I.C. NO. 15-007878, DEBORAH WRIGHT LEWIS, Employee, Plaintiff v.

LOWE’S
HOME CENTERS, LLC, Employer, SELF-INSURED (SEDGWICK CLAIMS
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Third-Party Administrator), Defendant. OPINION AND
AWARD for the Full Commission by TAMMY R. NANCE, Commissioner, and DISSENT
by CHRISTOPHER C. LOUTIT, Commissioner, N.C. Industrial Commission. Filed 24
July 2017.
This matter was reviewed by the Full Commission on April 19, 2017, upon Defendant’s
appeal from the November 9, 2016 Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner William H.
Shipley, who heard this case in Asheville, North Carolina on April 13, 2016. In addition to the
stipulated exhibits set out below, Deputy Commissioner Shipley admitted exhibits produced by
Plaintiff and Defendant, which include written statements, short-term disability documentation,
wage information, and discovery responses and were made part of the evidence of record.
APPEARANCES
Plaintiff: Root & Root, PLLC; Weaverville, North Carolina; Louise
Critz Root, appearing.
Defendant: Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog, LLP; Charlotte, North Carolina;
Erin Taylor, appearing.
***********
Having reviewed the prior Opinion and Award, the record of the proceedings before
Deputy Commissioner Shipley, the Form 44 Application for Review , and the briefs and
arguments of the parties, the Full Commission enters the following Opinion and Award pursuant
to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-85.
***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as a matter of law the following, which
were entered into by the parties as:
Code 210
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 2
STIPULATIONS
1. On February 11, 2015, and at all relevant times, Defendant had three or more
employees and the above-noted parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North
Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act.
2. The above-noted parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial
Commission, which has jurisdiction of this claim and subject matter.
3. On February 11, 2015, and at all relevant times, an employee-employer
relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant.
4. Defendant was a duly qualified self-insured employer on the date of this injury,
February 11, 2015. Sedgwick Claims Management Services is the servicing agent for Defendant
for this workers’ compensation claim.
5. Plaintiff maintains and Defendant denies that Plaintiff experienced a compensable
injury to her right shoulder and arm on or about February 11, 2015.
6. Plaintiff maintains and Defendant denies that a recorded statement was taken
from Plaintiff regarding this injury.
7. Plaintiff’s average weekly wage is $423.39, which yields a compensation rate of
$282.26.
8. Plaintiff continued to work through June 23, 2015. Plaintiff has not worked since
June 23, 2015.
9. Defendant contends that Plaintiff applied for and received short-term disability
benefits through an employer-sponsored plan. The amount of benefits will be submitted at a
later date.
***********
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 3
The following documents were admitted into evidence by Deputy Commissioner Shipley
as:
STIPULATED EXHIBITS
1. Stipulated Exhibit # 1 – Pre-Trial Agreement; and
2. Stipulated Exhibit # 2 – Industrial Commission forms and filings and Plaintiff’s
medical records.
***********
DEPOSITIONS
The transcripts of the depositions of the following witnesses, including all exhibits
offered during the depositions, were admitted into evidence by Deputy Commissioner Shipley:
1. Ms. McKenzie Miller Elkin, taken on May 27, 2016;
2. Ms. Michele Hobson, taken on June 8, 2016;
3. Dr. Jay Jansen, taken on June 9, 2016;
4. Mr. John Wood, taken on June 9, 2016;
5. Ms. Karen Beam, taken on June 16, 2016;
6. Plaintiff, taken on June 16, 2016; and
7. Dr. Thomas Rennard, taken on July 14, 2016.
***********
Based upon the competent evidence adduced from the record, the Full Commission
makes the following additional:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 4
1. Plaintiff is a fifty-three year old high school graduate who, as of the date of her
alleged injury, had been an employee of Defendant for almost three years and had held positions
as a cashier, customer service desk clerk, and customer service associate.
2. On February 11, 2015, Plaintiff was working for Defendant as a customer service
associate in the hardware department and had been in this position for approximately one year.
Plaintiff’s usual duties as a customer service associate involved assisting customers, stocking
shelves, and down-stocking merchandise.
3. Defendant maintains merchandise on shelving that extends from the floor to over
eight feet high. Customer service associates in the hardware department are regularly required to
stand on ladders and reach overhead to take items weighing thirty pounds or more from the top
shelves to replenish the lower shelves, so that the merchandise is accessible to customers. This
task is referred to as “down-stocking.”
4. On February 11, 2015, Plaintiff was standing on a ladder down-stocking a thirty-
pound box of nails and screws when she injured her right shoulder. Plaintiff contends that the
right shoulder injury was the result of an interruption of her regular work routine because the box
in question “got crooked” in her hand and that to avoid dropping it, she had to shove it into the
next shelf down. Plaintiff testified that she felt the pop and pain in her shoulder only after she
started to lose control of the box and it jerked her arm.
5. On February 11, 2015, Michael Dixon was employed by Defendant as the
Assistant Store Manager. Mr. Dixon’s employment with Defendant was involuntarily terminated
for “poor store conditions” in July 2015. Mr. Dixon testified that he and Plaintiff are friends.
Mr. Dixon and Plaintiff testified that Plaintiff reported her injury to Mr. Dixon on February 11,
2015, but that Mr. Dixon did not complete the requisite paperwork or otherwise commit to
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 5
writing what Plaintiff told him had occurred. On March 19, 2016, just prior to the hearing before
the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Dixon wrote a letter in which he stated that “when the weight of
the product got on her hand the box twisted while pushing it into the shelf to avoid dropping it
she felt her arm pop.” Mr. Dixon testified that he wrote this letter at Plaintiff’s request, and
revised his initial draft of the letter at Plaintiff’s request. When asked during cross-examination
at the hearing of this matter whether he specifically recalled Plaintiff telling him on February 11,
2015 that her shoulder popped after the box shifted in her hand, as opposed to it popping in the
normal course of lifting the box, Mr. Dixon testified, “No, I cannot without [sic] any certainty
say one way or the other.” Plaintiff also asked Ricky Bolanos to write a similar letter for her in
March 2016. In his letter, Mr. Bolanos, who is a friend of Plaintiff and is employed by
Defendant as an appliance department manager, indicated that Plaintiff told him that the box of
nails “got crooked and started to drop,” that she was able to push the box into the next shelf, and
she felt pain in her shoulder. On cross-examination, Mr. Bolanos was asked more specifically,
“so did the shoulder pop as it was getting crooked in her hand, after when she put the box on the
shelf, when?” Mr. Bolanos responded, “I couldn’t tell you that part exactly.”
6. Juan Carlos Muniz was employed by Defendant as an Assistant Store Manager in
February 2015. Plaintiff reported her right shoulder injury to Mr. Muniz on February 16, 2015
and Mr. Muniz completed the necessary paperwork. Mr. Muniz completed a Form 19,
Employer’s Report of Employee’s Injury or Occupational Disease to the Industrial Commission .
Based upon Plaintiff’s report to him, Mr. Muniz indicated on the Form 19 that “while pulling a
box of nails down, she felt a pop in her right shoulder.” Mr. Muniz also had Plaintiff complete
an “Employee Statement,” in which Plaintiff indicated, in her own handwriting, that the injury
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 6
occurred as follows: “While downstocking on screws and nails and felt shoulder pop and almost
dropped box and yelled for Aaron who was on same aisle, but was able to get product in shelf.”
7. When Plaintiff reported her injury to Mr. Muniz, a “Nurse Advocacy Report” was
completed with input from Plaintiff. For “description of injury,” the Nurse Advocacy Report
states, “down stocking – reaching for box of merchandise and felt shoulder ‘pop’ – experienced
pain.” For “mechanism of injury,” the Nurse Advocacy Report states, “strain or injury by
reaching.”
8. Aaron Parcell was employed by Defendant from February 2011 to June 2015, and
was working in the same aisle in the same department as Plaintiff at the time of the injury on
February 11, 2015. Mr. Parcell saw that Plaintiff was down-stocking, but he was not looking at
Plaintiff the moment the injury occurred. Mr. Parcell testified that he heard Plaintiff yell his
name, but he did not hear or see her fumble the box of nails and screws. Mr. Parcell recalled that
Plaintiff was holding her shoulder and told him that she heard a pop.
9. On February 16, 2015, after she reported the injury to Mr. Muniz, Plaintiff was
directed by Lowe’s to FastMed Urgent Care, where she was seen by McKenzie Miller Elkin,
P.A. Plaintiff complained of severe right shoulder pain which she attributed to a work injury on
February 11, 2015 when she “was pulling a 25-30 lb box overhead when she heard a pop and
immediately felt shoulder pain.” Ms. Elkin diagnosed “sprain/strain shoulder/arm,” prescribed
Flexeril and Naprosyn, and released Plaintiff to return to work with restrictions.
10. On February 18, 2015, Karen Beam, the Sedgwick adjuster assigned to handle
this claim, spoke to Plaintiff on the phone regarding the circumstances of her injury. Ms. Beam
kept log notes regarding her conversation with Plaintiff but did not record the telephone call.
Plaintiff told Ms. Beam that she was down-stocking nails and screws and her right shoulder
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 7
popped. Plaintiff told Ms. Beam that nothing unusual happened to cause the injury. On
February 19 and February 26, 2015, Defendant completed Forms 61, Denial of Workers’
Compensation Claim , indicating that Plaintiff’s claim was being denied because “there is no
evidence to support an injury by accident . . . .” Plaintiff did not file a Form 18, Notice of
Accident to Employer and Claim of Employee, Representative or Dependent , until July 30, 2015.
11. On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff presented to her primary care physician, Dr. Thomas
Rennard, complaining of shoulder pain. Dr. Rennard’s office note indicates that Plaintiff told
him that she had an injury to her right shoulder at work on February 11, 2015 when she “was
lifting boxes of nails and felt a pop, nearly dropped the box.” Dr. Rennard testified at his
deposition that “she said she had been instructed to move boxes of nails from an upper shelf to a
lower shelf and felt there was a pop in her shoulder.” However, after a visit from Plaintiff on
February 4, 2016 and a subsequent phone call from Plaintiff, Dr. Rennard drafted a letter on
March 2, 2016 in which he stated that “in moving them [boxes of nails] from one shelf to
another, she lost control of the 30 lb box of nails which resulted in a popping sensation in her
shoulder.” With regard to the sequence of events leading up to the injury, Dr. Rennard testified
at his deposition as follows:
Q. And as far as the sequence of events and the timing, this
would seem to indicate that the pop occurred before she
dropped the box; is that correct?
A. That’s correct, and I actually would anticipate that as well.
So in terms of the slippage that would happen, I would say
that the injury would have occurred while the weight was
still in her control.
Dr. Rennard went on to explain that it was the weight being held by Plaintiff in the position she
was in that would create the injury, not the box slipping out of the hand, as that would release the
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 8
stress on the shoulder. According to Dr. Rennard, “losing control isn’t really the issue. The
issue is that she had 30 pounds over head in a bad position that created a tear.”
12. On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff came under the care of Dr. Jay Jansen and John
Wood, P.A., at Blue Ridge Bone & Joint. Dr. Jansen testified that Plaintiff told him she was
trying to reach some nails, felt a pain in her shoulder, and ended up dropping the nails.
13. On April 29, 2015, at her first physical therapy appointment, Plaintiff reported to
physical therapist Michele Hobson that “she injured her shoulder 2/11/15 when she was moving
a box of nails at work and it slipped and jerked her arm causing her shoulder to pop.”
14. On June 24, 2015, after failed conservative treatment, Dr. Jansen performed
arthroscopic surgery on Plaintiff’s right shoulder consisting of biceps tenotomy, labral
debridement, rotator cuff debridement and repair, subacromial decompression acromioplasty,
and distal clavicle excision. When Plaintiff did not improve post-operatively, Dr. Jansen
performed a second right shoulder surgery consisting of an open revision right rotator cuff repair.
Dr. Jansen has restricted Plaintiff from work in any capacity since June 24, 2015.
15. Plaintiff testified that she injured her left knee when she tripped on a rug while
attending post-operative physical therapy on October 14, 2015. Dr. Jansen ordered an MRI of
the knee which he felt showed some arthritis, or arthritis combined with some meniscal
pathology. Plaintiff testified that she underwent left knee surgery on March 22, 2016. However,
there is neither documentation of any such surgery in the record nor any testimony elicited from
Dr. Jansen regarding the knee condition, the knee surgery, the necessity thereof, or any causal
relationship with Plaintiff’s alleged accident of February 11, 2015 or her trip and fall on October
14, 2015. Plaintiff presented insufficient evidence that her knee injury and surgery were causally
related to either her February 11, 2015 alleged accident or the October 14, 2015 incident, or that
I.C. No. 15-007878
Page 9
the treatment she received for her left knee was reasonably necessary to effect a cure, provide
relief, or lessen the period of her disability.
16. The Full Commission, having considered the testimony of all Plaintiff’s medical
providers, places greater weight on the testimony offered by Dr. Jansen, who operated on
Plaintiff’s shoulder twice. When asked to testify whether the alleged February 11, 2015 injury
by accident caused the shoulder problems he had treated, Dr. Jansen was only able to state that it
was “plausible,” “conceivable,” or “possible.” When asked to state whether there was, “more
likely than not,” a causal relationship, Dr. Jansen responded, “not necessarily.” When asked to
assume that Plaintiff did not have any prior problems with her shoulder, Dr. Jansen said that he
still didn’t know if there was a causal relationship. Dr. Jansen is a board-certified orthopaedic
surgeon and is unable, even after two surgeries, to identify “what the pathologic problem with
[Plaintiff’s] shoulder is.” After testifying that he could “buy into” Plaintiff’s counsel’s
suggestion that there may be a fifty-five to sixty percent likelihood of a causal relationship, Dr.
Jansen went on to state that while it was certainly possible that Plaintiff’s shoulder pain has
stemmed from the February 11, 2015 incident, “the degree of certainty to that . . . I don’t know.”
17. The Full Commission, having considered the entirety of the testimony of the
witnesses and the stipulated exhibits, places greater weight on how Plaintiff described her injury
in her February 16, 2015 written statement, how she described her injury to Ms. Beam, and what
the stipulated records indicate she said to Mr. Muniz and Ms. Elkin on February 16, 2015, Dr.
Rennard on March 23, 2015, and Dr. Jansen and Mr. Wood on April 13, 2015. Based upon the
foregoing, the Full Commission does not find credible the testimony and evidence which would
suggest that Plaintiff’s shoulder injury occurred when the box of nails became crooked in her
hand and she tried to maintain control and place the box of nails on the lower shelf. Based upon
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 10
a preponderance of the evidence in view of the entire record, the Full Commission finds that
Plaintiff was engaged in her usual and customary duties, reaching overhead and lifting a box of
nails when, without any interruption of her work routine, she felt a pop and pain in her shoulder.
18. Assuming, arguendo , that Plaintiff’s right shoulder injury occurred in the manner
she described at the hearing, the Full Commission finds that Plaintiff has failed to prove that the
right shoulder condition which required treatment and disabled her was causally related to the
alleged February 11, 2015 injury by accident.
***********
Based upon the foregoing Stipulations and Findings of Fact, the Full Commission enters
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. In workers’ compensation cases, Plaintiff has the burden of proving every element
of compensability, including causation. Harvey v. Raleigh Police Dep’t , 96 N.C. App. 28, 35,
384, S.E.2d 549, 553 (1989). As part of this burden, Plaintiff must present evidence establishing
these elements by a preponderance of the evidence in view of the entire record. N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 97-84 (2016).
2. For an injury to be compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act, it must
be the result of an accident as defined in the statute and case law. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6)
(2016); Cody v. Snider Lumber Co. , 328 N.C. 67, 70, 399 S.E.2d 104, 106 (1991). In Adams v.
Burlington Indus. Inc. , the North Carolina Court of Appeals explained in detail the requirements
of a compensable accident under the Act:
Our Supreme Court has defined the term “accident” as used in the
Workers’ Compensation Act as “an unlooked for and untoward
event which is not expected or designed by the person who suffers
the injury.” Hensley v. Farmers Fed’n Coop. , 246 N.C. 274, 278,
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 11
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 “accident” are the
interruption of the routine of work and the introduction thereby of
unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences.
61 N.C. App. 258, 260, 300 S.E.2d 455, 456 (1983) (citing Porter v. Shelby Knit, Inc. , 46 N.C.
App. 22, 26, 264 S.E.2d 360, 363 (1980)).
3. Evidence of unusual exertion is “sufficient to bring into an event . . . the necessary
element of unusualness and unexpectedness from which accident may be inferred.” Porter v.
Shelby Knit, Inc. , 46 N.C. App. 22, 27, 264 S.E.2d 360, 363 (1980). However, “once an activity,
even a strenuous or otherwise unusual activity, becomes a part of the employee’s normal work
routine, an injury caused by such activity is not the result of an interruption of the work routine
or otherwise an ‘injury by accident’ under the Workers’ Compensation Act.” Bowles v. CTS of
Asheville, Inc. , 77 N.C. App. 547, 550, 335 S.E.2d 502, 504 (1985). The preponderance of the
evidence in this matter demonstrates that the task of reaching overhead to down-stock a thirty-
pound box of nails and screws is a normal part of Plaintiff’s work routine, and that on February
11, 2015, Plaintiff simply reached overhead, lifted the box from the top shelf, and felt a pop and
pain in her shoulder while lowering the box to place it on a lower shelf. The pop, or injury to her
left shoulder, occurred while Plaintiff was performing her usual and customary duties in normal
fashion, with no interruption of the regular work routine or introduction of unusual conditions
likely to result in unexpected consequences. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not sustain an injury by
accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with Defendant on February 11,
2015. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6) (2016); Adams at 260, 300 S.E.2d at 456.
***********
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 12
Based upon the foregoing Stipulations, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Full
Commission makes the following:
AWARD
1. Plaintiff’s claim for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act is hereby
DENIED.
This the 7th day of July, 2017.
S/
TAMMY R. NANCE
COMMISSIONER
CONCURRING:
S/
YOLANDA K. STITH
VICE-CHAIRMAN
DISSENTING:
S/
CHRISTOPHER C. LOUTIT
COMMISSIONER
TRN:jb
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 13
I.C. NO. 15-007878, DEBORAH WRIGHT LEWIS, Employee, Plaintiff v. LOWE’S
HOME CENTERS, LLC, Employer, SELF-INSURED (SEDGWICK CLAIMS
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Third-Party Administrator), Defendant. DISSENT by
CHRISTOPHER C. LOUTIT, Commissioner, N.C. Industrial Commission. Filed 24 July
2017.
CHRISTOPHER C. LOUTIT, COMMISSIONER, DISSENTING:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s Opinion and Award herein finding and
concluding that plaintiff did not sustain an injury by accident on or about February 11, 2015.
Plaintiff testified that her mechanism of injury constituted an unusual event which
interrupted her work routine and introduced unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected
consequences. Plaintiff was a good employee with no prior experience with the workers’
compensation system. As a customer service associate, plaintiff’s usual job duties include
stocking shelves and down-stocking merchandise. While standing on a ladder and pulling a
thirty-pound box of nails off the top shelf, plaintiff lost control of the box and the weight of the
box became crooked. Under normal circumstances, plaintiff would move the boxes vertically
onto the ladder, then down to the floor level. Due to the mishandling, plaintiff believed she was
going to drop the box of nails. Rather than placing the box onto the ladder, then bringing it
vertically down to the floor as originally intended, plaintiff was forced to shove the box
horizontally into the shelf below the top shelf. Plaintiff neither desired nor intended for this
horizontal movement resulting in the box being placed in this location. It was unusual to place
the box in this location under the circumstances. Plaintiff testified that it was not normal that she
would lose control of a box and nearly drop it. Plaintiff further testified that while she had
moved boxes of nails on many other occasions, this instance represented the first time that such a
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 14
mishandling of a box ever occurred. In the course of losing control of the box and redirecting it
to the wrong shelf, she heard a pop and felt immediate pain in her right shoulder.
While defendants contend that plaintiff’s injury occurred before she lost control of the
box, sufficient record evidence, including plaintiff’s first-hand testimonial account, demonstrates
that plaintiff maintained some control over the box as it came down when she had to redirect it to
the wrong shelf using an unusual exertion, thereby establishing an interruption to the normal
work routine. After plaintiff lifted the box off the top shelf, the mechanism of injury was set into
motion, but culminated as plaintiff lost control of the box and shoved it horizontally onto the
wrong shelf and injured her right shoulder.
“[E]vidence tending to support a plaintiff’s claim is to be viewed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, and ‘plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference to
be drawn from the evidence.’” McRae v. Toastermaster, Inc. , 358 N.C. 488, 496, 597 S.E.2d
695, 700-01 (2004) ( quoting Adams v. AVX Corp. , 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414
(1998)). Based upon plaintiff’s description of how her injury occurred, which I believe to be
credible, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has shown that she sustained an injury by accident
arising out of and in the course of her employment. Id. The method employed by plaintiff in
moving the box from a crooked position onto the wrong shelf represented the introduction of an
unusual condition which interrupted her work routine and thereby introduced “unusual
conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences.” Gunter v. Dayco Corp. , 317 N.C. 670,
673, 346 S.E. 2d 395, 397 (1986). The facts of this case are analogous to Barnette v. Lowe’s
Home Centers, Inc. and Calderwood v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. , where the Court
determined that even if an employee is injured while performing usual strenuous duties, if
unusual conditions interrupt the normal work routine resulting in the injury, an accident is
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 15
proven. ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 785 S.E.2d 161, 166 (2016); 135 N.C. App. 112, 519 S.E.2d
61 (1999). In the instant matter, plaintiff’s normal work routine was interrupted by the unusual
condition of losing control of the box after it became crooked, and redirecting it to the wrong
location. Id. Our Courts have held that an accident will be inferred when there is an interruption
of the normal work routine which introduces unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected
consequences. Gunter , 317 N.C. at 673, 346 S.E. 2d at 397; Harding v. Thomas & Howard Co. ,
256 N.C. 427, 429, 124 S.E.2d 109, 111 (1962); Raper v. Mansfield Systems Inc ., 189 N.C. App.
277, 284, 657 S.E.2d 899, 906 (2008). “This rule applies even where the usual tasks of an
employee’s work are physically awkward, strenuous, or demanding.” Barnette v. Lowe’s Home
Centers, Inc. , ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 785 S.E.2d 161, 166 (2016).
With respect to causation, I believe that plaintiff sufficiently proved that her preexisting
right shoulder condition was aggravated, activated, or accelerated by her February 11, 2015
injury by accident. Dr. Jansen was tendered as an expert in the specialized field of orthopedic
surgery. He testified that there was a 55 or 60 percent chance that the incident in question
aggravated or activated or accelerated plaintiff’s pre-existing degenerative problems. He further
testified that plaintiff’s second shoulder surgery on May 19, 2016 was related to the same
problems addressed in the first shoulder surgery. Dr. Rennard was tendered as an expert in the
field of internal medicine. Dr. Rennard testified that plaintiff had no shoulder problems prior to
her work injury. He opined that plaintiff’s shoulder condition was more likely than not caused or
aggravated by the February 11, 2015 accident. For these reasons, plaintiff met her burden on
causation.
I.C. No. 15-007878 Page 16
Plaintiff has proven that she sustained a compensable injury by accident to her right
shoulder on February 11, 2015. Plaintiff is entitled to medical and any indemnity compensation
from June 24, 2015 and continuing.
Therefore, for the above reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision
herein.
S/
CHRISTOPHER C. LOUTIT
COMMISSIONER