Williams v. Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJanuary 8, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 964024
StatusPublished

This text of Williams v. Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. (Williams v. Hill Hosiery Mill, 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
Williams v. Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the award, the Full Commission AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner with some modifications.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are bound by and subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. At all relevant times, an employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

3. Michigan Mutual Insurance Company is the carrier on risk.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $380.03, which yields a compensation rate of $253.37.

5. On August 14, 1999, plaintiff sustained injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant-employer when a roving stick fell striking her on the right side of her face.

6. Plaintiff's medical records were stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 1. This documentation includes records from Johnson Neurological, Lexington Memorial Hospital, Terry V. Arnold, M.D., Frank Crowell, M.D., William L. Bell, M.D., Richard L. Rauck, M.D., Kathy J. Teasdall, M.D., John A. H. Porter, M.D., and James M. Walter, Jr., D.D.S.M.S. These records were supplemented by additional documentation from Terry V. Arnold, M.D.

7. The issues before the Commission are: (i) what disability, if any, was sustained by plaintiff; and (ii) what compensation, if any, is due plaintiff?

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was fifty-one years old. Plaintiff has a seventh grade education.

2. On August 14, 1999, plaintiff was employed by defendant-employer at the Hill Spinning facility in Davidson County. Plaintiff had worked for defendant-employer four years prior to August 14, 1999. Plaintiff had performed similar work in other textile mills for over thirty years.

3. On August 14, 1999, a bobbin or "roving stick" fell and struck plaintiff on the right upper forehead and the orbit of her right eye. Plaintiff felt immediate pain and called for her supervisor and assistance. Plaintiff was disoriented and her head was bleeding as result of the bobbin striking her. Plaintiff's vision was blurry and she was unable to clearly read numbers on the telephone. Plaintiff's supervisor dialed plaintiff's home telephone number so that plaintiff could call her husband.

4. Plaintiff's husband transported plaintiff from her place of employment to Lexington Memorial Hospital. X-rays of the orbits and facial bones indicated no fracture and plaintiff was released with a prescription for pain and head injury instructions.

5. Plaintiff continued to suffer facial pain and nausea and was unable to work on Monday, August 16, 1999. On Tuesday, August 17, 1999, Mark Leonard, plant manager, sent plaintiff to the Brigman Clinic. Plaintiff was not treated at the Brigman Clinic, but referred to Lexington Memorial Hospital for a head CT scan which showed no abnormalities.

6. Plaintiff continued to be out of work during the week of August 16, 1999 due to severe headaches, nausea, dizziness, right ear pain and neck pain.

7. Plaintiff returned to work on Monday, August 23, 1999. Plaintiff indicated to her plant manager that she still felt very ill in spite of returning to work.

8. On August 24, 1999, plaintiff was seen in the office of her primary care physician, Terry V. Arnold, M.D. Plaintiff related the history of her accident to Margie Trent, Physician Assistant to Dr. Arnold. As result of this examination, plaintiff was diagnosed with mild concussion and blurred vision. Plaintiff was referred to a neurologist and ophthalmologist and then to return to see Dr. Arnold.

9. After this referral, plaintiff was seen by several physicians who were individuals that she chose without the assistance of the workers' compensation carrier's medical management.

10. On October 13, 1999, plaintiff was seen by Frank Crowell, M.D., as a result of her continued post-traumatic blurred vision, headaches, and head pressure. Dr. Crowell ordered an EEG and a visual evoked response test. The results of both tests were within normal limits. Dr. Crowell indicated plaintiff was likely suffering from "post-concussive syndrome" and should improve with conservative measurements.

11. During the time plaintiff was seeking medical treatment from late August 1999 until October 1999, plaintiff continued to work. However, plaintiff required the assistance of others to perform her job duties as the result of increasingly painful symptoms.

12. Plaintiff did not work for two weeks due to lay-offs and on a number of days called in sick due to head and right ear pain.

13. In November 1999, plaintiff began experiencing severe migraines and severe pain in her right ear. Plaintiff was no longer able to tolerate working at the plant as result of an increased intolerance to noise.

14. Plaintiff indicated that the last day she worked was Saturday, November 13, 1999. Plaintiff stated that on Monday, November 15, 1999, she told Mr. Leonard that she was not able to return to work because of head pain.

15. Plaintiff testified she was sick on November 16, 1999 and November 17, 1999. Plaintiff indicated that she was advised by Mr. Leonard that she could not return to work until she was 100% better.

16. Mark Leonard, plant manager and George Godwin, plaintiff's supervisor, testified that plaintiff did return to work on November 15 and found that a co-worker named Thelma had sustained a work-related injury. As result of receiving this information, Mr. Leonard and Mr. Godwin stated that plaintiff fell apart, became sick and went home.

17. The Summary of Employee Absence Information prepared by Mr. Godwin relates this incident.

18. Plaintiff's time cards indicate plaintiff did not work at all during the week of November 15, 1999.

19. The Summary of Employee Absence Information contained inconsistencies and does not appear to have been made in chronological order.

20. The incident involving injury to a co-worker appears to have occurred several weeks prior to plaintiff's injury by accident and plaintiff was informed of this accident prior to November 15, 1999.

21. Plaintiff has been seen on at least fifteen occasions by a chiropractor, Dr. Schick, who treated her neck along with TMJ symptoms.

22. Dr. Arnold, plaintiff's primary physician, referred plaintiff to Piedmont Anesthesia and Pain Consultants. Plaintiff was treated by Richard L. Rauck, M.D., at Piedmont Anesthesia and Pain Consultants. Dr. Rauck diagnosed post-traumatic atypical facial pain, myofascial neck pain and migraines and instituted a regimen of medication and physical therapy to help with the TMJ dysfunction and neck pain.

23. Plaintiff was also treated by William L. Bell, M.D., a neurologist at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. Dr. Bell diagnosed post-traumatic migraines that were poorly controlled and related the symptoms of blurred vision, lightheadedness, and nausea to the migraine. Dr. Bell also suggested the symptoms might be related to associated anxiety.

24. Dr.

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

Related

Morrison v. Burlington Industries
282 S.E.2d 458 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1981)
Hill v. Hanes Corp.
353 S.E.2d 392 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-hill-hosiery-mill-inc-ncworkcompcom-2002.