Wilson v. Alex lee/lowe's Food

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJune 16, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 979423
StatusPublished

This text of Wilson v. Alex lee/lowe's Food (Wilson v. Alex lee/lowe's Food) 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
Wilson v. Alex lee/lowe's Food, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence modifies and affirms the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
The following findings of fact and conclusions of law were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner and in a Pre-trial Agreement as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The employee is Donald D. Wilson.

2. The employer is Alex Lee/Lowe's Foods.

3. Carrier is Kemper Risk Management Services.

4. Defendant-employer regularly employs three or more employees and is bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

5. The employer-employee relationship existed between defendant-employer and plaintiff on 7 October 1999, and during the previous periods of employment during which plaintiff developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. It is not stipulated that plaintiff developed bilateral carpal tunnel as a result of his employment.

6. In the period 7 October 1999 through the present time the carrier on the risk for defendant-employer was Kemper Risk Management Services.

7. The average weekly wage of plaintiff is $588.32 pursuant to defendant's Industrial Commission Form 22.

8. Documents stipulated into evidence include the following:

a. Stipulated Exhibit No. 1 — Plaintiff's medical records

b. Stipulated Exhibit No. 2 — Defendant's answers to plaintiff's interrogatories

c. Stipulated Exhibit No. 3 — Industrial Commission Form 22

***********
EVIDENTARY RULINGS
The objections raised in the depositions are ruled upon according to the law and consistent with this Opinion and Award.

***********
Based upon all the competent credible 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 56 years old and had been employed by defendant-employer since August 1966.

2. Plaintiff began working for defendant-employer as a grocery bagger and worked as such for the next two or three years at which time he began working as a meat cutter. From that point up to the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff has worked as a meat cutter for defendant-employer at various store locations.

3. During his employment with defendant-employer, plaintiff worked at least 40 hours a week and has worked overtime during a number of weeks. On occasion, plaintiff worked six or seven days per week, and at the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, he had worked fifteen days in a row. Plaintiff also worked nine-hour days on occasion.

4. During plaintiff's tenure of employment with defendant-employer, the volume of meat needing to be cut increased. As a meat cutter, plaintiff was required to use several different types of knives as well as a band saw to cut the various types of meat. Plaintiff used a knife for most of his cutting. The cuts of meat such as a full cut round weighed 20 to 30 pounds, and bone-in chuck weighed about 50 pounds. The various types of meat had to be carried to the cutting table by plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff's job duties included having to trim fat off of the meat using a knife, using his dominant right hand to cut with a horizontal motion and his left hand to pull the fat. Plaintiff's job duties included cutting meat using a knife with a vertical rocking motion, and with a band saw that he used to cut down some larger pieces of meat into smaller cuts. For example, for a full cut round piece of meat, plaintiff would cut it into about 15 slices. For rib-eyes, he would cut 20-25 steaks from the larger piece of meat. This required plaintiff to exert pressure on the knife with his right hand while applying pressure to hold the meat with his left hand. When using a band saw plaintiff had to push and pull on the meat with his hands as the saw cut through meat and bone. Plaintiff also had to scrape and clean the meat to remove bone chips and dust.

6. Plaintiff cut several pieces of different kinds of meat. Plaintiff cut 30 steaks out of each T-bone loin by using a band saw. For a 30-pound boneless chuck, plaintiff cut "chuck eyes", a 2-inch piece of meat, chuck roasts, chuck steaks, and then several beef stew pieces. He would cut three to four chuck roasts and three to four chuck steaks per 30-pound boneless chuck. With boneless pork, plaintiff would cut several boneless pork chops then several wafer thin slices. With bone-in pork, plaintiff cut about nine pork chops through the band saw. Plaintiff also cut Boston butt steaks, southern style, roast beef and beef tips, all using a knife or the band saw.

7. In his job as a meat cutter, plaintiff also stacked and wrapped the meat and placed packages of meat in the display case and checked for freshness dates. Most of his day, however, was spent cutting the various types of meat. Plaintiff's job required him to perform repetitive hand, wrist, and arm motions most of the time spent each working day during the past approximately 30 years that he has been employed by defendant-employer as a meat cutter.

8. Approximately eight or nine years prior to the date of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff began to notice a tingling in his hands and the tips of his fingers. Plaintiff sought a medical evaluation for this problem around the Spring of 1999 with his family physician, Dr. Tom Cannon. Dr. Cannon referred plaintiff to Smith Bey P.A., neurologists, for nerve conduction studies, the results of which indicated bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

9. Plaintiff was then referred to Dr. Stephen Lowe, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon since 1983, who is competent to express opinions as to the etiology and prognosis of plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome condition. Dr. Lowe first saw plaintiff on 27 September 1999, at which time plaintiff complained of numbness in his hands which kept him awake at night, and decreased sensation in the median nerve distribution and positive percussion test over his median nerve on both hands. Based upon his testing and studies, Dr. Lowe concluded that plaintiff had compression of the median nerve or carpal tunnel in both hands.

10. Dr. Lowe has treated plaintiff for a number of years, including treatment for a right knee injury. Plaintiff has described his work requirements to Dr. Lowe, and Dr. Lowe is familiar with plaintiff's job duties. Dr. Lowe opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that plaintiff's problems with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by his occupational exposure to the heavy repetitive work with his hands. He further opined that the stress caused by the repetitive motion was a result of conditions peculiar to plaintiff's occupation as a meat cutter and not an ordinary disease of life to which the general public is equally exposed.

11. Dr. Lowe performed carpal tunnel release surgery on plaintiff's right hand on 2 November 2000, and as a result of that surgery, plaintiff missed six weeks from work and was unable to earn any wages during that period of time. Dr. Lowe recommended that plaintiff's left hand needs the same carpal tunnel release surgery.

12. Dr.

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

Related

§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31
§ 97-42
North Carolina § 97-42
§ 97-53
North Carolina § 97-53(13)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wilson v. Alex lee/lowe's Food, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-alex-leelowes-food-ncworkcompcom-2003.