{
  "id": 8550618,
  "name": "IRISH R. ARTIS, Plaintiff Employee v. N. C. BAPTIST HOSPITALS, INCORPORATED, Employer, ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE, Carrier Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Artis v. N. C. Baptist Hospitals Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1979-11-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 7910IC197",
  "first_page": "64",
  "last_page": "66",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "44 N.C. App. 64"
    }
  ],
  "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": "244 S.E. 2d 690",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 N.C. App. 621",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555029
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/36/0621-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 S.E. 2d 508",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 553",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554959
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0553-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S.E. 2d 523",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551245
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/14/0574-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 571",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548479
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "250"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/18/0249-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 386,
    "char_count": 5363,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.829,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3793506880130849
    },
    "sha256": "ba1a9bae7e3af08648df44e95217091f5877ad8843ab4fd7887e4b525b8ca5ec",
    "simhash": "1:2059b6e9a99b0d0f",
    "word_count": 857
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:31.887789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges VAUGHN and ERWIN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IRISH R. ARTIS, Plaintiff Employee v. N. C. BAPTIST HOSPITALS, INCORPORATED, Employer, ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE, Carrier Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HILL, Judge.\nThe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act does not provide compensation for an injury, but only for an injury suffered by accident. See G.S. 97-2(6).\nA . . . back injury suffered by an employee does not arise by accident if the employee at the time was merely carrying out his usual and customary duties in the usual way. (Citation omitted.) Injury arising out of lifting objects in the ordinary course of an employee\u2019s business is not caused by accident where such activity is performed in the ordinary manner, free from confining or otherwise exceptional conditions and surroundings. (Citation omitted.) Russell v. Yarns, Inc., 18 N.C. App. 249, 250, 196 S.E. 2d 571 (1973).\nPlaintiff asserts that her injury resulted from exceptional circumstances; that the extreme weight of the patient, the patient\u2019s condition, the smallness of the room, and the position of the bed and life support equipment all combined to create exceptional surroundings. Furthermore, plaintiff asserts that her normal work routine had been interrupted when she responded to her coworker\u2019s call for assistance.\nWe find plaintiff\u2019s arguments unpersuasive. The patient, although obese, did not present an exceptional condition to plaintiff \u2014 she was assisted by two of her co-workers. Turning patients was part of plaintiff\u2019s job, and there is no evidence that the hospital room and its condition were any different than plaintiff was used to working in. Plaintiff was not called away from her job, but instead was helping one of her co-workers as would normally be expected.\nSeveral North Carolina cases have dealt with similar circumstances and are controlling here.\nIn Garmon v. Tridair Industries, Inc., 14 N.C. App. 574, 188 S.E. 2d 523 (1972), claimant\u2019s duties included assembling hydraulic pipes and putting them on steel frames. While lifting one of the 150-pound frames over some cables, claimant suffered a back injury. Recovery was denied. The Industrial Commission found that claimant was performing his usual and customary duties at the time of the injury. This Court affirmed.\nIn Beamon v. Grocery, 27 N.C. App. 553, 219 S.E. 2d 508 (1975), claimant was employed as a grocery store checker whose duties included bagging groceries. While lifting a 20-pound bag of charcoal, claimant suffered a back injury. The Commission denied an award of compensation, and the Court upheld the ruling.\nIn Curtis v. Mechanical Systems, 36 N.C. App. 621, 244 S.E. 2d 690 (1978), claimant suffered a hernia while lifting a heat pump onto a hand truck. Claimant was part of a three-man crew employed to install the pumps at a construction site, but in this instance had lifted a 350-pound unit by himself. The Commission ruled that there was no injury by accident and the Court affirmed.\nFor the reasons stated above, the opinion and award of the Industrial Commission is\nAffirmed.\nJudges VAUGHN and ERWIN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HILL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. Warren Sparrow and George A. Bedsworth, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Hutchins, Tyndall, Bell, Davis & Pitt, by Walter W. Pitt, Jr., for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IRISH R. ARTIS, Plaintiff Employee v. N. C. BAPTIST HOSPITALS, INCORPORATED, Employer, ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE, Carrier Defendants\nNo. 7910IC197\n(Filed 20 November 1979)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 65.2\u2014 workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 nurse turning patient \u2014 back injury \u2014 no accident\nPlaintiff\u2019s injury suffered during the course of her employment was not the result of an accident within the meaning of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act where the evidence tended to show that the injury occurred while plaintiff nurse was helping her co-workers turn an unconscious obese patient in bed, and that such activity was a normal part of plaintiff\u2019s work.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from order of North Carolina Industrial Commission entered 14 November 1978. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 23 October 1979.\nPlaintiff is a nurse employed by defendant Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem. On 25 September 1977, while assisting two other nurses, plaintiff injured her back.\nPlaintiff had been called by one of her co-workers to assist the nurse and one other nurse in turning an unconscious patient who weighed 300 pounds. Care had to be exercised in turning the patient as she had just undergone a lumbar puncture. Plaintiff began lifting the middle portion of the patient, but during the process felt a catch in her back and could not straighten up. Subsequently, plaintiff was taken to the emergency room.\nOn 4 October 1977, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Anthony Gristina. The doctor diagnosed interscapular myositis and recommended a course of treatment. Between 24 October 1977 and 14 February 1978, plaintiff returned to work on a gradually increasing basis. By 19 April 1978, Dr. Gristina felt that plaintiff was doing well working four days a week, but that she tended to have some recurrences on a five day schedule.\nIn an opinion filed on 14 November 1978, the Industrial Commission adopted the earlier findings of fact and conclusions of law of Deputy Commissioner Shuping; concluded that plaintiff\u2019s injury, although sustained during the normal course of employment, was not the result of an accident as that term is contemplated by G.S. 97-2(6); and that, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to compensation; that plaintiff had reached maximum recovery by 14 February 1978, and had no permanent disability.\nPlaintiff appealed.\nW. Warren Sparrow and George A. Bedsworth, for plaintiff appellant.\nHutchins, Tyndall, Bell, Davis & Pitt, by Walter W. Pitt, Jr., for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0064-01",
  "first_page_order": 92,
  "last_page_order": 94
}