Williams v. City of Wilmington

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 1, 2010
DocketI.C. NO. 138809.
StatusPublished

This text of Williams v. City of Wilmington (Williams v. City of Wilmington) 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
Williams v. City of Wilmington, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Homick and the briefs and arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing parties have not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives. The Full Commission AFFIRMS with some modifications the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

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

STIPULATIONS *Page 2
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission, and that the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.

2. All parties are subject to and bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

3. All parties have been properly designated and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

4. Defendant is self-insured and the third party administrator in this claim is Key Risk Management Services.

5. Plaintiff alleges to have sustained carpal tunnel, elbow neuropathy and trigger finger problems in the right hand, wrist and arm due to repetitive and cumulative trauma from typing at work.

6. An employment relationship existed between the employee and employer on September 19, 2008.

7. Defendant contends that plaintiff was not injured as the result of an accident or an occupational disease.

8. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $676.65, yielding a compensation rate of $451.10. Plaintiff was out of work from September 22, 2008 to October 13, 2008, to undergo a right carpal tunnel and trigger finger release, which was performed on September 22, 2008.

9. Mediation was held and the parties reached an impasse on March 31, 2009.

10. The parties stipulated to the admissibility of the following documents, which were received into evidence:

• Exhibit 1: Pre-Trial Agreement; and

*Page 3

• Exhibit 2: Compilation of documents including Industrial Commission Forms, Medical Records, Discovery Responses, Plaintiff's Recorded Statement, FMLA Forms, Plaintiff's Personnel File and Job Description (consecutively paginated from 1-336).

11. The record shall include the stipulated records submitted in plaintiff's motion filed on or about August 3, 2010.

12. The issues for determination by the Full Commission are whether plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident or compensable occupational disease to her right wrist, hand, middle finger and elbow arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant-employer on or about September 19, 2008; and, if so, what are the compensable consequences; and also whether plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement of her sick leave pursuant toEstes v. N.C. State University,89 N.C. App. 55, 58, 61, 365 S.E.2d 160 (1988).

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 46 years old. Plaintiff completed the eleventh grade in high school and obtained a high school equivalency certificate by passing the General Educational Development Test (GED). Plaintiff later obtained an associates degree in Business Administration in 2002.

2. Plaintiff's work history consists of working as a receptionist in a VCR shop, working as a mail carrier for the United States Post Office for two years, and doing domestic work for various employers. *Page 4

3. On October 5, 1995, plaintiff began working for defendant-employer as a housekeeper and remained in that position for two years. Thereafter, plaintiff moved to a position as a department secretary with defendant-employer, where her job duties required data entry, typing, filing, answering the telephone, researching time records, ordering supplies and other general office duties.

4. On September 8, 2000, plaintiff transferred to the position of administrative support technician, which had similar duties to the department secretary job. As of the date of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff continued to hold this position.

5. According to plaintiff's testimony, approximately 60-75% of plaintiff's time is spent entering data into the computer. This task includes data entry for work orders, purchase orders, invoices, reports and spreadsheets. When plaintiff is not entering data during her work day, she is filing, making copies or collating notebooks. Plaintiff works from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with a break for lunch.

6. In 2001, plaintiff began complaining of pain, numbness and tingling along her neck and right arm. Plaintiff is right hand dominant. Plaintiff received treatments for these problems over the years from various medical providers. Plaintiff initially felt that it was the physical layout of her work station and the amount of data entry which were causing her problems.

7. Following an adjustment to her workstation, plaintiff's symptoms improved by January 2, 2002, although she still had complaints of pain extending over her right shoulder.

8. On January 28, 2003, plaintiff underwent electro-diagnostic testing, the results of which were normal, with no evidence of carpal tunnel syndrome. *Page 5

9. On July 7, 2006, plaintiff presented to Dr. Bahner, an orthopedic surgeon with Atlantic Orthopedics, with complaints of locking, clicking and pain in her right long (trigger) finger. Plaintiff reported that her middle finger had been bothering her for over six months, and the symptoms did not seem to be improving. On physical examination, plaintiff's right long finger was actively triggering and Dr. Bahner administered an injection in this finger.

10. On January 2, 2007, plaintiff returned to Atlantic Orthopedic with reports of increased pain and catching in the right long finger. On physical examination, plaintiff again had active triggering in that finger. She was also tender at the palmar flexion crease at the base of the right long finger and had pain with hyperextension.

11. Just over a year later, on January 10, 2008, plaintiff again returned to Atlantic Orthopedic with complaints of right trigger finger problems and also complaints indicative of right carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Bahner administered another injection to the right middle finger.

12. During this same period of time, plaintiff received treatment for her cervical spine at Coastal Rehabilitation Medicine Associates. Plaintiff underwent another MRI of the cervical spine and additional EMG testing. The MRI revealed a central disc protrusion and osteophytes at C4-5 through C6-C7. The nerve conduction studies were normal. Plaintiff received injections to her cervical spine and made further modifications to her workstation, which provided some relief for her neck and arm symptoms.

13. On September 9, 2008, plaintiff returned to Dr. Bahner and indicated that she wanted to consider further treatment for her right long finger and her right carpal tunnel syndrome.

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

Related

Estes v. North Carolina State University
365 S.E.2d 160 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1988)
Gay v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc.
339 S.E.2d 490 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)
Henry v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co.
66 S.E.2d 693 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Estes v. North Carolina State University
401 S.E.2d 384 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1991)
Foster v. Western-Electric Co.
357 S.E.2d 670 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)
Booker v. Duke Medical Center
256 S.E.2d 189 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)
Church v. Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc.
409 S.E.2d 715 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1991)
Terrell v. Terminix Services, Inc.
542 S.E.2d 332 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. City of Wilmington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-city-of-wilmington-ncworkcompcom-2010.