{
  "id": 8473458,
  "name": "RONNIE ROGERS, Employee, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT, Employer, SELF INSURED (SRS SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, Servicing Agent), Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rogers v. Lowe's Home Improvement",
  "decision_date": "2005-04-19",
  "docket_number": "No. COA04-845",
  "first_page": "759",
  "last_page": "767",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "169 N.C. App. 759"
    }
  ],
  "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": "594 S.E.2d 446",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12631268
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "449",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Holley, 357 N.C. at 232, 581 S.E.2d at 753"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/594/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 N.C. App. 755",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8920722,
        12631268
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "758",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Holley, 357 N.C. at 232, 581 S.E.2d at 753"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/163/0755-01",
        "/se2d/594/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "600 S.E.2d 501",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "505",
          "parenthetical": "upholding finding of causation where the \"evidence tending to show that [the expert's] testimony was the product of a reasoned medical analysis as opposed to mere speculation\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 N.C. App. 811",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9000203
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "817",
          "parenthetical": "upholding finding of causation where the \"evidence tending to show that [the expert's] testimony was the product of a reasoned medical analysis as opposed to mere speculation\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/165/0811-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 S.E.2d 292",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1942,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "296"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 N.C. 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630398
      ],
      "year": 1942,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "365"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/222/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S.E.2d 753",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "760",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569848
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "325",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0317-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "581 S.E.2d 750",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "752"
        },
        {
          "page": "754"
        },
        {
          "page": "753"
        },
        {
          "page": "753"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "357 N.C. 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        491657
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "232"
        },
        {
          "page": "232"
        },
        {
          "page": "232"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/357/0228-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "144 S.E.2d 272",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "274"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575582
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "434"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0431-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "509 S.E.2d 411",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "414",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Anderson v. Lincoln Constr. Co., 265 N.C. 431, 434, 144 S.E.2d 272, 274 (1965)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.C. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        571666
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "681",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Anderson v. Lincoln Constr. Co., 265 N.C. 431, 434, 144 S.E.2d 272, 274 (1965)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/349/0676-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "535 S.E.2d 602",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "604"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N.C. App. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12122648
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "132-33"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/140/0130-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 908,
    "char_count": 18621,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.758,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.643594115661138e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2913888029765442
    },
    "sha256": "8ce34669a30b8030f820aa881d4ef66dfcdcea13cbab546d7fc174dd73480660",
    "simhash": "1:eba1d6a337357dc9",
    "word_count": 2982
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:06:54.593382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "RONNIE ROGERS, Employee, Plaintiff v. LOWE\u2019S HOME IMPROVEMENT, Employer, SELF INSURED (SRS SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, Servicing Agent), Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCullough, Judge.\nDefendant appeals from an opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission (\u201cthe Commission\u201d), awarding temporary total disability benefits to plaintiff under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act.\nThe evidence of record and the Commission\u2019s findings of fact reflect that plaintiff began working for defendant Lowe\u2019s Home Improvement on 5 May 2001 as a receiver in its Kernersville, North Carolina store. Plaintiff\u2019s job duties included unloading shipments of major appliances, windows, doors, and carpeting, as well as stocking this merchandise on the store\u2019s sales floor. As one of three employees responsible for unloading \u201c[t]wenty trailer loads of merchandise\u201d each day, plaintiff \u201cwent home on many occasions with a backache and other muscle soreness.\u201d Plaintiff also had \u201csome residual\u201d pain in his lower back and left leg resulting from a motor vehicle accident in May of 1988.\nWhile lifting a large roll of carpet at work on 19 October 2001, plaintiff felt a pull in his lower back and left leg. He experienced soreness and cramping in the back of his leg above the knee and informed his supervisor about the incident but continued working. Plaintiff sought treatment at Piedmont Triad Family Medicine (\u201cPiedmont Triad\u201d) on 19 October 2001, complaining of pain in the outside and back of his left thigh. Based upon the localized nature of plaintiff\u2019s pain, the tightness in the back of his leg, and the absence of pain in his lower back during straight leg raise test, Physician Assistant W. Scott Boyd diagnosed a strained left bicep femoralis muscle, or hamstring. He recommended treatment with moist heat, an anti-inflammatory and a muscle relaxant. Plaintiff returned to Piedmont Triad on 22 October 2001, reporting continued localized pain in his left hamstring. Boyd again found that plaintiff had tightness and spasming in the back of his leg, but retained full range of motion in his left hip and his back. Boyd continued plaintiff on medication for the strained muscle but noted the possibility of an \u201cunderlying sciatic nerve problem\u201d originating in his lumbar spine. Piedmont Triad\u2019s Physician Assistant Betsy Brais examined plaintiff for his persistent symptoms on 31 October 2001. Plaintiff told Brais that his hamstring \u201creally bothers him when he gets up in the morning,\u201d but improved \u201conce he starts walking around for two hours or so.\u201d He further reported \u201cno numbness or tingling radiating down the backs of his legs.\u201d'Brais diagnosed a left hamstring muscle spasm.\nOn the afternoon of 9 November 2001, defendant was unloading a shipment of house windows at work when he felt a pop in his \u201clower left hip area.\u201d Accustomed to a certain amount of soreness from the demands of his job, plaintiff finished working for the day and took a hot shower when he got home. He went to bed early but was awakened at 4:00 a.m. by \u201cradiating sharp stabbing burning pain\u201d in his left hip and groin. Plaintiff testified that \u201cthe problem after November 9th was completely different\u201d than what he experienced during October. He contrasted the two injuries as follows:\nWell, it was like a cramp in October. And the pain in November was sharp stabbing \u2014 sharp stabbing burning pain radiating down my leg. And that\u2019s the most pain I\u2019ve ever had ..., and it just kept continuously, continuously hurting . . . and not going away.'\nPlaintiff described the pain he experienced after 9 November 2001 as \u201cten times as much pain... as I\u2019ve ever had in my leg or anything else at any[]time.\u201d\nLater that morning, plaintiff went to Lowe\u2019s, filled out an accident report and spoke to his manager, who sent him to PrimeCare of Kernersville for treatment. A physician assistant diagnosed plaintiff with a hamstring injury and restricted him to light duty work. Plaintiff was released by PrimeCare to return to his normal work duties on 20 November 2001, but was unable to perform them and stopped working altogether on 28 November 2001. Because his condition had not improved, plaintiff sought a referral to a specialist. Orthopaedist Dr. Christopher J. Bashore of High Point Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine examined plaintiff on 14 December 2001. Dr. Bashore ordered x-rays of plaintiff\u2019s lower back, which revealed a loss of normal lumbar lordosis. Plaintiff also exhibited, inter alia, a reduced range of motion when bending at the waist and \u201cpositive straight leg raise at 35 degrees on left with pain that radiates past the knee.\u201d Diagnosing low back pain with radicular leg pain and a possible herniated nucleus pulposis, Dr. Bashore ordered a lumbar MRI exam. The MRI revealed \u201ca left lateral disk bulge at L4-5 with impingement on the L4 nerve root, and a centralized disk bulge at L5-S1 with posterior displacement of the SI nerve root on the left[,]\u201d consistent with plaintiff\u2019s symptoms. On 7 January 2002, Dr. Bashore referred plaintiff to neurosurgeon Dr. Russell H. Amundson of Johnson Neurological Associates.\nDr. Amundson examined plaintiff on 24 January 2002, and made an initial diagnosis of \u201clumbar disk bulge[.]\u201d A review of plaintiffs x-rays and MRI confirmed the presence of \u201ca significant bulging disk on the left at [L]4-5[.]\u201d After further tests, Dr. Amundson prescribed an initial treatment regimen of medication and physical therapy. When physical therapy proved unsuccessful, Dr. Amundson recommended surgery and performed a left lumbar microdiskectomy at L4-5 on 21 May 2002.\nPlaintiff applied for workers\u2019 compensation benefits for the herniated disk, which he alleged was caused by the accident at work on 9 November 2001. Deputy Commissioner W. Bain Jones, Jr., held a hearing on the contested claim on 29 January 2003. In an opinion and award filed 25 June 2003, the Deputy Commissioner concluded that plaintiff\u2019s herniated disk was a \u201ccompensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer\u201d on 9 November 2001. He awarded plaintiff temporary total disability benefits from 28 November 2001 until further order of the Commission.\nDefendant appealed to the Full Commission, which affirmed the Deputy Commissioner\u2019s award with modifications. In finding a causal relationship between plaintiff\u2019s 9 November 2001 accident while unloading windows for defendant and his herniated disk, the Commission relied upon Dr. Amundson\u2019s deposition testimony as well as plaintiff\u2019s hearing testimony in which he recounted the nature and course of his symptoms. In pertinent part, the Commission found as follows:\n22. ... Dr. Amundson opined, and the Full Commission finds as fact, that the November 9, 2001, incident when plaintiff was lifting the wooden windows was a proximate cause of the lumbar disc rupture for which he performed surgery. Dr. Amundson indicated the distinct symptoms relayed by plaintiff following November 9, 2001, were not present prior to that date. Prior to November 9, 2001, plaintiff was suffering from a muscle strain and not a ruptured disc.\n23. Dr. Amundson . . . gave a lengthy explanation of why he believes (1) plaintiff had pre-existing degenerative changes in his spine; (2) plaintiff was being treated for a hamstring or muscular strain prior to November 9, 2001; and (3) plaintiffs actions in lifting windows was a sufficient incident to cause plaintiffs disk herniation. The Full Commission finds as fact the three foregoing beliefs of Dr. Amundson.\n25. After reviewing the plaintiffs prior medical history, including the histories given by plaintiff to his family physician and to PrimeCare, Dr. Amundson concluded, and the Full Commission finds as fact, that the lumbar disc rupture for which he performed surgery was a proximate result of the November 9, 2001, incident when plaintiff was lifting wooden windows. Dr. Amundson explained that leg pain is a very gross description of a symptom and can confuse the practitioner, but in the end, plaintiffs overall presentation of symptoms to him on January 24, 2002, were not the same as the presentation of symptoms relayed to Triad Family Medicine in October 2001. Dr. Amundson indicated that the distinct symptoms relayed by plaintiff following November 9, 2001, were not present prior to that date. Prior to November 9, 2001, plaintiff was most likely suffering from a muscle strain. Dr. Amundson\u2019s testimony is supported by the evidence indicating that (1) plaintiffs symptoms were relieved by activity at work; (2) the burning and tightness in the posterior part of his hamstring got worse when he was resting; (3) plaintiff had a negative straight leg raise; and (4) plaintiff had full range of motion in his back. When Dr. Amundson examined plaintiff on January 24, 2002, plaintiff had a limited range of motion of his back, radiating leg pain, and could not get relief from his symptoms, particularly when active.\nBased upon its findings, the Commission concluded that plaintiff was entitled to temporary total disability benefits of $254.71 per week \u201cfrom 28 November 2001, and continuing until he is able to earn wages or further order of the Industrial Commission.\u201d Defendant filed timely notice of appeal.\nDefendant argues on appeal that \u201cthere is no competent evidence to support a finding that plaintiffs back injury was caused by the alleged November 9, 2001 incident.\u201d Defendant challenges Dr. Amundson\u2019s opinion testimony as the product of an incomplete picture of plaintiff\u2019s medical history and as based solely on the temporal relationship between the 9 November 2001 incident and the onset of plaintiff\u2019s symptoms at some point thereafter. Defendant further faults the Commission for placing the burden upon it to disprove causation.\nThe scope of our review of a workers\u2019 compensation award is limited to a determination of \u201c(1) whether the Commission\u2019s findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence in the record; and (2) whether the Commission\u2019s findings justify its conclusions of law.\u201d Goff v. Foster Forbes Glass Div., 140 N.C. App. 130, 132-33, 535 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2000). The appellate court \u201c \u2018does not have the right to weigh the evidence and decide the issue on the basis of its weight. The court\u2019s duty goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding.\u2019 \u201d Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998) (quoting Anderson v. Lincoln Constr. Co., 265 N.C. 431, 434, 144 S.E.2d 272, 274 (1965)), reh\u2019g denied, 350 N.C. 108, 532 S.E.2d 522 (1999). Moreover, we must defer to the Commission as the \u201csole judge of the weight and credibility\u201d of the parties\u2019 evidence. Deese v. Champion Int\u2019l Corp., 352 N.C. 109, 116, 530 S.E.2d 549, 553 (2000).\nIn order to establish that a disabling injury is compensable within the workers\u2019 compensation system, a plaintiff must prove that a work-related accident was \u201ca causal factor\u201d of the injury. Holley v. ACTS, Inc., 357 N.C. 228, 232, 581 S.E.2d 750, 752 (2003). Our courts have further defined a workers\u2019 compensation plaintiff\u2019s evi-dentiary burden by holding that, \u201c[w]hen dealing with a complicated medical question . . ., expert medical testimony is necessary to provide a proper foundation for the Commission\u2019s findings.\u201d Id. at 234, 581 S.E.2d at 754. Inasmuch as \u201c \u2018[o]ne of the most difficult problems in legal medicine is the determination of the relationship between an injury or a specific episode and rupture of the interverte-bral disc[,]\u2019 \u201d the nature of plaintiff\u2019s claim required him to adduce expert medical testimony regarding the etiology of his disk injury. Gillikin v. Burbage, 263 N.C. 317, 325, 139 S.E.2d 753, 760 (1965) (citation omitted).\nTo qualify as \u201ccompetent evidence\u201d of a causal relationship between a work-related accident and a disabling injury, the expert\u2019s testimony \u201c \u2018must be such as to take the case out of the realm of conjecture and remote possibility, that is, there must be sufficient competent evidence tending to show a proximate causal relation.\u2019 \u201d Holley, 357 N.C. at 232, 581 S.E.2d at 753 (quoting Gilmore v. Hoke Cty. Bd. of Educ., 222 N.C. 358, 365, 23 S.E.2d 292, 296 (1942). Expert opinion \u201cbased merely upon speculation and conjecture\u201d does not constitute competent evidence of causation in cases involving complex medical issues beyond the ken of laypersons. Faison v. Allen Canning Co., 163 N.C. App. 755, 758, 594 S.E.2d 446, 449 (2004) (quoting Holley, 357 N.C. at 232, 581 S.E.2d at 753).\nAfter a thorough review of the deposition transcripts, hearing testimony, and other evidence of record, we conclude the Commission\u2019s finding of causation is supported by competent evidence. The Commission\u2019s findings of fact accurately reflect the tenor of Dr. Amundson\u2019s testimony. Dr. Amundson opined to \u201ca reasonable degree of medical certainty\u201d that plaintiff\u2019s 9 November 2001 accident caused his herniated disk. He also offered a deliberative, three-part analysis establishing the basis of his opinion. Cf. Edmonds v. Fresenius Med. Care, 165 N.C. App. 811, 817, 600 S.E.2d 501, 505 (2004) (upholding finding of causation where the \u201cevidence tending to show that [the expert\u2019s] testimony was the product of a reasoned medical analysis as opposed to mere speculation\u201d).\nDr. Amundson first posited, based upon plaintiff\u2019s medical records through October of 2001, that plaintiff \u201cmay well have had some degenerative disk changes\u201d prior to 9 November 2001. He noted that plaintiff, \u201cfrom [an examination on 19 October 2001], states that he has some history of some low back pain dating back \u2014 as far as 1990.\u201d He next evaluated the symptoms plaintiff presented at Piedmont Triad in October of 2001, which tended to show \u201ca hamstring or a muscular strain\u201d and further tended to rule out \u201ca nerve root compression problem\u201d or \u201ca disk problem.\u201d Dr. Amundson contrasted these reported symptoms of localized muscular strain up through 31 October 2001, with the symptoms plaintiff presented to him after 9 November 2001, as follows:\nWhen I saw him, you know, he had limitation in range of motion of his back; he had radiating leg pain; he had sensory alteration. You know, those things go along more with a disk abnormality, or at least the lumbar spine abnormality and a nerve root compression problem.\nIn the third stage of his analysis, Dr. Amundson assessed the potential causal relationship between plaintiffs 9 November 2001 incident at work and his herniated disk as follows:\nThe patient tells me that, you know, he had presented for work, he developed back and leg pain, thereafter certainly lifting windows, twisting motion is a sufficient cause to cause a disk herniation. And the disk herniation would account for the patient\u2019s radiating leg pain and the sensory abnormality that he had.\nAsked to clarify whether he had \u201can opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether the November 9th, 2001 incident, described to you by [plaintiff], caused or significantly aggravated any prior condition to the extent that he required the surgery, and other treatment you provided to him[,]\u201d Dr. Amundson responded:\nI think I came close to answering that question earlier when I said, you know, I\u2019m really relying on what the patient tells me. And I think the description of lifting windows is a sufficient cause to injure a disk, which will result in a disk herniation. So within\u2014 within that context I would say yes.\nHe further affirmed that nothing contained in plaintiff\u2019s medical records from Piedmont Triad \u201celiminates or contradicts the opinion that I gave[.]\u201d\nNor was Dr. Amundson\u2019s opinion affected by his review of plaintiff\u2019s medical records following the 9 November 2001 incident. Presented by defendant\u2019s counsel with plaintiff\u2019s records from PrimeCare, Dr. Amundson testified, \u201cSo, if I wanted to put all of this together in a sensible manner, I\u2019d say, you know, he had a pulled muscle back in October. He lifted the windows [on 9 November 2001]. He aggravated the preexisting hamstring injury, and caused his disk injury.\u201d When pressed by defendant\u2019s counsel, Dr. Amundson reiterated his position, as follows:\nQ. . . . [H]ow can you causally relate the herniated disk to November 9 of 2001 [?]\nA. ... I think if I want to put all of this together in a sensible way, ... I would say he had a preexisting muscular problem. He describes injuring himself. The first thing that shows is the aggravation of that preexisting muscle injury. And at least by the time I see him, he now has persistent symptoms, and he\u2019s developed radiculopathy. You know, very often the disk herniation occurs and it takes a while for the radiculopathy to show itself. This may have been what caught his attention first.\nWhile defendant dismisses Dr. Amundson\u2019s reasoning due to the similarity of the symptoms recorded at PrimeCare to those displayed by plaintiff at Piedmont Triad in October of 2001, we note in plaintiff\u2019s hearing testimony that his records from PrimeCare did not accurately reflect the type of pain he experienced after 9 November 2001, or his lack of improvement during the course of his treatment at PrimeCare. The Commission\u2019s opinion and award includes a finding of fact that plaintiff\u2019s testimony regarding his medical history was credible. The Commission\u2019s credibility determination is unreviewable and binding on appeal. Likewise, Dr. Amundson was entitled to credit his patient\u2019s account of his own pain symptoms in formulating his expert opinion.\nHaving found competent evidence to support the Commission\u2019s finding of causation, we affirm its award of benefits to plaintiff.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCullough, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Maynard & Harris, P.L.L.C., by Celeste M. Harris, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Robinson & Rawing, L.L.R, by Jolinda J. Babcock, for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RONNIE ROGERS, Employee, Plaintiff v. LOWE\u2019S HOME IMPROVEMENT, Employer, SELF INSURED (SRS SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, Servicing Agent), Defendant\nNo. COA04-845\n(Filed 19 April 2005)\nWorkers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 causation \u2014 medical history and testimony \u2014 credibility\nThere was competent evidence to support the Industrial Commission\u2019s finding of causation in a workers\u2019 compensation case where the finding was that plaintiff first injured his hamstring, then suffered a herniated disk. Although defendant challenged the testimony of plaintiff\u2019s doctor as the product of an incomplete picture of plaintiff\u2019s history, the doctor was entitled to credit his patient\u2019s account of his own symptoms, and the Commission found that plaintiffs testimony about his medical history was credible.\nAppeal by defendant from opinion and award entered 11 March 2004 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 April 2005.\nMaynard & Harris, P.L.L.C., by Celeste M. Harris, for plaintiff appellee.\nRobinson & Rawing, L.L.R, by Jolinda J. Babcock, for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0759-01",
  "first_page_order": 789,
  "last_page_order": 797
}
