{ "id": 8957349, "name": "PAMELA JAMES, Plaintiff v. PERDUE FARMS, INC., Employer, Self-Insured (Crawford & Company, Servicing Agent), Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "James v. Perdue Farms, Inc.", "decision_date": "2003-10-07", "docket_number": "No. COA02-795", "first_page": "560", "last_page": "564", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "160 N.C. App. 560" } ], "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": "256 S.E.2d 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "200" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571831 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "475" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "524 S.E.2d 368", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "371" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 N.C. App. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11239575 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/136/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E.2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "365" }, { "page": "365" }, { "page": "365" }, { "page": "365" }, { "page": "365" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4707972 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "93" }, { "page": "93" }, { "page": "93-94" }, { "page": "93-94" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "566 S.E.2d 839", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "842" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. App. 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9081950 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "672" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/151/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-53", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(13)" }, { "page": "(13)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "532 S.E.2d 522", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132282, 131930, 132234, 132199 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0108-02", "/nc/350/0108-04", "/nc/350/0108-03", "/nc/350/0108-01" ] }, { "cite": "509 S.E.2d 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "414" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 676", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571666 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "681" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 S.E.2d 549", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "553" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 684964 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "116" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0109-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 488, "char_count": 10037, "ocr_confidence": 0.76, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.9601026891434304e-07, "percentile": 0.849497210069004 }, "sha256": "846c8fde8a2955c128ff57695ee3436da1af5f03a7c78bb548c0868572097a62", "simhash": "1:c471cc821edd6cd5", "word_count": 1561 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:23.823025+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN and HUDSON concur." ], "parties": [ "PAMELA JAMES, Plaintiff v. PERDUE FARMS, INC., Employer, Self-Insured (Crawford & Company, Servicing Agent), Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ELMORE, Judge.\nPamela James (plaintiff) appeals an opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission denying her workers\u2019 compensation claim.\nPlaintiff was employed at the Perdue Farms, Inc. (Perdue) facility in Lewiston, North Carolina from 1984 to 1995. During her tenure at Perdue, plaintiff worked in various jobs, each of which required plaintiff to use her hands to perform repetitive motions. In 1989 or 1990, plaintiff began to experience pain in her hands and, later, in her neck, shoulders, and arms. In the following years, plaintiff sought treatment from a number of doctors, but the pain continued. Plaintiff\u2019s condition eventually led to a medical leave of absence in 1995 from which plaintiff did not return to work.\nPlaintiff filed a claim for workers\u2019 compensation with the North Carolina Industrial Commission. On 15 May 2001, Deputy Commissioner George T. Glenn, II issued an opinion and award in favor of plaintiff finding that plaintiff had developed carpel tunnel syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic pain, and depression as a direct result of her employment. Defendant appealed to the Full Commission and, on 4 April 2002, the Commission issued an opinion and award reversing the Deputy Commissioner and denying plaintiffs claim. The Commission\u2019s single conclusion of law states the following:\nThere was insufficient evidence to prove that plaintiff developed carpel tunnel syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic pain and depression as a direct result of her position with Perdue Farms. There was insufficient evidence to prove that plaintiffs position placed her at an increased risk of developing these occupational disease [sic] as compared to general population not so employed.\nPlaintiff gave notice of appeal to this Court on 25 April 2002.\nOn appeal to this Court, plaintiff contends that the Commission misapplied the law relating to compensability of occupational diseases. Specifically, plaintiff argues that the Commission erred in requiring her to prove that her fibromyalgia was a direct result of her employment, rather than to prove that her employment was a significant contributing factor in her condition. We agree that the Commission erred in requiring plaintiff to show that her fibromyalgia was a direct result of her employment. We hold, however, that the Commission\u2019s error relating to causation does not warrant reversal of its decision to deny plaintiff\u2019s claim.\nOn appeal of a decision of the Industrial Commission, this Court is \u201climited to reviewing whether any competent evidence supports the Commission\u2019s findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support the Commission\u2019s conclusions of law.\u201d Deese v. Champion Int\u2019l Corp., 352 N.C. 109, 116, 530 S.E.2d 549, 553 (2000). The evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference that may be drawn therefrom. Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998), reh\u2019g denied, 350 N.C. 108, 532 S.E.2d 522 (1999).\nFibromyalgia is not one of the enumerated compensable occupational diseases listed under section 97-53 of our General Statutes. Plaintiff, therefore, bears the burden of proving that she suffers from an occupational disease as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-53(13) (2001). Poole v. Tammy Lynn Ctr., 151 N.C. App. 668, 672, 566 S.E.2d 839, 842 (2002). The North Carolina Supreme Court has established a three-part test to determine whether a condition is compensable under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-53(13), requiring a plaintiff to show: 1) that the condition for which plaintiff seeks compensation is \u201ccharacteristic of persons engaged in the particular trade or occupation in which the claimant is engaged;\u201d 2) that the condition is \u201cnot an ordinary disease of life to which the public generally is equally exposed with those engaged in that particular trade or occupation;\u201d and 3) that there is \u201ca causal connection between the disease and the [claimant\u2019s] employment.\u201d Rutledge v. Tultex Corp., 308 N.C. 85, 93, 301 S.E.2d 359, 365 (1983). Although the Commission erred in its application of the third element of the Rutledge test, we hold that the Commission\u2019s denial of plaintiff\u2019s claim is still supported by plaintiff\u2019s failure to meet the first two elements of the test.\nThe third element of the Rutledge test requires plaintiff to demonstrate a causal link between the condition for which plaintiff seeks compensation and plaintiff\u2019s employment. Rutledge, 308 N.C. at 93, 301 S.E.2d at 365. This element of the test is satisfied if plaintiff\u2019s employment \u201csignificantly contributed to, or was a significant causal factor in, the disease\u2019s development.\u201d Hardin v. Motor Panels, Inc., 136 N.C. App. 351, 354, 524 S.E.2d 368, 371 (2000). The Commission\u2019s use of the phrase \u201cdirect cause\u201d in its conclusion of law, as opposed to \u201csignificant contributing or causal factor,\u201d suggests that the Commission did not apply the correct standard with respect to the causation element. On the facts of the case sub judice, however, the Commission\u2019s error does not warrant reversal of its decision to deny plaintiff\u2019s claim.\nIn addition to demonstrating a causal link between the plaintiff\u2019s condition and her employment, plaintiff must also satisfy the first two elements of the Rutledge test. These first two elements are met \u201cif, as a matter of fact, the employment exposed the worker to a greater risk of contracting the disease than the public generally.\u201d Rutledge, 308 N.C. at 93-94, 301 S.E.2d at 365. \u201cThe greater risk in such cases provides the nexus between the disease and the employment which makes them an appropriate subject for workmen\u2019s compensation.\u201d Id. at 94, 301 S.E.2d at 365 (quoting Booker v. Medical Center, 297 N.C. 458, 475, 256 S.E.2d 189, 200 (1979)). The Commission concluded that plaintiff had not satisfied her burden of showing that her employment exposed her to an increased risk of developing fibromyalgia.\nThe second sentence of the Commission\u2019s conclusion of law states the following: \u201cThere was insufficient evidence to prove that plaintiffs position placed her at an increased risk of developing these occupational disease [sic] as compared to general population not so employed.\u201d This conclusion relates directly to the first two elements of the Rutledge test, and there is no indication that the Commission incorrectly applied the law relating to those, two elements.\nFurthermore, the Commission\u2019s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prove that plaintiff\u2019s employment placed her at an increased risk of developing fibromyalgia is supported by the Commission\u2019s findings of fact, which inter alia record the testimony of Dr. Robert Hansen, a neurologist who examined plaintiff. Finding of fact number seventeen states that Dr. Hansen \u201cfelt that the work [in which plaintiff was engaged] was hard on the hands and there is an increased risk of developing hand pain and problems.\u201d However, Dr. Hansen was quick to distinguish between the pain caused by fibromyalgia and the condition itself. Finding of fact number twenty-two states that Dr. Hansen testified that plaintiff\u2019s work is \u201cdemanding\u201d and \u201cwill make any of us hurt. It\u2019ll make people with fibromyalgia hurt more. So it clearly is significant in terms of increasing somebody\u2019s pain. But that doesn\u2019t cause the problem.\u201d The distinction between plaintiff\u2019s pain and her underlying condition is a significant one. Plaintiff must demonstrate that her employment exposed her to an increased risk of developing the disease. Rutledge, 308 N.C. at 93-94, 301 S.E.2d at 365. The Commission determined that plaintiff had not done so.\nOn the facts of the case sub judice, the Commission\u2019s error relating to causation does not warrant reversal of its decision to deny plaintiff\u2019s claim. The plaintiff must meet each element of the Rutledge test. Whether or not plaintiff can satisfy the causation element of the test under the correct legal standard, the Commission\u2019s decision to deny plaintiff\u2019s claim was still appropriate because plaintiff had not satisfied the first two elements of the test. The Commission\u2019s conclusion that plaintiff had not satisfied her burden of showing that her employment exposed her to an increased risk of developing fibromyalgia is supported by the applicable law and by the Commission\u2019s findings of fact. Accordingly, we affirm the Commission\u2019s decision to deny plaintiff\u2019s claim.\nFinally, we note that plaintiff\u2019s brief discusses neither the Commission\u2019s conclusion of law as it relates to plaintiff\u2019s carpel tunnel syndrome or depression nor the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Commission\u2019s finding of fact number twenty-seven. To the extent that these issues may have been raised by plaintiffs assignments of error, they are therefore deemed abandoned pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a).\nAffirmed.\nJudges MARTIN and HUDSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ELMORE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Daniel F. Read for plaintiff-appellant.", "Haynsworth, Baldwin, Johnson & Greaves, L.L.C., by Brian M. Freedman and J. Mark Sampson, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "PAMELA JAMES, Plaintiff v. PERDUE FARMS, INC., Employer, Self-Insured (Crawford & Company, Servicing Agent), Defendant\nNo. COA02-795\n(Filed 7 October 2003)\nWorkers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 fibromyalgia \u2014 not a listed compen-sable occupational disease \u2014 plaintiffs burden not met\nA workers\u2019 compensation claim arising from repetitive motion injuries was properly denied by the Industrial Commission. Although the Commission erred by requiring that plaintiff show that her fibromyalgia was a direct result of her employment rather than a significant contributing factor, the error does not warrant reversal because the Commission concluded that there was insufficient evidence that plaintiffs employment placed her at more risk for this condition than the general population, and that conclusion was supported by the findings.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 4 April 2002 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 March 2003.\nDaniel F. Read for plaintiff-appellant.\nHaynsworth, Baldwin, Johnson & Greaves, L.L.C., by Brian M. Freedman and J. Mark Sampson, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0560-01", "first_page_order": 590, "last_page_order": 594 }