{ "id": 8525314, "name": "JUDITH A. GLADSON, Employee, Plaintiff v. PIEDMONT STORES/SCOTTIES DISCOUNT DRUG STORE, Employer and CASUALTY RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE, Carrier, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Gladson v. Piedmont Stores/Scotties Discount Drug Store", "decision_date": "1982-06-01", "docket_number": "No. 8110IC546", "first_page": "579", "last_page": "581", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "57 N.C. App. 579" } ], "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": "291 S.E. 2d 357", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 S.E. 2d 540", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "541-42" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 N.C.App. 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526804 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "97-98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/55/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 S.E. 2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "363" }, { "page": "362" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.C. App. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548849 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "26" }, { "page": "25" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/46/0022-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 309, "char_count": 4769, "ocr_confidence": 0.752, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.8905884952227323e-07, "percentile": 0.9012869090051197 }, "sha256": "08a576d3a4d50c47a2cdd66460eb428bd8e0d9fcbed257006ad6f93049551378", "simhash": "1:4bf2f2488dfe260e", "word_count": 769 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:38.946391+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Clark and Arnold concur." ], "parties": [ "JUDITH A. GLADSON, Employee, Plaintiff v. PIEDMONT STORES/SCOTTIES DISCOUNT DRUG STORE, Employer and CASUALTY RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE, Carrier, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nThe Industrial Commission awarded workers\u2019 compensation to plaintiff for a back injury sustained when she lifted a crate in the course of her employment as defendant employer\u2019s store manager. The principal issue is whether the Commission properly concluded that the injury resulted from an \u201caccident.\u201d G.S. 97-2(6) (1979). We hold that it did.\nOur Supreme Court has defined the term \u2018accident\u2019 as used in the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act as \u2018an unlooked for and untoward event which is not expected or designed by the person who suffers the injury.\u2019 [Citations omitted.] The elements of an \u2018accident\u2019 are the interruption of the routine of work and the introduction thereby of unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences. [Citations omitted.]\nPorter v. Shelby Knit, Inc., 46 N.C. App. 22, 26, 264 S.E. 2d 360, 363 (1980).\nAn accident is \u2018(1) an unlooked for and untoward event which is not expected or designed by the injured employee; (2) a result produced by a fortuitous cause.\u2019 [Citation omitted.] \u2018[T]here must be some unforeseen or unusual event other than the bodily injury itself\u2019 for an incident to constitute an accident within the meaning of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. [Citation omitted.]\nLocklear v. Robeson County, 55 N.C.App. 96, 97-98, 284 S.E. 2d 540, 541-42 (1981).\nThe crucial findings of facts relating to the accident issue here are the findings that the crate plaintiff lifted was \u201cheavier than she realized\u201d and \u201cheavier than usual.\u201d The findings are supported by the following competent evidence in the record:\nPlaintiff testified that the crates she was lifting were \u201cstacked 5 high.\u201d She had lifted four of the crates in one stack. She opened the lid of the fifth and found that it contained Maalox, a remedy for ills of the stomach. She lifted it and \u201crealized it was heavier than what [she] thought.\u201d When she \u201cpicked this crate up, [she] realized it was heavier than usual.\u201d It was \u201cheavier than the other ones [she] had been picking up before this.\u201d She swung it onto a pushcart to her right and \u201c[her] back started hurting and [she] fell to [her] knees on the floor.\u201d The other crates were not heavy. Compared to the others, the crate plaintiff lifted \u201cwas real heavy.\u201d\nPlaintiff\u2019s fellow employee testified that Maalox was usually separated in several different crates, with \u201c6 in one, maybe 12 in one, but very seldofm] any other; never a full crate.\u201d She estimated that, by contrast, there were approximately 24 bottles of Maalox in the crate plaintiff lifted. She testified: \u201cI would say that there was three or four times more in that crate. That would have made it three or four times heavier.\u201d\nBecause the findings that the crate plaintiff lifted was \u201cheavier than she realized\u201d and \u201cheavier than usual\u201d are supported by the foregoing competent evidence, they are conclusive on this appeal. Porter, 46 N.C. App. at 25, 264 S.E. 2d at 362. The findings support the conclusion of law that \u201c[t]here was an interruption of plaintiff\u2019s regular work routine\u201d and that she thus \u201csustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment . . . .\u201d The heavier than expected and heavier than usual nature of the crate constituted the requisite \u201cunlooked for and untoward event . . . not expected or designed by [plaintiff].\u201d Porter, supra. The work routine, the lifting of lighter crates, was interrupted by introduction of a crate heavier than expected and heavier than usual. This created an unusual condition, an unforeseen event, likely to result in unexpected consequences. The Commission was thus warranted in concluding as a matter of law that plaintiff suffered an injury \u201cby accident.\u201d Locklear, supra; Porter, supra. See also Coffey v. Automatic Lathe, --- N.C. App. ---, 291 S.E. 2d 357 (1982).\nWe have carefully examined defendants\u2019 other contentions, and we find therein no basis for reversal. The opinion and award of the Industrial Commission is therefore\nAffirmed.\nJudges Clark and Arnold concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WHICHARD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Kennedy W. Ward, P.A., for plaintiff appellee.", "Stith and Stith, by F. Blackwell Stith, for defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JUDITH A. GLADSON, Employee, Plaintiff v. PIEDMONT STORES/SCOTTIES DISCOUNT DRUG STORE, Employer and CASUALTY RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE, Carrier, Defendants\nNo. 8110IC546\n(Filed 1 June 1982)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 55.3\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014conclusion injury resulted from \u201caccident\u201d proper\nThe Industrial Commission properly concluded that plaintiffs injury resulted from an \u201caccident\u201d under G.S. 97-2(6) where plaintiff was lifting crates and lifted one which was \u201cheavier than usual\u201d and caused an injury to her back.\nAppeal by defendants from the Industrial Commission. Opinion and award filed 30 March 1981. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 January 1982.\nKennedy W. Ward, P.A., for plaintiff appellee.\nStith and Stith, by F. Blackwell Stith, for defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0579-01", "first_page_order": 609, "last_page_order": 611 }