Wilkins v. General Tire Rubber Company

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 8, 1996
DocketI.C. No. 129207
StatusPublished

This text of Wilkins v. General Tire Rubber Company (Wilkins v. General Tire Rubber Company) 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
Wilkins v. General Tire Rubber Company, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1996).

Opinion

The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before former Deputy Commissioner Jan N. Pittman, 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 those portions concerning plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees pursuant to G.S. § 97-88.1.

Before the Full Commission, defendant made an oral Motion to Admit Additional Evidence, consisting of correspondence between the parties' attorneys. After careful consideration, defendant has failed to show good ground in support of its Motion to Admit Additional Evidence and said Motion is therefore, DENIED.

All objections raised during the depositions of Drs. James and Naso are ruled upon in accordance with the law and the Opinion and Award rendered in this matter.

* * * * * * * * * *

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties prior to the hearing before former Deputy Commissioner Pittman, along with a Pre-Trial Agreement which is incorporated herein by reference, as:

STIPULATIONS

1. Plaintiff's average weekly wage during the relevant period was $375.00 per week resulting in a compensation rate of $250.00 per week;

2. That at the time of plaintiff's claim, defendant maintained a sickness and accident insurance plan pursuant to which plaintiff received 43.5 weeks of sickness and accident benefits in the amount of $126.00 per week during the period in which she was out of work after mid-June of 1990 due to her alleged compensable illnesses or injury, and that if plaintiff's claim is found to be compensable, that defendant would be entitled to a credit for said payments; and

3. That the nursing notes regarding plaintiff kept by defendant be received into evidence at the time of the hearing as Stipulated Exhibit One. However, in this regard, while two pages of medical records were received into evidence at the time of the hearing as Stipulated Exhibit One, six pages of nursing notes were submitted with plaintiff's Contentions in this matter, and as the Pre-Trial Agreement of which the undersigned took judicial notice, indicates that said nursing records were stipulated to, the undersigned received said additional stipulated records into the record following the hearing as Stipulated Exhibit Two.

* * * * * * * * * * *

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the time of the hearing on 8 June 1995, plaintiff, a high school graduate, was thirty-five years of age. Plaintiff was employed with defendant on 8 June 1995 as a Material Salvage Handler, a position different from her duties at the time of her alleged compensable injury or illness.

2. Plaintiff began working with defendant in 1988. In May of 1990 she was working as a Tire Builder in defendant's Tire Room. Plaintiff normally worked what was termed the "fourth shift", which ran from midnight Friday night until noon Saturday, and from midnight Saturday until noon Sunday. In addition to her normal twenty-four hour weekly employment, she was also "filling in" as a Tire Builder to cover other employees who were out of work for miscellaneous reasons. Such "fill-in" work was spread throughout the work week.

3. At the time that plaintiff first reported problems with her right hand, she was building approximately 330 to 350 tires per twelve-hour shift. Each tire building would start with plaintiff striking a green button with the heel of her right hand. Plaintiff was required to use a "hot knife" to cut several components of each tire. She would grip the "hot knife" tightly in her right hand and cut from right to left. She would make such cuts for the rubber inner lining, the first plystock, and the second plystock for each tire, or roughly approximately 1,000 such cutting motions per shift. Further, plaintiff would have to peel two rubber "beads" about 14 to 15 inches in diameter from plastic shells for each of the 330 to 350 tires per shift. She would have to make an up and down peeling motion about six times for each of the two beats per tire, or about 4000 such peeling motions per shift. Plaintiff was also required for each tire to use a roller to mate the ends of the two rubber pads together. She would hold the roller in her right hand and press firmly with the roller to adhere the ends of the two rubber pads. She made about three such rolling motions for each of two sides per tire, or roughly 2,000 rolling motions per shift. Also, at the time plaintiff began experiencing right wrist pain symptoms and hand numbness, the tires plaintiff was building would stick to the drum which required her to use the palms of both hands three to six times per tire to beat loose each tire from the drum.

4. On or about 3 May 1990, plaintiff's right wrist began to hurt her considerably during her work shift and she reported her pain to her supervisor. Plaintiff then went to defendant's Medical Station. The Medical Station nursing notes for that date indicate that plaintiff had a "painful right wrist" and an ace wrap bandage was applied. The nursing notes indicate that plaintiff had similar complaints on nursing station visits on 5 May 1990; 11 May 1990; and 20 May 1990; and was either wrapped on those dates and/or given anti-inflammatory medication. Plaintiff testified that she had other visits to the Medical Station in May and June in which she was treated with ice for swelling in her right wrist and had her right wrist wrapped.

5. On or about 21 June 1990, plaintiff saw her family physician, Dr. Holt, for her complaints. On 22 June 1990, she telephoned defendant's head nurse, Ms. Wall, and advised Ms. Wall that Dr. Holt had placed her on light duty with a diagnosis of tendonitis. Dr. Holt referred plaintiff to an orthopedist, Dr. James of Rock Hill, South Carolina.

6. Plaintiff first saw Dr. James on 27 June 1990 with complaints of right wrist pain which had started in May of 1990 with repetitive type motion from tire building. Dr. James' diagnosis of plaintiff's May 1990 problems was initially DeQuervain's Disease of the right wrist, a tendonitis of the tendons across the wrist joint. After three months of conservative treatment and following a markedly positive Finkelstein's Test for DeQuervain's Disease, Dr. James performed a right wrist DeQuervain's Release on 5 October 1990. He concluded that plaintiff's job duties involving repetitive motion were more likely than not the cause of her DeQuervain's symptoms. Dr. James assigned plaintiff a twenty-five percent permanent partial impairment to her right thumb as a result of her DeQuervain's Disease and the resultant surgery.

7. As a result of her DeQuervain's Disease, plaintiff left her employment with defendant on or about 18 June 1990. She returned to her job as a Tire Builder on 19 April 1991. As noted, the parties stipulated that she was out of work 43.5 weeks during this period and received sickness and accident benefits during this time.

8. On 7 December 1991 and 8 December 1991, plaintiff again presented at defendant's medical station with complaints of a swollen and painful right wrist. She complained of pain since she had returned to work three weeks before in November 1991. Plaintiff was treated with a wrist wrap and anti-inflammatory medications. On 9 February 1992, she reported to the Medical Station with a painful right wrist stating that she had been bumping sticking tires from her machine, and using dull scissors to cut tire inner liners.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wilkins v. General Tire Rubber Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkins-v-general-tire-rubber-company-ncworkcompcom-1996.