Workers' Compensation--disability--aggravation of pre-existing back injury
The Industrial Commission did not err by awarding plaintiff disability benefits for
aggravation of a pre-existing back injury. While there may have been conflicting evidence, it
was for the Commission to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and decide the issues.
Appeal by defendants from opinion and award of the North
Carolina Industrial Commission filed 5 November 1997. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 9 June 1999.
The Jernigan Law Firm, by N. Victor Farah and Leonard T.
Jernigan, for plaintiff-appellee.
Robinson & Lawing, L.L.P., by Jolinda J. Steinbacher, for
defendant-appellants.
HUNTER, Judge.
This workers' compensation case arises from proceedings
before the Industrial Commission where plaintiff alleged she
exacerbated her pre-existing back condition in an accident
occurring on 18 October 1994 while disassembling metal
scaffolding at the Champion paper manufacturing facility in
Canton, North Carolina. At the hearing, plaintiff's evidence
tended to show that Smith (plaintiff), 49-years-old at the time
of the alleged incident, first experienced pain immediately after
handing a piece of scaffolding down to her co-worker. The pain
increased throughout the day, and by the following day, plaintiff
was unable to complete her job responsibilities. She reported to
the clinic and saw Mr. Stegall, a physician's assistant. Mr.Stegall diagnosed an acute exacerbation of her pre-existing back
problems and, along with Albert J. Osbahr III, M.D., the company
physician, recommended lighter duty assignments. Plaintiff was
assigned lighter responsibilities and performed them until 7
November 1994. Plaintiff was scheduled to start a new position
but was prevented from doing so by a supervisor and Dr. Osbahr.
Before and after this incident, plaintiff was treated by a
chiropractor and several other physicians at the Champion
physical therapy/fitness program but therapy was discontinued
when the pain steadily increased. On 19 June 1995, Richard E.
Weiss, M.D., a neurosurgeon, performed a L4-5 laminotomy and
medial facetectomy which significantly reduced her left hip and
leg pain. Her back pain continued and Dr. Weiss performed a L4-5
posterior lateral fusion on 17 October 1995. Dr. Weiss opined
that plaintiff was totally disabled.
Defendants' evidence indicated that plaintiff had a long-
standing history of back problems which would eventually require
surgery. Plaintiff freely admits her pre-existing back
condition.
Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim with her
employer which was denied. The deputy commissioner issued an
opinion awarding plaintiff benefits and defendants appealed. The
Full Commission affirmed the award and adopted the opinion of the
deputy commissioner. Defendants appeal to this Court.
Defendants' primary argument is that the Full Commission
erred in concluding that plaintiff's back condition was causally
related to a minor alleged work accident and not to a severe,debilitating pre-existing back condition. We disagree.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-86 provides that [t]he award of the
Industrial Commission . . ., as provided in G.S. 97-85, shall be
conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact . . . . N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 97-86 (Supp. 1998). The findings of fact of the
Industrial Commission are conclusive on appeal when supported by
competent evidence, even though there be evidence that would
support findings to the contrary. Jones v. Desk Co., 264 N.C.
401, 402, 141 S.E.2d 632, 633 (1965) (per curiam). See also
Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 509 S.E.2d 411 (1998), reh'g
denied, 350 N.C. 108, --- S.E.2d --- (1999). Thus, on appeal,
this Court 'does not have the right to weigh the evidence and
decide the issue on the basis of its weight. The court's duty
goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any
evidence tending to support the finding.' Adams, 349 N.C. at
681, 509 S.E.2d at 414 (quoting Anderson v. Construction Co., 265
N.C. 431, 434, 144 S.E.2d 272, 274 (1965)).
Here, the Full Commission's findings of fact included:
20. On October 18, 1994 plaintiff
sustained a specific traumatic incident of
the work assigned which arose out of and in
the course of her employment with defendant
and which resulted in injury to her pre-
existing spondylolisthesis and spinal
stenosis and which further, when considered
in conjunction with her age, education, and
work experience, rendered her unable to earn
any wages in any employment beginning
November 7, 1994 and which ultimately
resulted in the surgeries performed in June
1995 and October 1995. Although the causes
of plaintiff's wage earning incapacity and
the surgeries performed are multi-factorial,
the specific traumatic incident which she
experienced on October 18, 1994 significantly
exacerbated her pre-existing lumbarspondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis and was
thereby a significant causal factor of her
wage earning incapacity and her surgeries.
She has not reached the end of the healing
period and is unable to engage in prolonged
standing, prolonged sitting, frequent bending
at the waist or heavy lifting.
Clearly, aggravation of a pre-existing condition which results in
loss of wage earning capacity is compensable under the workers'
compensation laws in our state. The work-related injury need
not be the sole cause of the problems to render an injury
compensable. If the work-related accident contributed in some
reasonable degree to plaintiff's disability, she is entitled to
compensation. Hoyle v. Carolina Associated Mills, 122 N.C. App.
462, 465-66, 470 S.E.2d 357, 359 (1996) (citation omitted)
(quotation omitted).
While there may have been conflicting evidence as to the
degree of plaintiff's impairment, it was for the Commission to
weigh the credibility of the witnesses and to decide the issues.
Based on the recent holding in Adams, we conclude there was
competent evidence in the record to support the Commission's
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The opinion and award of the Full Commission is affirmed.
Judges JOHN and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***