Zeigler v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 20, 2002
DocketI.C. NOS. 148188, 148264
StatusPublished

This text of Zeigler v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co. (Zeigler v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co.) 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
Zeigler v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

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

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following which entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and this claim. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. The employer-employee relationship existed between defendant-employer and plaintiff at all relevant times herein.

3. Royal and Sun Alliance provided defendant-employer with workers' compensation coverage at all relevant times herein.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $474.00, yielding a compensation rate of $316.02 per week.

5. The dates of the alleged injuries by accident were September 7, 2000 and July 7, 1999. Plaintiff last worked for defendant-employer on May 22, 2001. The parties have agreed and stipulated that plaintiff has received $2,360.47 in short term disability benefits from a plan that was fully funded by defendant-employer and carrier.

8. The exhibits stipulated to by the parties and entered into the transcript are:

Termination letter dated 5/22/01;

Employee/Plaintiff's medical records;

Filed Industrial Commission forms.

9. The issues before the Deputy Commissioner were whether plaintiff sustained an injury by accident while in the course and scope of employment with defendant-employer on July 7, 1999; and if so, what, if any, benefits is plaintiff entitled to receive under the North Carolina Workers Compensation Act. The only issue presented on appeal to the Full Commission is whether plaintiff is permanently and totally disabled.

***********
Based upon the all of the competent and credible evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following additional:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was 48 years old at the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. He completed 2 years of college in a liberal arts program. Plaintiff was involved in a boating accident in 1972 while he attended college and sustained a serious permanent head injury. Plaintiff's head injury resulted in slurred speech, some mental deficiencies and seizure disorder. Plaintiff has undergone medical treatment for these conditions since his accident and is currently treating with Dr. Eric Borresen at Mecklenburg Neurological Associates.

2. Plaintiff injured his left knee in January of 1999, resulting in surgery and a 10% permanent partial disability rating. Plaintiff also had a torn left bicep muscle in 1986, which required surgery. These conditions are unrelated to his employment with defendant-employer.

3. Plaintiff was hired by defendant-employer on August 20, 1973 and worked full time for the defendant-employer until May 22, 2001. For the first 12 years plaintiff worked in the paint shop and following that he was moved to the validator line. A validator is a piece of sterilizing equipment that is used in dental offices. Defendant-employer produces dental equipment. The validators are metal boxes approximately 24 inches long and 12 inches tall. The larger ones weighed approximately 45 pounds and the smaller ones weighed approximately 25 pounds. Plaintiff's job required him to affix the doors onto the chambers and then to place the boxes into a container of water to test the boxes. After taking the boxes from the water, plaintiff removed the door and put parts into the validators. The validators were then tested to see whether they operated correctly and then the validators were boxed for shipping. The door weighed approximately 20-30 pounds, adding to the total weight of the validators.

4. Prior to July 7, 1999 plaintiff never experienced any serious problems with his back. He occasionally strained his back but never required long-term medical care or surgical intervention.

5. On July 7, 1999 plaintiff began working at 6:45 a.m. and worked until 3:15 p.m. On this particular day plaintiff was required to repeatedly lift validator containers with doors affixed that had a combined weight of approximately 75 pounds. Plaintiff placed validators on a table that was approximately chest high. Plaintiff leaned across the table to pick up the validators and placed them in a container of water to test them, lifted them back out, placed parts in them and then placed the validators in a box to be shipped. The validators that plaintiff was lifting that day were the "10-inch validators" which are the heavier of the two types of validators that he normally lifted. Plaintiff normally lifted lighter validators as well as the heavier ones but on this particular day he was required to lift the heavy ones all day long. At approximately 2:00 p.m. plaintiff began to feel pain in the middle of his low back. Plaintiff continued working until 3:15 p.m. From 2:00 p.m. until 3:15 p.m., the pain in his low back continued to get worse. At the end of plaintiff's shift he reported his back pain to his supervisor, Eddie Robinson.

6. Plaintiff drove home following his shift and on the way home his back became stiff. He had trouble getting out of his car when he arrived home. As plaintiff was walking toward the door, he bent to pick up a piece of debris from his lawn, and his back locked and he was unable to stand. Defendant-employer completed a Form 19 dated July 14, 1999 that documents plaintiff's injury on July 7, 1999.

7. Plaintiff was seen by Mr. Wayne Blanton, a physician's assistant to Dr. Norton, at the Nalle Clinic, on July 8, 1999. Plaintiff reported pain in his mid and lower lumbar region with radiation into his lower extremities. Mr. Blanton's assessment was low back strain with radiculopathy and he wrote plaintiff out of work. Mr. Blanton saw plaintiff again on July 16, 1999 for his back condition.

8. Plaintiff was also being treated by Dr. Jack Vesano, an orthopedic surgeon with the Nalle Clinic, during this period of time. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Vesano on July 1, 1999 for pain and discomfort in his left knee due to an automobile accident the previous January. Plaintiff saw Dr. Vesano again on July 26, 1999. Dr. Vesano's notes indicate that plaintiff stated he was lifting and strained his back and as a result felt severe spasms and pain. Dr. Vesano noted that plaintiff was still having pain that radiated into his leg.

9. Dr. Vesano operated on plaintiff's knee in late July of 1999. Plaintiff followed up with Dr. Vesano on August 24, 1999. Plaintiff continued to complain of back pain radiating into his left leg and occasionally in his right. Dr. Vesano recommended an MRI. The MRI revealed that plaintiff had a central disc protrusion at L4-5 with moderate stenosis at L5-S1 and osteophyte spur on the right disc protrusion. In Dr. Vesano's opinion, these conditions were causing plaintiff's pain. Following conservative treatment including epidural steroid injection, Dr. Vesano referred plaintiff to Dr. Eric Laxer for a surgical consultation.

10. Dr. Laxer first saw plaintiff on December 13, 1999. Dr.

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

Related

Weaver v. Swedish Imports Maintenance, Inc.
354 S.E.2d 477 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)
Counts v. Black Decker Corporation
465 S.E.2d 343 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Bridges v. Linn-Corriher Corp.
368 S.E.2d 388 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1988)
Whitley v. Columbia Lumber Mfg. Co.
348 S.E.2d 336 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Errante v. Cumberland County Solid Waste Management
415 S.E.2d 583 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Zeigler v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeigler-v-bristol-myers-squibb-co-ncworkcompcom-2002.