{ "id": 8520432, "name": "JIMMY ADAMS, Plaintiff-Employee v. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Employer, and AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Insurance Carrier", "name_abbreviation": "Adams v. Burlington Industries, Inc.", "decision_date": "1983-03-15", "docket_number": "No. 8210IC389", "first_page": "258", "last_page": "262", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "61 N.C. App. 258" } ], "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": "292 S.E. 2d 18", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 N.C. App. 579", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525314 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/57/0579-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 109", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573005 ], "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 S.E. 2d 586", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 N.C. App. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552160 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/42/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 S.E. 2d 321", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 N.C. App. 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 2677777 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/50/0291-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 S.E. 2d 175", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "253 N.C. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622414 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/253/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 S.E. 2d 540", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 N.C. App. 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526804 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/55/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 865", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "867" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 697", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574378 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "700" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0697-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565668 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0586-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S.E. 2d 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1957, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "292" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625913 ], "year": 1957, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 S.E. 2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "363" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.C. App. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548849 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/46/0022-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 475, "char_count": 8800, "ocr_confidence": 0.812, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.519201914822598e-07, "percentile": 0.9465198550185745 }, "sha256": "468bf1bb8086a5b1f15155b43d7658939b3b2e6fec174a506c044bec97be58dd", "simhash": "1:1591529a366e6606", "word_count": 1466 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:13:54.976609+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HEDRICK and Whichard concur." ], "parties": [ "JIMMY ADAMS, Plaintiff-Employee v. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Employer, and AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Insurance Carrier" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRASWELL, Judge.\nUnder the North Carolina Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, an injury arising out of and in the course of employment is compen-sable only if caused by an \u201caccident.\u201d G.S. 97-2(6); Porter v. Shelby Knit, Inc., 46 N.C. App. 22, 264 S.E. 2d 360 (1980). The primary question raised by defendants in this appeal is whether plaintiffs back injury resulted from an \u201caccident.\u201d\n\u201cOur 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 Hensley v. Cooperative, [246 N.C. 274, 278, 98 S.E. 2d 289, 292 (1957)]; accord, Rhinehart v. Market, [271 N.C. 586, 157 S.E. 2d 1 (1967)]. 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]\u201d\nPorter v. Shelby Knit, Inc., supra, at 26, 264 S.E. 2d at 363.\nDefendants argue that plaintiff was not injured as the result of an accident in that he was working at his regular job at the time the injury occurred. Plaintiffs supervisor testified that plaintiff was expected to fill in when other employees were absent and had worked at the hot box on previous occasions. Defendants contend that plaintiffs regular job and the hot box job involved the same amount of exertion, but in reverse order.\nThe findings of fact relating to the accident issue are finding number 1 which states in part that in his regular job, \u201cplaintiff was not required to turn or twist his body in any direction\u201d and finding number 4 which reads as follows:\n\u201c4. That the plaintiff was required to turn and twist his body in order to lift chairs on the occasion complained of was different from his normal routine of lifting chairs with his upper torso in a straight posture and was sufficiently different from the way plaintiff normally lifted to constitute an interruption of the plaintiff\u2019s normal work routine and the introduction of new circumstances not a part of his normal routine. Thus, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and during the course of his employment with the defendant employer.\u201d\nThe findings are supported by testimony of plaintiff and his co-worker Bill Edwards that plaintiff\u2019s regular job was that of a packer-stenciler, which involved taking chairs from the conveyor belt, turning them upside down, putting them in cartons and then stapling the cartons closed. His duties on the hot box job were to pick up chairs, to place them on the hydraulic box, to reach and twist around, and to pick chairs up and place them on the tray on the conveyor belt. On 23 October 1979 plaintiff was performing the hot box job, twisted around to pick up a chair and felt a sharp pain in his hip. Plaintiff demonstrated the various positions in which he performed his regular and the hot box jobs. He stated that in comparing the two jobs, there was not as much twisting around in his regular job. On the hot box, plaintiff had to pick up all the chairs on the conveyor belt, while in his regular job he picked up every third, fourth or fifth chair.\nWe find that plaintiff\u2019s testimony constituted competent evidence from which the Deputy Commissioner (and the Full Commission by adoption) could have found that there was \u201can interruption of the plaintiff\u2019s normal work routine and the introduction of new circumstances not a part of his normal routine.\u201d The findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if there was any competent evidence to support them. Jackson v. Highway Commission, 272 N.C. 697, 700, 158 S.E. 2d 865, 867 (1968); Locklear v. Robeson County, 55 N.C. App. 96, 284 S.E. 2d 540 (1981). The findings are thus binding on this Court, even though the evidence presented could possibly have supported findings to the contrary. Searcy v. Branson, 253 N.C. 64, 116 S.E. 2d 175 (1960).\nThe facts found by the Deputy Commissioner and adopted by the Full Commission support the conclusion that plaintiff\u2019s injury resulted from an \u201caccident.\u201d Although increased volume of work is not sufficient in itself to constitute an interruption of the normal work routine or the introduction of new circumstances not part of the usual work routine, Dyer v. Livestock, Inc., 50 N.C. App. 291, 273 S.E. 2d 321 (1981); Reams v. Burlington Industries, 42 N.C. App. 54, 255 S.E. 2d 586 (1979), the combined extra exertion and twisting movements required by the hot box job do support the conclusion that plaintiff\u2019s injury resulted from an unexpected and unforeseen event not anticipated or designed by the employee. Harding v. Thomas & Howard Co., 256 N.C. 427, 124 S.E. 2d 109 (1962). The work routine of plaintiff\u2019s lifting chairs with his upper torso in a straight posture was interrupted by the introduction of the turning and twisting movements required by the hot box job. We hold that the Commission properly concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff sustained an injury by \u201caccident.\u201d Gladson v. Piedmont Stores, 57 N.C. App. 579, 292 S.E. 2d 18 (1982); Locklear v. Robeson County, supra; Porter v. Shelby Knit, Inc., supra.\nWe have carefully examined defendants\u2019 other contentions, and we find no basis for reversal. The Opinion and Award of the Industrial Commission is\nAffirmed.\nJudges HEDRICK and Whichard concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRASWELL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Finger, Park and Parker by M. Neil Finger for plaintiff ap-pellee.", "Tuggle, Duggins, Meschan, Thornton & Elrod by Joseph F. Brotherton for defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JIMMY ADAMS, Plaintiff-Employee v. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Employer, and AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Insurance Carrier\nNo. 8210IC389\n(Filed 15 March 1983)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 55.3\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014evidence supporting injury by accident\nIn a workers\u2019 compensation proceeding, the evidence before the Commission was sufficient for it to find there was \u201can interruption of the plaintiffs normal work routine and the introduction of new circumstances not a part of his normal routine\u201d and to support the conclusion that plaintiffs injury resulted from an \u201caccident,\u201d where the evidence tended to show that plaintiffs normal job involved taking chairs off a conveyor belt, turning them upside down, putting them in cartons and stapling the carton tops closed but that his job on the date of the injury was to put a cardboard tray on the conveyor belt, place a chair on the tray, and cover the chair with plastic.\nAppeal by defendants from the North Carolina Industrial Commission Opinion and Award of 12 February 1982. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 February 1983.\nThis action involves a claim by plaintiff for disability benefits under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act for -injuries to his back as a result of an accident arising out of the course of his employment with defendant-employer (hereinafter \u201cBurlington\u201d). Plaintiff began his employment as a packer-stenciler for Burlington in April 1979. His job involved taking chairs off a conveyor belt, turning them upside down, putting them in cartons and stapling the carton tops closed. On 23 October 1979 plaintiff was asked to work on the \u201chot box\u201d because the worker who normally operated it was absent that day. The \u201chot box\u201d job involved putting a cardboard tray on the conveyor belt, placing a chair on the tray and covering the chair with plastic. The conveyor belt transported the chair through the \u201chot box\u201d which shrank the plastic around the chair. Plaintiff began working on the \u201chot box\u201d at 7:00 a.m. and worked until 10:30 a.m., when he felt a tingle in his left hip and a sharp pain in his back. He reported the injury to his supervisor but continued working for the remainder of the day. He experienced some pain but returned to his regular job for the remaining three days of the week.\nPlaintiff received intermittent medical treatment and continued to work sporadically until he was laid off by Burlington on 16 January 1980. Plaintiff has not worked for Burlington since that date.\nIn March 1980, plaintiff was diagnosed by Dr. Richard Adams, an orthopedic surgeon, as having a herniated fifth lumbar disc. A hemilaminectomy was performed on plaintiff on 7 July 1980.\nBased upon these facts, the Deputy Commissioner concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff sustained an injury on 23 October 1979 arising out of and during the course of his employment with Burlington and that as a result of the injury, plaintiff was temporarily totally disabled from 13 March 1980 to 1 September 1980. Defendants were ordered to pay plaintiff compensation at the rate of $108.54 per week from 13 March 1980 to 1 September 1980. Upon appeal by defendants, the full Commission on 12 February 1982 affirmed the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner. Defendants appeal to this Court from that decision.\nFinger, Park and Parker by M. Neil Finger for plaintiff ap-pellee.\nTuggle, Duggins, Meschan, Thornton & Elrod by Joseph F. Brotherton for defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0258-01", "first_page_order": 290, "last_page_order": 294 }