff was employed there. He has seen the plaintiff running the hand drill and the big drills. He had also seen plaintiff carrying buckets of gravel to fill in the holes. Buckets of gravel filled with "57 stone" would weigh approximately 50 — 60 pounds. Mr. Thaxton had seen the plaintiff using the hand drill as recently as a few months prior to the hearing at a job site off of Martin Luther King Boulevard in Durham.

10. Richard Wilbourne also worked for Mainline Contracting. Mr. Wilbourne witnessed the plaintiff running the big drills and the hand drill. Mr. Wilbourne has had the same surgeries as the plaintiff as a result of manipulating levers on his backhoe and excavator at his employment. Mr. Wilbourne had also seen the plaintiff working for the defendant-employer within a few months of the hearing.

11. C.R. Wilbar, a defense witness, had seen the plaintiff running the hand drill. He also knew of at least 20 — 25 jobs on which the defendant-employer had utilized the hand drill in the last five years. Mr. Wilbar confirmed that the plaintiff helped with all the work duties on the job sites.

12. Plaintiff underwent right carpal tunnel release with Dr. Peter Bronec on June 5, 2002, and a left carpal tunnel release with Dr. Peter Bronec on July 5, 2002.

13. Dr. Bronec found the plaintiff's hands to be severely calloused. He also found marked thickening of the ligament with marked compression of the underlying nerve. Dr. Bronec allowed the plaintiff to attempt to return to work on August 19, 2002 with restrictions of no repetitive flexion, no extension of the wrist, avoid strenuous grasping, and directions to avoid constant or repetitive vibration.

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

Related

Terry v. PPG Industries, Inc.
577 S.E.2d 326 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
Salaam v. North Carolina Department of Transportation
480 S.E.2d 51 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wilbourne v. Ss Rock Service, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilbourne-v-ss-rock-service-inc-ncworkcompcom-2005.