Taylor v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., COA02-470.
Decision Date | 06 May 2003 |
Docket Number | No. COA02-470.,COA02-470. |
Citation | 579 S.E.2d 413 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Phil S. TAYLOR, Employee, Plaintiff, v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC., Employer, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Carrier, Defendants. |
Edwards & Ricci, P.A., by Brian M. Ricci, Greenville, for plaintiff appellant.
Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by David A. Rhoades and Jaye E. Bingham, Raleigh, for defendant appellee.
Phil S. Taylor (plaintiff) appeals from an opinion and award of the Full Commission of the North Carolina Industrial Commission (the Commission) filed 18 January 2002 in favor of Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Bridgestone) and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (collectively, defendants).
The Commission made the following findings of fact, to which plaintiff assigns no error:1
The Commission also found as fact, to which plaintiff did assign error:
10. The Form 18M filed by plaintiff includes Dr. Lassiter's statement that there is a substantial risk that plaintiff will require additional medical care resulting from his compensable injury. However, the greater weight of the evidence, including Dr. Lassiter's deposition testimony, indicates that there is not [] a substantial risk that plaintiff will require future medical treatment as a result of his injury. Although Dr. Lassiter testified that plaintiff's age and job duties could cause plaintiff to have additional shoulder problems requiring additional treatment, Dr. Lassiter did not have an adequate understanding of plaintiff's job duties. Furthermore, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that the likelihood of the risk of future medical treatment falls short of the standard that the risk be substantial and related to the injury itself and not additional difficulties arising from age or activities....
Based on these findings, the Commission concluded: "Plaintiff has failed to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that there is a substantial risk for the necessity of future medical treatment as a result of his compensable injury by accident."
The evidence before the Commission came from the deposition testimony of plaintiff, Bishop Tucker (Tucker), a Bridgestone safety engineer, and Dr. Lassiter, plaintiff's treating physician. Tucker testified that the job duties of a first-stage tire builder, like plaintiff, required cutting rubber with a heated knife on a tire assembly machine located about waist high and then placing the cut rubber tire "carcasses," which weighed ten to fifteen pounds each, on three different racks located at shoulder, waist, and floor level. In an eight-hour shift, plaintiff produced between 175 to 200 tires.
Dr. Lassiter testified, based on his understanding of plaintiff's job duties, that in his opinion plaintiff had a "substantial risk" of needing future medical treatment. Moreover, plaintiff's original injury made it more likely that plaintiff would need future medical treatment. On cross-examination, Dr. Lassiter stated his understanding of plaintiff's job was that it involved bringing tires up and down from more or less ground level, or knee level, to shoulder level. He was not aware that the knife used to cut the rubber was heated, which makes cutting less stressful, and that if the weight of the tires plaintiff was lifting was within the prescribed weight restrictions, it would probably not cause undue harm. Dr. Lassiter was also confronted with other facts from Tucker's account of plaintiff's job description. Even after being confronted with the facts of plaintiff's job description, Dr. Lassiter maintained that plaintiff's risk of future medical treatment was "substantial to [physical therapy], inflammatories, injections it may be a risk, but not to surgery." Dr. Lassiter further testified that the cause of this risk was plaintiff's age and job duties, opining that, if plaintiff had a sedentary job involving mostly desk work, he would not have a substantial chance of needing future medical treatment. Dr. Lassiter also thought that, having had surgery, "[i]f defendant had another job where he was lifting a moderate amount of weight repetitively at his age," he would have a substantial risk of needing future medical treatment. On re-direct examination, Dr. Lassiter was asked "because [plaintiff] had surgery and is doing the job that he's doing now, that gives him the substantial risk of needing additional treatment?" Dr. Lassiter responded,
The dispositive issue is whether the Commission improperly combined the inquiries into whether plaintiff had a substantial risk of future medical treatment and whether that risk was directly related to his original compensable injury.
Plaintiff's sole argument on appeal is the Commission's finding of fact that the greater weight of the evidence "indicates that there is not [] a substantial risk that plaintiff will require future medical treatment as a result of his injury" is not supported by competent evidence, and, in turn, does not support the Commission's conclusion of law. Appellate review of the Commission's decisions is generally limited to whether "competent evidence supports the findings of fact and whether the findings support the Commission's legal conclusions." Parsons v. Pantry, Inc., 126 N.C.App. 540, 541, 485 S.E.2d 867, 868 (1997). Where, however, the Commission's findings are based on "`an erroneous view of the law or a misapplication of law, they are not conclusive on appeal.'" Id. (quoting Simon v. Triangle Materials, Inc., 106 N.C.App. 39, 41, 415 S.E.2d 105, 106 (1992)).
To continue reading
Request your trial- Spain v. Spain
-
King v. Kelly Springfield Tire Co.,
... ... Taylor v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., ___ N.C. App. ___, ____, 579 S.E.2d 413, ... ...
- Bell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
- State v. Jones, COA02-411.