{ "id": 8242107, "name": "KERICE EVANS, Employee, Plaintiff v. WILORA LAKE HEALTHCARE/HILLTOPPER HOLDING CORP., Employer, ACE/USA, Carrier, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Evans v. Wilora Lake Healthcare/Hilltopper Holding Corp.", "decision_date": "2006-11-21", "docket_number": "No. COA06-128", "first_page": "337", "last_page": "341", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "180 N.C. App. 337" } ], "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": "264 S.E.2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "363", "parenthetical": "\"[E]vidence of the necessity of extreme exertion is sufficient to bring into an event causing an injury the necessary element of unusualness and unexpectedness from which accident may be inferred.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.C. App. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548849 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "27", "parenthetical": "\"[E]vidence of the necessity of extreme exertion is sufficient to bring into an event causing an injury the necessary element of unusualness and unexpectedness from which accident may be inferred.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/46/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 S.E.2d 395", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "397" }, { "page": "397" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 670", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4779479 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "673" }, { "page": "673" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0670-01" ] }, { "cite": "543 S.E.2d 124", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155760, 1155803, 1155704, 1155669 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0351-03", "/nc/351/0351-04", "/nc/351/0351-01", "/nc/351/0351-02" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E.2d 455", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "456" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520432 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "260" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "519 S.E.2d 61", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "63", "parenthetical": "quoting Adams v. Burlington Industries, 61 N.C. App. 258, 260, 300 S.E.2d 455, 456 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 N.C. App. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11239310 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "115", "parenthetical": "quoting Adams v. Burlington Industries, 61 N.C. App. 258, 260, 300 S.E.2d 455, 456 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/135/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "3" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565668 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "588" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0586-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S.E.2d 109", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "110-11" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573005 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "428" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(6)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "485 S.E.2d 49", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 751", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 54001, 53908, 53845, 53911, 53913 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0751-03", "/nc/345/0751-04", "/nc/345/0751-01", "/nc/345/0751-02", "/nc/345/0751-05" ] }, { "cite": "477 S.E.2d 678", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "679" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N.C. App. 526", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11890015 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "528" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/124/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "290 S.E.2d 682", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "684" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572767 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "595" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E.2d 389", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "390" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559969 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "166" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0164-01" ] }, { "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" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 569, "char_count": 10084, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08, "percentile": 0.3235694436239333 }, "sha256": "0caba19426c2a325942a41214ad2e53a7ec4262b31cdaa0400a373dc1078f6d5", "simhash": "1:9d167583b8ec2ae6", "word_count": 1668 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:41:00.069129+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur." ], "parties": [ "KERICE EVANS, Employee, Plaintiff v. WILORA LAKE HEALTHCARE/HILLTOPPER HOLDING CORP., Employer, ACE/USA, Carrier, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nKerice Evans (\u201cplaintiff\u2019) appeals from the opinion and award of the Full Commission of the North Carolina Industrial Commission (the \u201cCommission\u201d) denying her claims for Workers\u2019 Compensation from Wilora Lake Health Care/Hilltopper Holding Corp. (\u201cdefendant\u201d). The Commission found and concluded plaintiff did not suffer an injury by accident on either 5 May 2003 or 20 May 2003. We affirm.\nI. Background\nDefendant is a healthcare facility where residents of various functioning levels live and receive care. Plaintiff worked for defendant as a certified nursing assistant.\nPlaintiff testified her job duties included:\nFeeding, passing trays, and feeding residents, grooming, dressing, undressing, changing their garments, whether Depends or whatever they wear. Preparing them for bed. If they\u2019re in the bed, get them up out of their bed and keeping their surroundings clean and transporting them to the dining room or to activities, whatever they might do.\nPlaintiff stated she would help residents who could not get into and out of bed by themselves.\nPlaintiff testified she was injured on 5 May 2003 and 20 May 2003 while working for defendant. On 5 May 2003, plaintiff assisted a resident\u2019s family member to help remove the resident\u2019s sweat pants. The resident was unable to turnover on her own. Plaintiff used the bed pad beneath the resident to help turn her and remove her pants. While performing these duties, plaintiff felt a \u201cpop\u201d in her left wrist.\nOn 6 May 2003, defendant sent plaintiff to Eastland Urgent Care (\u201cEastland\u201d). The physician at Eastland diagnosed plaintiff with a wrist sprain and ganglion cyst. Plaintiff was advised to wear a wrist splint and was excused from work until 10 May 2003. On 10 May 2003, plaintiff returned to Eastland complaining of pain in her left wrist. Plaintiff was referred to an orthopedist for further treatment and was excused from work until treated by the orthopedist.\nOn 12 May 2003, plaintiff presented to Dr. Roger K. Hershline (\u201cDr. Hershline\u201d). Dr. Hershline diagnosed plaintiff with a minor thumb strain, instructed her to wear a wrist splint, and to place an ice pack on her hand twice a day. Dr. Hershline returned plaintiff to a modified work schedule from 13 May 2003 through 27 May 2003.\nOn 20 May 2003, plaintiff was working light duty for defendant. As part of her light duty work, plaintiff was given a list of residents who needed vital signs taken. Plaintiff took the residents\u2019 blood pressure manually because the automatic pressure cup was broken. Plaintiff began feeling pain in her right hand and became lightheaded. Plaintiff\u2019s supervisor took her blood pressure, which was high, and told her to sit until the dinner trays arrived. Plaintiff sat until dinnertime. Plaintiff began passing food trays to residents after the food trays arrived. Plaintiff testified carrying the trays was painful to her right hand and she struggled to hold the trays in the normal manner. Plaintiff was excused from passing the trays.\nPlaintiff asserted Workers\u2019 Compensation claims against defendant based on the alleged injuries she sustained on 5 May 2003 to her left hand and on 20 May 2003 to her right hand. The Commission denied plaintiffs claims. After listing its findings of fact, the Commission concluded as a matter of law, \u201c[p]laintiff failed to establish that she suffered an injury by accident on either May 5, 2003 or May 20, 2003, as defined by the North Carolina Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. An injury is only compensable under the Act if it is caused by \u2018accident.\u2019 \u201d The Commission further concluded, \u201c[a]n injury that occurs under normal work conditions, no matter how serious the injury, is not considered an injury caused by \u2018accident\u2019 and is not compensable under the Act.\u201d Plaintiff appeals.\nII.Issue\nPlaintiff argues the Commission erred by concluding she did not sustain an injury by accident on either 5 May 2003 or 20 May 2003.\nIII. Standard of Review\nOur review of the Commission\u2019s opinion and award is limited to whether competent evidence was admitted to support the Commission\u2019s findings of fact. Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998). The Commission\u2019s findings of fact may only be set aside when \u201cthere is a complete lack of competent evidence to support them.\u201d Click v. Freight Carriers, 300 N.C. 164, 166, 265 S.E.2d 389, 390 (1980). The Commission\u2019s mixed findings of fact and all conclusions of law are fully reviewable de novo by this Court. Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co., 305 N.C. 593, 595, 290 S.E.2d 682, 684 (1982); Cauble v. Soft-Play, Inc., 124 N.C. App. 526, 528, 477 S.E.2d 678, 679 (1996), disc. rev. denied, 345 N.C. 751, 485 S.E.2d 49 (1997).\nIV. Injury bv Accident\nPlaintiff argues the evidence shows she suffered an injury by accident on both 5 May 2003 and 20 May 2003. Plaintiff asserts she injured her left wrist on 5 May 2003 and her right wrist on 20 May 2003.\nTo be compensable an \u201cinjury by accident [must arise] out of and in the course of employment.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-2(6) (2005). An accident has been defined as \u201can unlooked for and untoward event which is not expected or designed by the injured employee.\u201d Harding v. Thomas & Howard Co., 256 N.C. 427, 428, 124 S.E.2d 109, 110-11 (1962). \u201cThere must be some unforeseen or unusual event other than the bodily injury itself.\u201d Rhinehart v. Roberts Super Market, Inc., 271 N.C. 586, 588, 157 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1967).\n\u201cAn accident. . . involves \u2018the interruption of the routine of work and the introduction thereby of unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences.\u2019 \u201d Calderwood v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., 135 N.C. App. 112, 115, 519 S.E.2d 61, 63 (1999) (quoting Adams v. Burlington Industries, 61 N.C. App. 258, 260, 300 S.E.2d 455, 456 (1983)), disc. rev. denied, 351 N.C. 351, 543 S.E.2d 124 (2000). \u201cIf an employee is injured while carrying on [her] usual tasks in the usual way the injury does not arise by accident.\u201d Gunter v. Dayco Corp., 317 N.C. 670, 673, 346 S.E.2d 395, 397 (1986).\nPlaintiff argues her left hand was injured by accident resulting from the unusual and unforseen circumstances created by the resident\u2019s family member struggling to remove the resident\u2019s pants. Plaintiff argues she was forced to apply unexpected force to move the pad on which the resident was laying. Plaintiff argues her right hand was injured by accident because extra effort was required to take manual blood pressure readings instead of using the automatic pressure cup. We disagree.\nPlaintiff testified her job duties included:\nFeeding, passing trays, and feeding residents, grooming, dressing, undressing, changing their garments, whether Depends or whatever they wear. Preparing them for bed. If they\u2019re in the bed, get them up out of their bed and keeping their surroundings clean and transporting them to the dining room or to activities, whatever they might do.\nPlaintiff stated if patients could not enter and exit beds on their own she would assist them.\nPlaintiff also testified about the 5 May 2003 injury:\nThe pad is underneath the resident to keep her from wetting the bed. We also using (sic) it in transferring, whether we\u2019re turning or pulling them up and them down in the bed or whatever the situation might be. [The resident\u2019s family member] was trying to pull [the resident] towards herself, struggling to do so. And so I grabbed the pad on each corner and lifted towards her to help her bring [the resident] closer to her, because she was struggling to bring her closer in order to pull her sweat pants down off that side of her hip.\nPlaintiff contends she exerted unexpected force to move the pad on which the resident lay and her injuries resulted from an accident. See Porter v. Shelby Knit, Inc., 46 N.C. App. 22, 27, 264 S.E.2d 360, 363 (1980) (\u201c[E]vidence of the necessity of extreme exertion is sufficient to bring into an event causing an injury the necessary element of unusualness and unexpectedness from which accident may be inferred.\u201d).\nNothing in the record indicates plaintiff was performing unusual or unexpected job duties. Plaintiff did not testify her actions on either 5 May 2003 or 20 May 2003 required unexpected, unusual, or extreme exertion. \u201cIf an employee is injured while carrying on [her] usual tasks in the usual way the injury does not arise by accident.\u201d Gunter, 317 N.C. at 673, 346 S.E.2d at 397. Plaintiffs testimony shows her actions on both 5 May 2003 and 20 May 2003 were normal job duties for a certified nursing assistant. Id. Plaintiffs assignment of error is overruled.\nV. Conclusion\nThe Commission did not err in concluding as a matter of law that plaintiff failed to establish she suffered an injury by accident on either 5 May 2003 or 20 May 2003. The Commission\u2019s opinion and award is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Tania L. Leon, P.A., by Tania L. Leon, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Hedrick Eatman Gardner & Kincheloe, L.L.P., by Adam E. Whitten, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "KERICE EVANS, Employee, Plaintiff v. WILORA LAKE HEALTHCARE/HILLTOPPER HOLDING CORP., Employer, ACE/USA, Carrier, Defendants\nNo. COA06-128\n(Filed 21 November 2006)\nWorkers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 injury by accident \u2014 usual task in usual way\nThe Industrial Commission did not err in a workers\u2019 compensation case by concluding that plaintiff employee did not sustain an injury by accident on either 5 May 2003 or 20 May 2003, because: (1) if an employee is injured while carrying on his or her usual tasks in the usual way, the injury does not arise by accident; (2) nothing in the record indicated plaintiff was performing unusual or unexpected job duties; (3) plaintiff did not testify her actions on the pertinent days required unexpected, unusual, or extreme exertion; and (4) plaintiffs testimony showed her actions on the pertinent days were normal job duties for a certified nursing assistant.\nAppeal by plaintiff from opinion and award entered 6 October 2005 by Commissioner Bemadine S. Ballance for the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 October 2006.\nTania L. Leon, P.A., by Tania L. Leon, for plaintiff-appellant.\nHedrick Eatman Gardner & Kincheloe, L.L.P., by Adam E. Whitten, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0337-01", "first_page_order": 367, "last_page_order": 371 }