 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Webb v. Shoe City9/20/2000
e based on the doctor's statement. Mr. Bowser stated that the plaintiff's previous training and experience with the company would have allowed her to do light work in the form of running the cash register, handling transactions and other paperwork, as well as straightening shoes on upper racks, depending on what the doctor's restrictions were. Her pay would remain the same.
The witness recognized the signature of Minnie Canty, Director of the Benefits Department in Charlotte, North Carolina, on a letter dated March 20, 1996, that was addressed to the plaintiff. The letter stated:
We have received notification from your doctor that you have been fully released, from your Workers' Compensation leave, to your normal duties as of March 26, 1996. David Bowser[,] your District Manager, talked to you and offered you the job as Assistant Manager in store 2722. Please report to work Tuesday[,] March 26, 1996[,] at 12:30. If you do not return to work, we will assume that you have abandoned your job.
During the plaintiff's testimony, she stated that this letter had the wrong address on it. It was addressed to "1589 Ride Street," whereas the plaintiff's address was 1599 Rice Street. The zip code was correct. She denied ever receiving this letter.
Mr. Bowser identified a second letter from Ms. Canty dated July 11, 1996, that was correctly addressed to the plaintiff and stated in part:
You were placed on medical leave of absence on July 7, 1995. As stated in the Employee Handbook, your maximum leave of absence time is 1 year. Your leave expired July 7, 1996. When you receive a full release from your doctor, you will be considered for re-employment based on the position(s) available at that time and your qualifications.
Mr. Bowser testified that he never made a specific job offer to the plaintiff but was not given the opportunity to do so, since she never contacted him as agreed after their meeting of February 6. He stated that he did not know in July of 1995 that the plaintiff had ever been released from her doctor and felt that she had an obligation to have contacted him one way or the other as to what her doctor's statement was.
Three doctor's depositions were introduced into evidence at trial. Dr. Harry Friedman, the plaintiff's neurosurgeon, first saw her on July 7, 1995. The plaintiff had been taken to the emergency room with back pain that radiated into her left leg. She related this to the June 14, 1995, incident in which she lifted the box at work. After an examination and tests, the plaintiff was diagnosed with a disk rupture. Dr. Friedman performed surgery on July 11, 1995. He found quite a bit of arthritic spurring at the T3 level, along with a mildly abnormal disk, and a ruptured disk at the T4 level. According to Dr. Friedman, the arthritic spurring pre-existed the accident by a long period of time.
By August 17, 1995, the plaintiff was doing quite well and was not having any of the pre-operative leg pain. She continued to have some back pain and numbness in her foot but did not need daily medication for either. Dr. Friedman recommended that the plaintiff increase her physical activity, as well as lose weight. He did not want her to return to work at this point.
At her September 21, 1995, visit, the plaintiff was still having pain in her back and was now complaining of right leg pain. Although most of her neurological exam was normal, Dr. Friedman recommended strict bed rest for seven to ten days and suggested that the plaintiff try to go back to light duty work in two weeks. He had been assured by the rehabilitation nurse that the plaintiff could work without doing any lifting.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|