Preview:

An  unpublished  opinion  of  the  North  Carolina  Court  of  Appeals  does  not  constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA02-369
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:                                                                                          31 December  2002
DEBRA HOWELL,
Employee,
Plaintiff,
v.                                                                                              North  Carolina  Industrial
Commission
I. C. No.  567655
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Employer, and
INSURANCE COMPANY OF STATE
OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Carrier,
Defendants.
Appeal by plaintiff from opinion and award entered 15 October
2001  by  the  North  Carolina  Industrial  Commission.    Heard  in  the
Court of Appeals  12 November  2002.
Ralph T. Bryant, Jr. for plaintiff-appellant.
Young  Moore  and  Henderson,  P.A.,  by  Dawn  Dillon  Raynor  and
Zachary C. Bolen, for defendant-appellees.
EAGLES, Chief Judge.
Debra  Howell  (“plaintiff”)  appeals  from  the  Full  Industrial
Commission’s  opinion  awarding  her  permanent  partial  disability
benefits.
The evidence tends to show the following.   Plaintiff was hired
by   Wal-Mart   Stores,   Inc.                                                                                                (“defendant”)   as   a   stocker   in
Fayetteville,  North  Carolina  in                                                              1988.                         In                                      1993,  plaintiff  was




-2-
transferred  to  defendant’s  store  in  Morehead  City,  where  she  was
manager  of  the  pet  department.     On                                      22  August     1995,  plaintiff
injured  her  back  while  stocking  shelves  at  defendant’s  store.
Plaintiff’s lower back and leg pain became steadily worse over the
next  few  days.  Plaintiff  saw  Dr.  C.C.  Goodno  on  24  August  1995.
Dr.   Goodno   referred   plaintiff   to   Dr.   Harold   Vandersea,   an
orthopedic  surgeon,  who  in  turn  referred  plaintiff  to  Dr.  Mark
Held,  a  neurosurgeon.    Dr.  Held  suggested  that  plaintiff  undergo
surgery  to  correct  her  back  problems.    On  20  February  1996,  Dr.
Held  performed  surgery  on  plaintiff  in  order  to  decompress  the
nerves in plaintiff’s back.
Plaintiff  returned  to  work  for  defendant  on                              6  June        1996.
Plaintiff worked as a part-time fitting room attendant.   After one
week of working as a fitting room attendant, plaintiff complained
to  Dr.  Held  of  significant  pain.    Dr.  Held  took  plaintiff  out  of
work  and  ordered  her  to  complete  a  work  hardening  program.    Once
plaintiff  completed  the  hardening  program,  Dr.  Held  released
plaintiff to work again with restrictions in October  1997.
Dr.  Held  referred  plaintiff  to  Dr.  Christopher  Delaney  on  7
October                                                                        1996.          Dr.  Delaney  is  a  physiatrist,  or  a  doctor  who
specializes in physical therapy.      Dr. Delaney performed a number
of tests on plaintiff to determine the extent of her injuries.   He
found plaintiff’s reflexes to be decreased on both sides, but noted
there  were  several  inconsistencies  in  plaintiff’s  interview  and
examination.   Dr. Delaney ordered a functional capacity evaluation
on                                                                             11  November   1996.                                                   Plaintiff  was  found  to  be   “capable  of




-3-
performing sedentary work, including the fitting room position, and
it was recommended that her hours be gradually increased until she
was working full time.”
On  10 December  1996, plaintiff reported to Dr. Held that she
did not think she could work any longer because her back pain was
increasing.    Dr. Held gave her a return to work note, but limited
plaintiff to four hours of work per day on Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday.  Plaintiff  told  Dr.  Held  she  suffered  less  pain  from  the
reduced  work  schedule.     Dr.  Held  testified  that  plaintiff  had
reached maximum medical improvement on  16 January  1997.
Plaintiff continued to work as a fitting room attendant until
May  1997.    Defendant moved plaintiff to an office job in May  1997
because  of  her  persistent  pain  complaints.     On                      20  May   1997,
plaintiff  saw  Dr.  Ira  Wentz  for  a  second  opinion.     Dr.  Wentz
diagnosed plaintiff with chronic lumbar radiculitis.    Dr. Wentz’s
only change to plaintiff’s treatment plan was to suggest that she
be allowed to move around more often.    Dr. Wentz also recommended
that plaintiff undergo pain management therapy.
Plaintiff  saw  Dr.  Delaney  again  on  15  July  1997.    He  found
several  non-physiologic  indicators  of  pain  and  concluded  that
plaintiff was significantly exaggerating her symptoms.   Dr. Delaney
testified  that  plaintiff  was  capable  of  full-time  work  and  had
reached maximum medical improvement.
Plaintiff  stopped  reporting  for  work  in  August                        1997.     In
September 1997, plaintiff returned to Dr. Held, who sent her to an
anesthesiologist, Dr. George Baylor.   Dr. Held also ordered an MRI




-4-
on plaintiff, which revealed extensive scarring in   her lower back.
Dr.  Baylor  began  a  series  of  nerve  root  block  injections  on         17
December  1997.    After  plaintiff’s  second  injection  on  2  February
1998,  she  reported  relief  from  pain  for  several  days.    A  nerve
block administered on 24 February 1998 relieved plaintiff’s pain as
well.
On  5  and  6  February  1998,  plaintiff  was  observed  performing
vigorous  yard  work  that  included                                          “digging,  pulling,  climbing,
bending, lifting, and stooping.”   A surveillance videotape recorded
plaintiff’s yard work on those two days.   Throughout this activity,
plaintiff  did  not  appear  to  be  in  discomfort  or  pain.    Plaintiff
stated  that  the  nerve  root  block  injection  she  received  on           2
February allowed her to perform these activities without pain.
Dr. Delaney examined plaintiff on 16 March 1998.   He found no
significant  change  in  her  condition.    He  found  some  evidence  of
nerve damage, but also found that plaintiff continued   exaggerating
her  symptoms.    As  a  result,  Dr.  Delaney  did  not  recommend  any
further  surgical  treatment,  but  instead  referred  plaintiff  to  a
pain  management  program.    Dr.  Held  also  suggested  that  plaintiff
join a pain management program, and did not change plaintiff’s work
restrictions.
Defendant admitted liability for benefits under the Workers’
Compensation  Act.    Defendant  paid  plaintiff  compensation  from  24
August 1995 until the case was heard before a Deputy Commissioner.
At that time, defendant requested that it be allowed to stop paying
plaintiff disability payments.




-5-
The  Full  Industrial  Commission  found  that  plaintiff  had
reached maximum medical improvement on  15 July  1997 despite a ten
percent permanent partial impairment to her back.    The Commission
found that defendant had work available for plaintiff that fit her
lifting  restrictions,  so  plaintiff  was  capable  of  earning  pre-
injury  wages.     The  Full  Commission  found  that  plaintiff  was
entitled  to  compensation  of                                              $232.01  per  week  for  thirty  weeks
beginning  on  16  July  1997  for  her  ten  percent  permanent  partial
disability.   However, the Commission found that defendant had paid
plaintiff  benefits  in  excess  of  that  amount  and  defendant  was
entitled to offset future payments against the amount already paid
to plaintiff.    From this opinion and award, plaintiff appeals.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the brief for plaintiff
does  not  comply  with  the  North  Carolina  Rules  of  Appellate
Procedure.    The Rules state that:
Assignments  of  error  not  set  out  in  the
appellant’s  brief,  or  in  support  of  which  no
reason  or  argument  is  stated  or  authority
cited,  will  be  taken  as  abandoned.    The  body
of the argument shall contain citations of the
authorities upon which the appellant relies.
N.C.  R.  App.  P.  28(b)(5)(emphasis  added).    In  violation  of  this
rule, plaintiff has failed to cite any statutory or case authority
for support of any of the assignments of error argued in her brief.
According to the Rules of Appellate Procedure we could deem these
assignments of error abandoned by plaintiff.   Instead we choose to
exercise our discretion to suspend the Rules of Appellate Procedure
in order to consider plaintiff’s appeal on its merits.




-6-
Plaintiff  contends  that  the  Industrial  Commission  erred  in
finding as a fact that plaintiff was capable of earning pre-injury
wages  on  15  July  1997  by  working  as  a  fitting  room  attendant  for
defendant.      We disagree.
On appeal of an opinion of the Full Commission, this Court is
“limited to reviewing whether any competent evidence supports the
Commission’s  findings  of  fact  and  whether  the  findings  of  fact
support  the  Commission’s  conclusions  of  law.”  Deese  v.  Champion
Int’l Corp.,  352 N.C.  109,  116,  530 S.E.2d  549,  553  (2000).
Here, plaintiff takes exception to the Commission’s finding of
fact  #12,  specifically  to  the  portion  that  states:  “The  fitting
room attendant position provided by defendant was suitable to her
capacity and was an actual job within the store that was available
on a full-time or part-time basis.    Plaintiff has been capable of
performing that job throughout the time in question.”
Plaintiff argues that the Commission’s findings are incorrect
because  the  fitting  room  attendant  position  was  never  offered  to
plaintiff.    Plaintiff’s  evidence  tended  to  show  that  she  was  not
capable  of  performing  the  job  because  the  fitting  room  attendant
position was not within her work restrictions and would require her
to  perform  tasks  not  approved  by    her  doctor.    In  contradiction,
defendant offered evidence that the fitting room attendant position
was  available  through  the  testimony  of  Ms.  Susan  Vail,  the
personnel  manager  of  defendant’s  store  where  plaintiff  worked
before the accident.   Although plaintiff is correct when she argues
that  no  evidence  supports  the  finding  that  the  fitting  room




-7-
attendant job was offered to plaintiff, the offer of a job was not
part of finding of fact #12.     Further, defendant offered evidence
that  the  fitting  room  position  was  within  the  plaintiff’s  work
restrictions through the testimony of Ms. Vail, in addition to the
deposition testimony of Dr. Held and Dr. Delaney.
Plaintiff  also  excepts  to  the  Commission’s  finding  of  fact
#14:  “Plaintiff  .  .  . had exaggerated her symptoms on examination
to  the  extent  that  she  misrepresented  her  condition  to  her
physicians.  .  .                                                         .   Plaintiff was capable of working on a full-time
basis by the time she reached maximum medical improvement.”
Plaintiff offers a deposition by Dr. Baylor that states he did
not  think  plaintiff  ever  exaggerated  her  symptoms.     However,
defendant  presented  conflicting  evidence  from  Dr.  Delaney,  who
stated specifically that on  15 July  1997 he found the following:
I also noted that I felt the patient may well
have  some  residual  degree  of  discomfort,  but
that it was difficult to assess because there
is                                                                        unquestionably                                                significant                   symptom
exaggeration.   As [plaintiff] was not unstable
from a musculoskeletal neurologic standpoint,
I  saw  no  medical  contraindications  to  her
continuing  to  work.     I  described  her  as  at
maximum  medical  improvement,  and  therefore,
recommended no further evaluation or treatment
interventions.
Despite plaintiff’s presentation of evidence that contradicted the
Commission’s  findings  of  fact                                          #12  and                                                      #14,  there  was  competent
evidence presented by defendant to support findings of fact #12 and
#14.                                                                      Accordingly,  plaintiff’s  first  assignment  of  error  is
overruled.




-8-
Next  plaintiff  contends  that  the  Full  Commission  erred  by
finding  as  a  fact  that  her  level  of  activity  captured  on  a
videotape undermined her credibility as a witness.    We disagree.
Plaintiff disagrees with the Commission’s finding of fact #13,
which states, in pertinent part:
[O]n                                                                        5  February                                 1998  and   6  February   1998,
plaintiff was observed engaging in activities
which   were   quite   inconsistent   with   her
reported  symptoms.    A  surveillance  videotape
shows  plaintiff  engaged  in  labor  intensive
activities,    including    digging,    pulling,
climbing,   bending,   lifting,   and   stooping.
Plaintiff was in no obvious discomfort during
and   after   these   activities.                                           Plaintiff
explained  her  activities  by  stating  that  she
had  recently  received  a  nerve  root  block,
which  had  helped  her  considerably.    However,
the                                                                         level   of   activity   which   plaintiff
performed  undermines  the  credibility  of  her
complaints  of  pain  so  significant  that  she
cannot    return    to    suitable    employment.
Plaintiff’s  explanations  to  the  contrary  are
not credible.
Plaintiff argues that the Commission improperly disregarded all of
the medical evidence presented and relied solely upon the videotape
in  making  this  finding  of  fact.                                        Plaintiff  contends  that  this
videotape was not evidence of her ability to work or proof of her
lack of pain.    Plaintiff testified that she received a nerve root
block  injection  several  days  before  the  events  recorded  in  the
videotape,  and  that  the  injection  enabled  her  to  carry  on  these
activities  with  no  pain.                                                 Plaintiff  also  contends  that  the
Commission  erred  by  relying  on  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Delaney
regarding her symptom exaggeration in making finding of fact  #13.
The Full Commission acts as “the sole judge of the weight and
credibility of the evidence.” Deese, 352 N.C. at 116, 530 S.E.2d at




-9-
553.   Here, the Commission specifically stated that it did not find
plaintiff’s  explanation  of  her  strenuous  activity  on                    5  and        6
February 1998 to be credible.   Plaintiff’s presentation of medical
evidence to support her contention that the nerve block injection
allowed her to perform yard work could also be disregarded by the
Commission  if  the  Commission  did  not  consider  it  credible.    In
addition, Dr. Delaney testified that plaintiff had exaggerated her
symptoms  of  pain  when  he  examined  her  on  several  occasions.    Dr.
Delaney found indications that plaintiff was exaggerating her pain
when he examined her on  7 October 1996 and  15 July  1997, well over
a year before she began receiving nerve root block injections.   Dr.
Delaney also opined that plaintiff was exaggerating her pain when
he saw her on 16 March 1998, after she had been given several nerve
root injections.   Contradicting testimony by other expert witnesses
does   not   render   Delaney’s   opinion   incompetent.                      Since   the
Commission’s finding of fact was supported by competent evidence,
this Court will not disturb the Commission’s finding.   Accordingly,
this assignment of error is overruled.
Plaintiff further contends that the Commission erred because
its conclusions of law are not supported by the findings of fact.
We disagree.
The Commission determined that plaintiff had reached maximum
medical  improvement  on  15  July  1997.    Plaintiff  argues  that  this
conclusion  is  unsupported  by  the  evidence  presented  because
plaintiff still had work restrictions in place forbidding her from
working.    However,  the  Commission  found  as  a  fact  that  plaintiff




-10-
had exaggerated the amount of pain she was suffering.   In addition,
the Commission found as a fact that plaintiff had reached maximum
medical  improvement  on                                               15  July                                                1997  based  upon  Dr.  Delaney’s
testimony.                                                             Because  the  Commission’s  conclusions  of  law  are
supported by its findings of fact, this Court will not overturn the
conclusions of law.    We overrule this assignment of error.
For  the  reasons  stated,  the  opinion  and  award  of  the  Full
Commission is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges GREENE and MARTIN concur.
Report per Rule  30(e).

Download 02-369-6.pdf

South Carolina Law