Yockel v. Wilkes Transportation Authority, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 25, 2008
DocketI.C. No. 641209.
StatusPublished

This text of Yockel v. Wilkes Transportation Authority, Inc. (Yockel v. Wilkes Transportation Authority, 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
Yockel v. Wilkes Transportation Authority, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Holmes and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. The Full Commission adopts the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Holmes with minor modifications.

***********
At the hearing before the Full Commission, plaintiff requested that she be allowed to enter additional evidence. Defendants were given ten days to file any objections to the additional evidence. Based upon plaintiff's request to admit additional evidence and defendants' response, the Full Commission admits the following into evidence:

1. Wilkes Regional Medical Center outpatient referral form.

*Page 2

2. Plaintiff's check stub dated July 3, 2006.

3. A Form 22 submitted by defendants attached to their appellee brief to the Full Commission.

4. January 19, 2005 report of an MRI to plaintiff's lumbar spine without contrast.

5. A Workers' Compensation Retainer Agreement between plaintiff and her former attorney Franklin Smith.

6. Estimate photographs numbers three through five of damage to van.

7. An undated letter to Industrial Commission Dockets Director, Linda Langdon.

8. Medical records from Boomer Medical Center.

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

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

2. The employer/employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant.

3. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $240.17 based upon a Form 22 completed by defendant.

4. Plaintiff's proposed issues for determination:

(a) What if any, indemnity and medical benefits is the plaintiff entitled to?

5. Defendants' proposed issues for determination:

(a) Whether plaintiff suffered an injury by accident on June 30, 2006?

*Page 3

(b) Whether plaintiff's current problems are the result of her pre-existing conditions?

***********
Based upon all the competent evidence from the record, the Full Commission finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff began working for defendant on or around November 12, 2005.

2. Plaintiff was employed as a driver by Wilkes Transportation Authority on June 30, 2006.

3. On or about June 30, 2006, while plaintiff was sitting in a parked WTA van, the bumper of the van was struck by a pickup truck, which was backing out of a parking space. Plaintiff was using her seat belt at the time of the minor impact. Photographs of the damage to the van showed only a small dent on the rear of the vehicle.

4. Plaintiff reported the accident to defendant on June 30, 2006 but reported that she was not injured and that the accident was not significant.

5. On June 30, 2006, plaintiff saw Chiropractor James Nieland in a previously scheduled appointment, and reported the work accident and pain in her back and neck.

6. Prior to her work-related accident of June 30, 2006, plaintiff had been seeking medical attention for pre-existing medical conditions, including fibromyalgia and migraines and had been seeing chiropractors for approximately six years.

7. In 2003, plaintiff had also been involved in a motor vehicle accident in which she sustained whiplash. *Page 4

8. In 2005 and early 2006, plaintiff sought treatment for generalized myalgias, fibromyalgia, depression, sleep disturbance, weight gain, and obesity.

9. On June 5 and June 12, 2006, weeks before plaintiff's work accident, she was seen for fibromyalgia, migraines, electric shock like pain near her eye, depression, memory lapses or loss, obesity, and fatigue.

10. On July 3, 2006, plaintiff underwent x-rays of her spine by Dr. Nieland. The x-rays were normal and did not indicate an acute injury.

11. Plaintiff continued to treat with Dr. Nieland until November 2006.

12. On July 7, 2006, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Bob Wodecki regarding her sleep disturbance, pain and numbness in both hands, headaches, stiffness and sharp pains all over her body, low back pain, weight gain, fatigue and weakness, irregular heartbeat, chronic GERD, and swelling in her knees, arms, and ankles. Plaintiff made no mention of a work accident as being the cause of any of her problems.

13. Plaintiff underwent a bone scan which was abnormal and a sleep study which indicated that plaintiff does not have sleep apnea.

14. On August 3, 2006, plaintiff underwent a whole body scan which indicated polyarthralgia. Plaintiff also saw Dr. Watson on the same date and reported whole body pain, low back pain, knee and leg pain, feet pain and swelling, migraines, hand numbness, muscle spasms, forgetfulness, and weight gain of over 100 pounds during this year.

15. On August 17, 2006, plaintiff returned to Dr. Wodecki who noted that plaintiff's blood work, liver function, rheumatoid test, ck, sedentary rate, ANA, thyroid scan, and nerve conduction studies were normal. There was no evidence of sleep apnea, but plaintiff's bone scan was abnormal. X-rays indicated minimal cystic changes to plaintiff's left wrist, very minimal *Page 5 questionable osteopenia to plaintiff's right wrist, normal ankles, and bony overgrowths of the first MTP joint to both feet.

16. On August 24, 2006, Dr. James Mazur reported to Dr. Wodecki that he opined that plaintiff's bone scan indicated arthritis and that she should follow up for complete neurological work-up with Dr. Watson, get physical therapy ultrasound treatments, stay off her feet as much as possible, get orthotics, and follow up in six weeks.

17. On August 30, 2006, plaintiff returned to Dr. Duncan McCall, who diagnosed plaintiff with fibromyalgia in 1998, to have Dr. McCall sign forms to assist in plaintiff's food stamps and other assistance. There is no evidence that plaintiff returned to Dr. McCall thereafter.

18. On October 5, 2006, plaintiff was seen at Wilkes Regional Medical Center for an EKG due to heart palpitations.

19. Plaintiff returned to Blue Ridge Cardiology and Internal Medicine on November 6, 2006 for her continued complaints. Medications were prescribed and an echocardiogram was ordered.

20. On November 9, 2006, plaintiff underwent a CT scan of her cervical and lumbar spine, at Wilkes Regional Medical Center, which indicated degenerative disc disease at C5-6 with disc osteophyte complex and a small central disc protrusion at L4-5.

21. Plaintiff returned to Blue Ridge Cardiology and Internal Medicine on November 15, 2006. It was noted that plaintiff had low back pain due to degenerative disc disease.

22. On November 16, 2006, plaintiff had a normal echocardiogram.

*Page 6

23. On November 20, 2006, plaintiff underwent a cervical and lumbar MRI which indicated mild degenerative disc and joint disease of the lumbar spine with a broad-based slightly left paracentral protrusion at L4-5.

24.

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

Related

Sims v. Charmes/Arby's Roast Beef
542 S.E.2d 277 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Richards v. Town of Valdese
374 S.E.2d 116 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1988)
Henry v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co.
57 S.E.2d 760 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Yockel v. Wilkes Transportation Authority, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yockel-v-wilkes-transportation-authority-inc-ncworkcompcom-2008.