Johnson v. City of Winston-Salem
North Carolina Court of Appeals
188 N.C. App. 383, 656 S.E.2d 608 (2008)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Stevie Johnson (plaintiff) worked as a custodian for the City of Winston-Salem (city) (defendant) for 15 years. Johnson’s job duties required Johnson to use a mechanized floor buffer and a machine to clean carpets. Johnson also worked overtime on weekends, using vibrating machinery to strip and buff gymnasium floors. Johnson was diagnosed with numerous ailments, including bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. A commissioner found, based on a physician’s testimony, that Johnson’s employment caused or significantly contributed to the development of his carpal tunnel syndrome and awarded Johnson temporary total-disability benefits. The doctor testified that vibrating equipment like the floor buffers Johnson used in his job were notorious for causing and aggravating carpal tunnel syndrome. The physician also testified that less than 1.6 percent of the general population who do not do repetitive tasks at work develop carpal tunnel syndrome, but there is approximately a 10-fold increase of the syndrome in patients who do a significant amount of work with their hands. The physician stated that Johnson’s job duties would increase his risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome. The commissioner denied benefits with respect to other conditions, and both parties appealed. The commission affirmed with modifications, finding that Johnson was not at maximum medical improvement and ordering further medical treatment, and the city appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stephens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.