Younce v. Golden Needles Knitting, Incorporated

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedApril 23, 1997
DocketI.C. No. 156424
StatusPublished

This text of Younce v. Golden Needles Knitting, Incorporated (Younce v. Golden Needles Knitting, Incorporated) 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
Younce v. Golden Needles Knitting, Incorporated, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1997).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner.

The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. Furthermore, defendants' objection to the attachments to plaintiff's brief of documents not in evidence is hereby SUSTAINED. After consideration of the record as it existed before the Deputy Commissioner, the undersigned, in their discretion, were of the opinion that the official record needed to be re-opened for the submission of further evidence, in particular medical records, and if need be, deposition testimony associated with Dr. Elliott, Dr. Bond, and Dr. Padgett. The parties were allowed time within which to submit any additional medical evidence they wished to be considered, and the depositions of Dr. John L. Bond, Volume II, Harry G. Padgett, Ed.D., and Dr. Harold W. Elliot were submitted. These depositions are HEREBY ACCEPTED into the official record for consideration, and the record is, again, DULY CLOSED. However, upon consideration of the record as a whole as it now exists, the undersigned reach the same facts and conclusions as those reached by the Deputy Commissioner and believe that sufficient convincing evidence exists in the record to support their findings of fact, conclusions of law, and ultimate AWARD.

Accordingly, the Full Commission find as fact and conclude as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties as

STIPULATIONS

1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.

2. The parties have been correctly designated, and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

3. The parties are subject to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act.

4. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USFG) provides workers' compensation insurance coverage to the defendant-employer and was the carrier on the risk in the instant proceeding.

5. Plaintiff suffered a compensable injury to his back on August 6, 1991 and became temporarily totally disabled on that date.

6. Plaintiff became employed with the defendant-employer as a creeler on or about May 25, 1990 and continued to be so employed on August 6, 1991.

7. Plaintiff was employed at an average weekly wage of $250.16.

8. The Industrial Commission approved a Form 24 Application to Stop Payment of Compensation on February 24, 1994.

* * * * * * * * * * *

The Full Commission adopt as their own all findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner, with minor technical modifications, as follows:

Based upon the competent and convincing evidence adduced at the hearing, the undersigned make the following additional

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the time of the initial hearing plaintiff was a 45-year-old male. Plaintiff quit school at age 16 when he had completed the ninth grade. Plaintiff reads at a third grade level.

2. Plaintiff began his employment with the defendant-employer on or about May 5, 1990 as a creeler. Plaintiff was engaged in his duties as a creeler on August 6, 1991.

3. On August 6, 1991, plaintiff sustained a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant-employer when he strained his back while bending and lifting a spool of thread out of a buggy.

4. Plaintiff initially sought treatment at the Wilkes Regional Hospital Emergency Room. Plaintiff thereafter began treatment with Dr. John L. Bond on August 12, 1991. Plaintiff was complaining of back pain, limited motion on anterior flexion and exhibited bilateral lumbar muscle tightness. Plaintiff had sustained a lumbar strain.

5. Due to a lack of improvement in plaintiff's condition and plaintiff's complaints of tingling and numbness in his right leg, Dr. Bond referred plaintiff to Dr. David L. Kelly, Jr.

6. Plaintiff was unable to work during the period from August 7, 1991 to July 13, 1992. During that period of August to July, plaintiff was paid compensation for temporary total disability.

7. Dr. Kelly first examined plaintiff on November 11, 1991. At that time plaintiff had pain in his back and down his right leg when his leg was elevated ten degrees. In addition, plaintiff could not flex his back forward to more than 30 degrees without pain.

8. On July 14, 1992, plaintiff returned to work for two hours per day subject to certain work restrictions. Plaintiff was to do no pulling, tugging or lifting of more than 25 pounds. Due to a worsening of plaintiff's symptoms, he was taken out of work on July 22, 1992.

9. Plaintiff was paid temporary partial disability for the period from July 14, 1992 to July 22, 1992.

10. Plaintiff returned to work two to four hours per day from February 8, 1993 until February 24, 1993 and from March 1, 1993 to April 18, 1993. Plaintiff was paid temporary total disability from July 22, 1992 to February 7, 1993 and temporary partial disability from March 1, 1993 to April 18, 1993.

11. Plaintiff returned to work on July 12, 1993 and worked until August 6, 1993. Plaintiff was paid temporary total disability from April 19, 1993 to July 11, 1993 and temporary partial disability from July 12, 1993 to August 6, 1993.

12. On August 10, 1993 plaintiff was seen by Dr. J. Robinson Hicks for a comprehensive spinal evaluation. Dr. Hicks subsequently performed a pentothal pain study which indicated that plaintiff's pain was not based on any physical abnormality.

13. Dr. Hicks further opined that plaintiff could perform the job of string clipper which had been made available to plaintiff. According to Dr. Hicks, to the extent that plaintiff could not do the string clipper job, it was related to the opinions as stated in a psychological evaluation performed on plaintiff.

14. As a result of the work-related injury, plaintiff developed chronic pain syndrome. The fact that plaintiff exhibited inconsistent findings on different examinations is not unusual.

15. Dr. Kelly concluded that plaintiff should be able to perform the job of string clipper and inspector and could move from machine to machine so long as he was not required to bend over. Dr. Kelly placed the following restrictions upon plaintiff's activities: no bending, only occasional squatting, no lifting more than 30 pounds, no sitting or standing in one spot for prolonged periods, and avoiding trips in vehicles.

16. As a result of the August 6, 1991 work-related injury, plaintiff suffers from chronic lumbar strain and chronic pain syndrome and was unable to work because of these conditions from February 8, 1994 until October 16, 1994.

17. On August 10, 1993, plaintiff underwent psychological testing. An initial psychological evaluation was completed by Dr. Brian O'Malley in conjunction with the Comprehensive Spinal Evaluation ordered by the defendants. Dr. O'Malley's initial psychological evaluation concluded that plaintiff is experiencing moderate to severe depression and mild to moderate somatic anxiety. Dr. O'Malley found that plaintiff had developed a chronic pain syndrome which is characterized by preoccupation with his pain, progressive dysfunction, emotional distress and inability to return to work.

18. Plaintiff began psychological treatment with Harry D. Padgett, Ed.D., in March of 1994. Dr. Padgett has concluded that plaintiff has borderline intelligence, reads at grade level three, has major depression, recurrent and somatoform pain disorder and that no areas of choice stood out as possible areas of interest on the Chromile Occupational View-Deck.

19. Harry D. Padgett, Ed.D. stated that his findings and conclusions were consistent with Dr. O'Malley's. Specifically, Dr.

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

Related

Schofield v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
264 S.E.2d 56 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Younce v. Golden Needles Knitting, Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/younce-v-golden-needles-knitting-incorporated-ncworkcompcom-1997.