{
  "id": 8412807,
  "name": "KATHY DIANNE CRAVEN, Employee, Plaintiff v. VF CORPORATION D/B/A THE LEE APPAREL COMPANY, INC., D/B/A VF JEANSWEAR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Employer, Self-Insured, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Adminstrator, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Craven v. VF Corp.",
  "decision_date": "2004-12-21",
  "docket_number": "No. COA03-1688",
  "first_page": "612",
  "last_page": "617",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "167 N.C. App. 612"
    }
  ],
  "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": "472 S.E.2d 387",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "472 S.E.2d 382",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N.C. App. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11912507
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/123/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "566 S.E.2d 509",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "514",
          "parenthetical": "same"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N.C. App. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9080309
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "363",
          "parenthetical": "same"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/151/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "540 S.E.2d 785",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "788"
        },
        {
          "page": "788"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N.C. App. 620",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9442486
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "623-24"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/141/0620-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "509 S.E.2d 411",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "414",
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.C. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        571666
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "681",
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/349/0676-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "566 S.E.2d 717",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "721",
          "parenthetical": "same"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N.C. App. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9248621
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "47",
          "parenthetical": "same"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/152/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": 607,
    "char_count": 12665,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.346261635438082e-07,
      "percentile": 0.792751430681866
    },
    "sha256": "b2b79a74e6f881d891580117308947f6f5c05a0f502c72dafd2d988342f5568b",
    "simhash": "1:8cee47866aba7344",
    "word_count": 2034
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:28.670431+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges HUNTER and THORNBURG concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "KATHY DIANNE CRAVEN, Employee, Plaintiff v. VF CORPORATION D/B/A THE LEE APPAREL COMPANY, INC., D/B/A VF JEANSWEAR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Employer, Self-Insured, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Adminstrator, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nDefendants VF Corporation (\u201cVF\u201d) d/b/a The Lee Apparel Company, Inc. d/b/a VF Jeans-Wear Limited Partnership and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (\u201cGBS\u201d) appeal from an Opinion and Award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, contending that: (1) the Industrial Commission\u2019s Finding of Fact No. 21, to the extent it suggests a causal relationship between Craven\u2019s back injury and mental condition, is not supported by competent evidence; (2) the Industrial Commission\u2019s Conclusion of Law No. 3, insofar as it relates to Craven\u2019s mental condition, is not supported by competent findings of fact; (3) the Industrial Commission\u2019s Award No. 2, insofar as it relates to Craven\u2019s mental condition, is not supported by the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; (4) the Industrial Commission erred in failing to find as a fact that Craven did not offer evidence that the medical treatment rendered by Drs. Bell and Holthusen, Forsyth Medical Center, and Maplewood Family Practice was necessary to effect a cure, to give relief, or to lessen Craven\u2019s period of disability; and (5) the Industrial Commission erred in failing to conclude as a matter of law that the medical treatment rendered by Drs. Bell and Holthusen, Forsyth Medical Center, and Maplewood Family Practice was not necessary to effect a cure, to give relief, or to lessen Craven\u2019s period of disability. For the reasons stated herein, we disagree and affirm the Industrial Commission\u2019s Opinion and Award.\nThe procedural and factual history of.the instant appeal is as follows: Craven worked as a jeans inspector at VF in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where she was responsible for identifying and sorting irregular jeans. Craven\u2019s job, which she worked four days per week, ten hours per shift, involved lifting boxes of jeans weighing up to thirty pounds. While Craven was injured once before on the job when a bag of jeans hit her head and neck, she did not file a workers\u2019 compensation claim. Craven had no difficulty performing her duties until 28 March 2000.\nThe record further shows that when Craven arrived at work on 28 March 2000, her workstation was \u201ca mess.\u201d Boxes of irregular jeans were everywhere because the employee who usually worked the shift prior to Craven did not show up to work. Craven reported to her manager that she needed assistance to process the backlog. Help was promised but never delivered. In picking up a box of jeans from the floor, Craven felt her back pop, then burn. Pain radiated to her hip and leg and she nearly passed out. At her break, Craven reported the injury to supervisors. On 29 March 2000, Craven was incapable of performing the lifting required at her job. Management arranged for medical care at PrimeCare, VF\u2019s health care provider. PrimeCare returned Craven to light duty work that could be performed standing or sitting and that involved less lifting.\nOn 10 April 2000, Craven visited her family physician, Dr. Keith Van Zandt, who noted that Craven had no history of back trouble. Dr. Van Z\u00e1ndt found tenderness and a strain and later diagnosed Craven with, inter alia, \u201cvery diffuse tenderness and muscle tightness in her upper and lower back\u201d and \u201cfairly marked spasms[.]\u201d On 12 April 2004, Craven was evaluated by Novant Health; Craven was ordered to receive physical therapy twice a week for four weeks. Craven was seen again by Dr. Van Zandt\u2019s office, put on prescription medication for her condition, and temporarily taken out of work. On 15 May 2000, Craven was also seen by Dr. Greg Holthusen, an orthopedist for whose services Defendants refused to pay. Dr. Holthusen believed Craven to have a musculo-ligamentous injury. On 28 May 2000, Craven was treated at the Forsyth Medical Center for severe spasms in her lower back and referred to an orthopedist. Craven was last able to work on 11 May 2000.\nIn May 2000, Defendants arranged for Craven to see Dr. Philips J. Carter, who diagnosed Craven with \u201cback sprain\u201d and \u201cspinal steno-sis.\u201d Dr. Carter believed Craven\u2019s pain to be real and prescribed medical and physical therapy treatment. Dr. Carter\u2019s prescriptions were, however, not being followed because \u201cthe insurance company wasn\u2019t paying for this or that [and was] sending [Craven] back to keep seeing me without doing my treatment.\u201d Carter believed \u201cone of the things that, perhaps, prolonged [Craven\u2019s conditions] was just failure to get her into a good combination of medicine and therapy.\u201d As the Industrial Commission noted, Dr. Carter wrote on or around 12 July 2000, \u201cI have requested further PT, but the insurance company has failed to do that. I am not sure why they are willing to pay my bill. . . and yet are not willing to do the treatment that I recommend.\u201d Indeed, on 13 July 2000, VF executed a Form 61 Denial of Workers\u2019 Compensation Claim. Again, on 3 August 2000, in its Response to Request That Claim Be Assigned For Hearing, VF denied the com-pensability of Craven\u2019s claim.\nOn 21 June 2000, Dr. Van Zandt noted that Craven was \u201chaving increasing [] difficulties as well as chronic pain.\u201d Dr. Van Zandt further noted that Craven was developing signs of depression. On 27 July 2000, Dr. Van Zandt noted that Craven \u201chas had increasing depressive symptoms largely related to her ongoing back pain.\u201d Moreover, Dr. Carter, Defendants\u2019 requested physician, testified that he believed that it was reasonable for Craven to seek psychological treatment if she suffered from depression secondary to her back pain.\nDeputy Commissioner W. Bain Jones, Jr. filed an Opinion and Award on 24 July 2001, concluding that Craven sustained injury due to a workplace accident, that Craven was entitled to medical treatment of the injury, and that Craven had failed to prove she remained disabled from the accident. Craven appealed to the full Industrial Commission, which found in its Opinion and Award dated 5 August 2002 and filed 29 May 2003, inter alia, that Craven had indeed remained totally disabled from her accident and was entitled to temporary total disability benefits. Defendants appealed.\nIn reviewing a decision of the 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); Skillin v. Magna Corp./Greene\u2019s Tree Serv., Inc., 152 N.C. App. 41, 47, 566 S.E.2d 717, 721 (2002) (same). An appellate court reviewing a workers\u2019 compensation claim \u201cdoes not have the right to weigh the evidence and decide the issue on the basis of its weight.\u201d Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998) (quotation omitted). Rather, the Court\u2019s duty goes no further than determining \u201cwhether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding.\u201d Id. (quotation omitted). If there is any evidence at all, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the finding of fact stands, even if there was substantial evidence going the other way. Id.\nDefendants contend the Industrial Commission\u2019s Finding of Fact No. 21, to the extent it suggests a causal relationship between Craven\u2019s back injury and mental condition, is not supported by competent evidence. Finding of Fact No. 21 itself includes a recantation of evidence provided by Craven\u2019s physician, Dr. Van Zandt, regarding, inter alia, her back and psychological conditions. The Industrial Commission directly quotes Van Zandt\u2019s report, noting Craven\u2019s \u201cchronic pain\u201d and \u201cdeveloping symptoms of depression.\u201d Additional evidence, including Van Zandt\u2019s 27 July 2000 report states that Craven \u201chas had increasing depressive symptoms largely related to her ongoing back pain.\u201d The Industrial Commission\u2019s Finding of Fact No. 21 is supported by some competent evidence. We therefore affirm.\nBecause we find some competent evidence to support the Industrial Commission\u2019s Finding of Fact No. 21, we find that Conclusion of Law No. 3, entitling Craven to have her medical expenses paid for her back and mental conditions was supported by the Findings of Fact. Consequently, we also find the Industrial Commission\u2019s Award No. 2, insofar as it relates to Craven\u2019s mental condition, to be supported by the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.\nDefendants contend that the Industrial Commission erred in failing to find as a fact that Craven did not offer evidence that the medical treatment rendered by Drs. Bell and Holthusen, Forsyth Medical Center, and Maplewood Family Practice was necessary to effect a cure, to give relief, or to lessen Craven\u2019s period of disability. We disagree. Generally, an employer has the right to direct the medical treatment for a compensable work injury. Kanipe v. Lane Upholstery, Hickory Tavern Furniture Co., 141 N.C. App. 620, 623-24, 540 S.E.2d 785, 788 (2000). However, \u201can employer\u2019s right to direct medical treatment (including the right to select the treating physician) attaches [only] once the employer accepts the claim as compensable.\u201d Id. at 624, 540 S.E.2d at 788; see also Bailey v. W. Staff Servs., 151 N.C. App. 356, 363, 566 S.E.2d 509, 514 (2002) (same). Here, VF did not accept the claim as compensable, but rather denied the alleged accident and injury. VF and its carrier therefore did not have the right to select, i. e., limit Craven\u2019s physicians or treatment.\nMoreover, this Court indicated in Franklin v. Broyhill Furniture Indus., 123 N.C. App. 200, 472 S.E.2d 382 (1996), that, while the Industrial Commission had previously been required to find that a plaintiff\u2019s chosen physician was reasonably required to effect a cure or give relief in order for the care to be compensable, the 1991 amendment to section 97-25 of the North Carolina General Statutes deleted the language supporting such a requirement. The Court therefore indicated that a finding that medical care by a plaintiff\u2019s chosen physician was reasonably required to effect a cure or give relief may not be required in cases, including the instant one, post-dating the 1991 amendment. Id. at 207-08, 472 S.E.2d 387.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Industrial Commission did not err in failing to find as a fact that Craven did not offer evidence that the medical treatment rendered by Drs. Bell and Holthusen, the Forsyth Medical Center, and the Maplewood Family Practice was necessary to effect a cure, to give relief, or to lessen Craven\u2019s period of disability. Further, we find that the Industrial Commission did not err in failing to conclude as a matter of law that the medical treatment rendered by Drs. Bell and Holthusen, Forsyth Medical Center, and Maplewood Family Practice was not necessary to effect a cure, to give relief, or to lessen Craven\u2019s period of disability.\nFor the reasons stated above, we affirm the Industrial Commission\u2019s Opinion and Award.\nAffirmed.\nJudges HUNTER and THORNBURG concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walden & Walden, by Daniel S. Walden, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Granfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by W. Scott Fuller, for Defendant-Appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KATHY DIANNE CRAVEN, Employee, Plaintiff v. VF CORPORATION D/B/A THE LEE APPAREL COMPANY, INC., D/B/A VF JEANSWEAR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Employer, Self-Insured, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Adminstrator, Defendants\nNo. COA03-1688\n(Filed 21 December 2004)\n1. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 causal relationship \u2014 back injury and mental condition\nThe Industrial Commission\u2019s determination in a workers\u2019 compensation case that a causal relationship existed between plaintiff\u2019s back injury and mental condition was supported by competent evidence, and plaintiff is entitled to have her medical expenses paid for her back and mental conditions.\n2. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 right to direct medical treatment \u2014 acceptance of compensable claim\nThe Industrial Commission did not err in a workers\u2019 compensation case by failing to find as a fact that plaintiff did not offer evidence that medical treatment rendered by various doctors and facilities were necessary to effect a cure, to give relief, or to lessen plaintiffs period of disability, because: (1) defendant did not accept the claim as compensable and therefore was not entitled to select or limit plaintiffs physicians or treatment; and (2) while the Industrial Commission previously required a finding that a plaintiffs chosen physician was reasonably required to effect a cure or give relief in order for the care to be compensable, the 1991 amendment to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-25 deleted the language supporting such a requirement.\nAppeal by Defendants from Opinion and Award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed 29 May 2003. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 October 2004.\nWalden & Walden, by Daniel S. Walden, for plaintiff-appellee.\nGranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by W. Scott Fuller, for Defendant-Appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0612-01",
  "first_page_order": 642,
  "last_page_order": 647
}