Wiley v. United Parcel Service

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 22, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 065317
StatusPublished

This text of Wiley v. United Parcel Service (Wiley v. United Parcel Service) 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
Wiley v. United Parcel Service, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Holmes and the briefs filed with the Full Commission. Both parties waived oral argument. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the Opinion and Award. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Holmes, with modifications.

***********
The Full Commission finds as facts and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties in their Pre-Trial Agreement which was filed on April 23, 2001 and at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The Employee is Turner Wiley.

2. The Employer is United Parcel Service, Inc.

3. The Carrier at risk is Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

4. At all relevant times, United Parcel Service regularly employed three or more employees and was bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act and an and employer and employee relationship existed between the employer and the employee.

5. A Form 22 is stipulated by the parties.

6. The parties contend the issues to be heard are:

a. Whether the plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident and/or occupational disease arising out of and in the course of employment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 and/or N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-53 on or about August 30, 2000, which resulted in a seizure.

b. If so, to what wage and medical compensation is plaintiff entitled under the Act.

***********
Based upon all of the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jerry Ejindu, a part-time fueler with UPS out of the Greensboro Hub, was working the night of plaintiff's seizure. Ejindu works on the midnight shift from 1 a.m. to 5:30 a.m. Ejindu was not present when fuel began to be spilled. However, when he returned from washing a truck he saw fuel spilling down the drain and plaintiff in a "state of confusion." By that, Ejindu testified that he meant that the plaintiff did not know what to do then. Ejindu testified that it took him and plaintiff about 30 minutes to clean up the fuel that plaintiff spilled. When Ejindu first saw plaintiff after the fuel spill, plaintiff was running around trying to get something to stop the fuel from going down the drain.

2. Michael Cole was plaintiff's supervisor. Cole has been employed with UPS for about 15 years as a part-time supervisor. Cole's main job duties include training all of the fuelers as well as dealing with compliance issues. Cole testified regarding having trained plaintiff to perform the fueler position and to the fact that plaintiff performed the job in a full-time capacity.

3. Turner Wiley testified on his own behalf. He testified that he had a prior seizure condition. He explained that there were four fuel islands that were used to pump fuel into the trucks at the Greensboro Hub of UPS. These fuel islands were out in the open, and there was a building nearby where employees could keep soft drinks.

4. Plaintiff had made complaints to OSHA about possible fume exposure. OSHA's response to those complaints which was admitted into evidence as plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6 indicates that there were no detectable hazardous fumes to which the plaintiff or any other fueler could have been exposed. In October when OSHA came back to respond to plaintiff's complaint and actually hooked up the testing devices to plaintiff, again, there was no evidence that plaintiff was exposed to any detectable level of hazardous fumes.

5. Plaintiff described his pre-existing seizure condition as one which normally manifested itself with staring spells from between five to ten seconds. Plaintiff testified that he had a seizure on August 30, 2000, and when he next became aware of what was happening, there was fuel running out of the fuel tank, and he had the fuel wand in his hand.

Plaintiff admitted that neither Dr. Hill, Dr. Wittenburg nor Dr. Yuson have said that he could not return to work.

6. When asked by his attorney about any stressors going on at work, plaintiff testified that there were several things happening at work which made him unhappy. Plaintiff claimed that he was not provided with the same uniform and outerwear as other employees. He also indicated that he had several pay disputes with the company and felt that he did not always receive his vacation pay in a timely way. He also requested some shelter over the fuel pumps which apparently was not provided to him. He was also unhappy about the fact that someone in another job with UPS was allowed to skip his lunch and leave work an hour early. Plaintiff testified that he did not like to have to take his lunch hour when it was scheduled because he then had to go home to sleep when he was still full from lunch.

7. Plaintiff explained on cross-examination that his work area was quite large and outside. He indicated that he could be as far as 200 feet away from the fuel pumps and actually could be sitting in a package car or in a totally separate area as long as he could see the fuel pumps when the next truck came up.

Plaintiff explained that in any given hour of his eight-hour shift, there could be as few as 10 trucks to fuel or up to 20 trucks occasionally. Plaintiff testified that he really did not recall what happened in the early morning hours of the 30th, that all he remembered was that there was a fuel spill and that he was responsible for it.

8. Plaintiff confirmed that he was ready and willing to return to work for UPS. Plaintiff explained that he was currently suing UPS in Federal Court to either return him to work in the fueler position or in the small sort position. Plaintiff agreed that his medical condition and medical restrictions have not changed with respect to his seizure disorder since approximately 1988. Plaintiff confirmed that he was ready, willing and able to return to work within his restrictions. Plaintiff confirmed that his medical conditions do not prevent him from performing his regular job as a fueler with UPS.

9. Plaintiff also testified that he recalled settling numerous other workers' compensation claims against UPS and Liberty Mutual including those dated April 30, 1993; January 11, 1995, June 9, 1995, March 1985 and as well as two in 1996.

10. Mike Cole testified again briefly for the defense. Cole clarified that on average during an eight-hour shift, plaintiff would fuel between 40 and 50 trucks. It would take him approximately three to six minutes per truck to top off their fuel. Cole explained that on any given day, there could be as few as 30 trucks to fuel or as many as 70, but on average, it would be between 40 and 50 trucks.

11. Dr. Farah is a psychiatrist who saw plaintiff on two occasions. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Farah on or about February 1, 2000. Plaintiff reported stress and depression, multiple depressive symptoms including poor sleep, irritability, poor concentration and exacerbation in his seizure condition that he felt was due to stress. Plaintiff believed that he had been forced out of his job and that was what he pointed to as his main stressor.

12. Dr.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2
§ 97-53
North Carolina § 97-53

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wiley v. United Parcel Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiley-v-united-parcel-service-ncworkcompcom-2002.