{ "id": 11914018, "name": "JAMES RALPH WEAVER, Plaintiff-Employee v. AMERICAN NATIONAL CAN CORPORATION, Defendant-Employer", "name_abbreviation": "Weaver v. American National Can Corp.", "decision_date": "1996-08-06", "docket_number": "No. COA95-745", "first_page": "507", "last_page": "511", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "123 N.C. App. 507" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "454 S.E.2d 845", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "848" }, { "page": "848" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 N.C. App. 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11917719 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "284" }, { "page": "283" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/118/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 S.E.2d 623", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560289, 8560267, 8560333, 8560306, 8560243 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0196-03", "/nc/300/0196-02", "/nc/300/0196-05", "/nc/300/0196-04", "/nc/300/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "262 S.E.2d 830", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "835" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 N.C. App. 197", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548032 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "205" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/45/0197-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 S.E.2d 799", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2486154, 2483507, 2484885, 2484376, 2484444 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0337-05", "/nc/324/0337-01", "/nc/324/0337-02", "/nc/324/0337-03", "/nc/324/0337-04" ] }, { "cite": "374 S.E.2d 116", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "118" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526693 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "225" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0222-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 543, "char_count": 10039, "ocr_confidence": 0.764, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.842143941765741e-07, "percentile": 0.8400065023095941 }, "sha256": "e319e8dd047640687ed830678364aa0bc25ce3d1f641c3343dacb2bd0a66f637", "simhash": "1:000525cf84972b1a", "word_count": 1619 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:05:31.519627+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHN and WALKER concur." ], "parties": [ "JAMES RALPH WEAVER, Plaintiff-Employee v. AMERICAN NATIONAL CAN CORPORATION, Defendant-Employer" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nPlaintiff argues that the record does not support the Industrial Commission\u2019s findings of fact and that the Industrial Commission\u2019s conclusions of law are not supported by its findings of fact. In Workers\u2019 Compensation cases, the Industrial Commission\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if there is any competent evidence to support them, even if there is conflicting evidence. Richards v. Town of Valdese, 92 N.C. App. 222, 225, 374 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1988), disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 337, 378 S.E.2d 799 (1989). The Industrial Commission\u2019s conclusions of law are fully reviewable on appeal. Id. Before making findings of fact, the Industrial Commission must consider all of the evidence. The Industrial Commission may not discount or disregard any evidence, but may choose not to believe the evidence after considering it. Harrell v. Stevens & Co., 45 N.C. App. 197, 205, 262 S.E.2d 830, 835, disc. review denied, 300 N.C. 196, 269 S.E.2d 623 (1980).\nHere, the Industrial Commission, without receiving further evidence, reviewed the opinion and award of the deputy commissioner based on the record before the Commission and made findings of fact detailing plaintiff\u2019s version of the events of 9 April 1992 plus the following two findings of fact:\n6. The Full Commission, however, does not accept plaintiff\u2019s testimony as credible, based on plaintiff\u2019s testimony and demeanor, and the testimony of other witnesses.\n7. Since plaintiff\u2019s testimony is not credible, plaintiff did not prove that any injury which he may have sustained on or about 9 April 1992 resulted from a specific traumatic incident of the work assigned, or from an interruption of his normal work routine by the introduction of unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences.\nThe Industrial Commission\u2019s finding of fact number seven provides that because the Industrial Commission did not find plaintiff\u2019s testimony credible, plaintiff had not proven his case. The Industrial Commission \u201cis the sole judge of the credibility of the witness and the weight to be given its testimony,\u201d Dye v. Shippers Freight Lines, 118 N.C. App. 280, 284, 454 S.E.2d 845, 848 (1995), and the Industrial Commission may find that a witness is not credible based on the witness\u2019s demeanor during the hearing. Dye, 118 N.C. App. at 283, 454 S.E.2d at 848. However, here, the Industrial Commission made no mention of plaintiff\u2019s coworkers\u2019 testimony which corroborated plaintiff\u2019s testimony. Mr. Jernigan testified that plaintiff appeared to be in a lot of pain after he swung at the obstruction in the storage bin: \u201cHe\u2019s usually like a bull, just real energetic and moving around. But he was \u2014 he was in pain.\u201d Mr. Jernigan also testified that plaintiff told him that plaintiff \u201cfelt like something busted loose in [his] back.\u201d Mr. Trail testified that plaintiff told him on 9 April 1992 that he thought he had pulled something in his back and Mr. Trail observed plaintiff rubbing his back.\nWe conclude that the Industrial Commission\u2019s finding of fact number seven shows that the Industrial Commission impermissibly-disregarded Mr. Jernigan\u2019s and Mr. Trail\u2019s testimony. Accordingly, this case must be vacated and remanded to the Industrial Commission for it to consider all of the evidence, make complete findings of fact and proper conclusions of law, and enter an appropriate order.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges JOHN and WALKER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Patterson, Harkavy & Lawrence, L.L.P., by Henry N. Patterson, Jr. and Martha A. Geer, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Teague, Campbell, Dennis & Gorham, L.L.P., by Henry W. Gorham and Karen K. Prather, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JAMES RALPH WEAVER, Plaintiff-Employee v. AMERICAN NATIONAL CAN CORPORATION, Defendant-Employer\nNo. COA95-745\n(Filed 6 August 1996)\nWorkers\u2019 Compensation \u00a7 399 (NCI4th)\u2014 testimony disregarded by Commission \u2014 error\nThe Industrial Commission\u2019s findings of fact showed that the Commission impermissibly disregarded the testimony of plaintiffs coworkers which corroborated plaintiffs testimony that he had suffered an injury to his back, and the case is therefore vacated and remanded to the Commission for it to consider all of the evidence, make complete findings of fact and proper conclusions of law, and enter an appropriate order.\nAm Jur 2d, Workers\u2019 Compensation \u00a7\u00a7 602 et seq.\nAppeal by plaintiff from opinion and award entered 13 March 1995 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 March 1996.\nThis case arises from the denial of Workers\u2019 Compensation benefits by the Industrial Commission after a hearing before Deputy Commissioner Scott M. Taylor and a review by the full commission.\nJames Weaver (hereinafter plaintiff) began working at American National Can Corporation (hereinafter defendant) in 1978. In approximately 1982, plaintiff began working as a furnace operator for defendant. Plaintiff\u2019s responsibilities included operating the machinery that mixes the raw materials and melts them into glass. At times, the raw material would harden in the storage bins before it could flow into the furnace and plaintiff would have to unplug the obstruction by climbing up a ladder and beating the obstruction loose with a sledge hammer.\nIn 1988, plaintiff injured his back at work and underwent surgery by Dr. John Leonard to excise a ruptured disc at the L4-L5 region. After the surgery, plaintiff returned to work for defendant. In March or early April 1992, plaintiff was coming home from a church meeting when he felt pain behind his left knee. Plaintiff sought the help of a chiropractor, Dr. Mark Hooper, beginning on 6 April 1992. Plaintiff continued to experience difficulty with his leg, but plaintiff testified that the pain did not affect his ability to perform his job.\nOn 9 April 1992 while plaintiff was working second shift, plaintiff tried to unplug an obstruction in a storage bin with another employee, Mike Jernigan. Plaintiff testified that as he hit the storage bin with the sledge hammer, \u201csomething felt like it busted in my back and run all over. I felt excruciating pain going down \u2014 my lower back and down the left leg.\u201d Plaintiff testified that \u201cI almost fell and caught myself and just eased down\u201d the ladder. Mr. Jernigan testified that plaintiff looked like \u201che was in real \u2014 a whole lot of pain\u201d so Mr. Jernigan told plaintiff to take it easy while Mr. Jernigan unplugged the obstruction. Mike Trail, a raw material unloader, testified that plaintiff came into the control room on 9 April 1992 and told Mr. Trail that \u201che thought he had pulled something in his back.\u201d Mr. Trail observed plaintiff rubbing his back.\nPlaintiff testified that he did not report his injury on 9 April 1992 because there was no supervisor present during the second shift. Plaintiff also stated that the medical department was not open at the time of the injury. Plaintiff testified that he told his supervisor, Bob Ryder, about the injury on 10 April 1992 and that Mr. Ryder said he hoped the injury was not serious. Mr. Ryder testified that he knew plaintiff was having back problems in March and April of 1992 but that plaintiff never told him that he had injured his back at work and that Mr. Ryder first learned of the alleged incident after plaintiff filed an Industrial Commission Form 18 on 20 August 1992.\nPlaintiff continued to work second shift although the pain continued to increase in his leg and lower back. On 14 April 1992, Dr. Hooper gave plaintiff a note excusing him from work. Plaintiff testified that he gave the note to George Clayton, the personnel manager for defendant, at an awards luncheon for perfect attendance. Plaintiff testified that Mr. Clayton talked to the plant manager and that they decided that they wanted plaintiff to see Dr. Leonard. Plaintiff saw Dr. Leonard on 16 April 1992 and Dr. Leonard diagnosed plaintiff as \u201cmost likely\u201d having suffered a new injury to the L5-S1 region. Dr. Leonard gave plaintiff a note taking him out of work until Dr. Leonard released him. Plaintiff underwent surgery on 27 April 1992 and then received physical therapy for fourteen weeks. In his deposition, Dr. Leonard testified:\nIt\u2019s my opinion \u2014 based on this history of a worsening of his pain down his leg and the fact that swinging a sledgehammer imparts a flexion strain on the back which can worsen a preexisting ruptured disk, my opinion is that this may have had\nsome degree of disk herniation present before he swung the hammer and that when he swung the hammer he caused the cover of the disk to tear completely and extruded the disk. ... So while I don\u2019t feel that the sledgehammer swinging caused the ruptured disk \u2014 it may have been there in some form before that \u2014 I think that it caused the ruptured disk to extrude or go to its final stage, and that absolutely canceled any idea of recovery without surgery.\nDr. Leonard assigned an eighteen percent permanent partial disability rating to plaintiffs injury.\nDr. Leonard released plaintiff to return to work on 12 October 1992, but defendant first wanted plaintiff to see the company doctor. After receiving the doctor\u2019s report, defendant would not allow plaintiff to return to work. Plaintiff testified that George Clayton told plaintiff that he should \u201csign up for SSI disability and for unemployment.\u201d On 1 February 1993, plaintiff finally was allowed to return to work as a line attendant. Plaintiff remained in that position for approximately four weeks and then returned to his former job as a furnace operator.\nPlaintiff filed a claim with the North Carolina Industrial Commission for Workers\u2019 Compensation on 24 August 1992. After conducting a hearing on 18 May 1993, the deputy commissioner denied plaintiff\u2019s claim, finding that plaintiff\u2019s testimony was not credible and concluding that plaintiff had not suffered an injury arising out of or in the course of his employment. Plaintiff appealed to the full commission, which affirmed the deputy commissioner\u2019s recommended decision. Commissioner James J. Booker dissented and plaintiff appeals.\nPatterson, Harkavy & Lawrence, L.L.P., by Henry N. Patterson, Jr. and Martha A. Geer, for plaintiff-appellant.\nTeague, Campbell, Dennis & Gorham, L.L.P., by Henry W. Gorham and Karen K. Prather, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0507-01", "first_page_order": 541, "last_page_order": 545 }