Bailey v. Lee Company

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJanuary 21, 1997
DocketI.C. No. 343199
StatusPublished

This text of Bailey v. Lee Company (Bailey v. Lee Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bailey v. Lee Company, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1997).

Opinions

Upon review of all of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good ground to receive further evidence, or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence AFFIRMS in part and MODIFIES in part the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

The Full Commission finds as facts and concludes as matters of law the following which were agreed upon by the parties in the Form 21 Agreement for Compensation approved by the Industrial Commission on 4 August 1994 as

STIPULATIONS

1. All parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act and General Accident Insurance Company is the carrier on the risk.

2. On 30 April 1993, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident to his back arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer.

3. Plaintiff's average weekly wage, subject to verification at the time of injury, was $480.00.

4. The parties also submitted into evidence by stipulation a group of documents marked as Stipulated Exhibit 1.

* * * * * * * * * * *

The Full Commission adopts in part and modifies in part the findings of fact by the Deputy Commissioner and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the time of the hearing, plaintiff was 33 years old, with a date of birth of 24 October 1963. For his education plaintiff had completed high school and had vocational training in plumbing and electronics. Plaintiff holds a Master's License in plumbing and has supervisory experience in the plumbing trade. For his medical history, plaintiff had been to the emergency room in 1992 reporting low back pain.

2. In April 1993 plaintiff was working for defendant as a plumber. On 30 April 1993 (Friday) plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury by accident when he was hit in the back by scaffolding which was being moved on a construction site. Prior to this accident, plaintiff had sent a resume to Thompson Plumbing (hereinafter "Thompson") applying for a supervisory job with that company.

3. The accident occurred in the morning before lunch. Plaintiff was able to finish the workday and to rest over the weekend. He returned to work on Monday morning, but was only able to complete one-half of the day because of low back pain. On 5 May 1993 (Wednesday) plaintiff went to Dr. P. K. George, his family doctor, where he reported the accident with the scaffolding. Dr. George ordered x-rays; and at the time of the x-rays, there were some degenerative changes at spinal levels L5-S1, but there were no disc fractures nor disc dislocations. Dr. George referred plaintiff to Dr. Tejpal Dhillon, an orthopedic surgeon.

4. The first examination by Dr. Dhillon was on 11 May 1993 (about two weeks after the accident). At this examination there were no bruises on plaintiff's back. There were moderate spasms of the lumbar sacral muscles. The results of straight leg raising tests were positive for both the right and the left leg. At this time plaintiff was diagnosed as having an acute lumbosacral strain. Dr. Dhillon prescribed medication and physical therapy, and Dr. Dhillon excused plaintiff from work for two weeks.

5. Dr. Dhillon excused plaintiff from work for an additional period of two weeks beginning 24 May 1993 and thereafter placed plaintiff on light duty work beginning 7 July 1993. Defendant paid temporary total disability compensation to plaintiff during the above times he was out of work.

6. While still working for defendant, Dr. Dhillon referred plaintiff to Park Medical Center for a further evaluation. Dr. Kristi Peterson performed the evaluation on 27 May 1993 (about four weeks after the accident). At this time plaintiff reported that his condition had improved under Dr. Dhillon's care, but he experienced a great deal of pain when in a seated position for prolonged periods. Plaintiff walked with an antalgic gait, and used his arms to help lift himself out of a chair. The results of straight leg raising tests were negative. Plaintiff continued to suffer from a lumbosacral strain. Dr. Peterson recommended work restrictions including not lifting more than ten pounds and to alternate between sitting and standing.

7. On 19 July 1993, three days before plaintiff left defendant's employment, plaintiff underwent an Isostation B-200 Study on referral from Dr. Dhillon which indicated that plaintiff had mild back dysfunction, but no deficit in range of motion or power.

8. On 22 July 1993, plaintiff left defendant's employment to accept a better job at Thompson for which he had applied before the accident. The job with Thompson was to supervise several construction sites. The job did not involve heavy physical labor, but it did require driving for long distances. In the approximate two months plaintiff was with Thompson, he drove the company truck about 6,000 miles. Plaintiff was allowed to drive the truck home after work. About 75 percent of plaintiff's time with Thompson was spent out of the office doing field work. Plaintiff earned greater wages at Thompson than he earned with defendant-employer.

9. Rhonda Johnson worked in the Personnel Office at Thompson. Ms. Johnson saw plaintiff every day, although most of his time was spent away from the office. Plaintiff did not complain to Ms. Johnson of any physical problems doing his job, and Ms. Johnson did not notice any physical limitations from plaintiff.

10. One morning in September 1993 plaintiff was scheduled to be in the office at Thompson to review shop drawings. Plaintiff missed the meeting and was terminated. Plaintiff testified that he missed the meeting because his car broke down and that he quit the job at Thompson because he could not physically do the work due to low back pain.

11. While with Thompson, plaintiff had one examination with Dr. Dhillon on 3 August 1993. Plaintiff reported mild to moderate pain. At this examination there was mild to moderate guarding and muscle spasms on extremes of motion. Dr. Dhillon prescribed continued medication, but recommended a discontinuance of physical therapy.

12. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Dhillon on 23 September 1993. It is unclear if this was before or after plaintiff stopped working at Thompson, and his work status was not discussed in Dr. Dhillon's medical note. Plaintiff reported to Dr. Dhillon that his condition was unchanged, but that the pain was made worse when raking his yard or bending over.

13. Six weeks after the September, 1993 examination, plaintiff returned to Dr. Dhillon on 9 November 1993. Plaintiff reported continued mild to moderate discomfort, especially after a day of heavy work. Plaintiff had been out of work for more than a month at this time. On examination there were muscle spasms, moderate limitation on flexion and extension, and pain at extremes of motion. Dr. Dhillon diagnosed a mild lumbosacral sprain. It was Dr. Dhillon's opinion that plaintiff could return to work at light duty and should continue with medication. It was also Dr. Dhillon's opinion that plaintiff was at maximum medical improvement and retained a five percent permanent partial impairment to the use of his back as a result of the accident of 30 April 1993.

14. Although plaintiff claimed to be unable to perform the job requirements at Thompson, he was able to perform heavy yard work and mechanical work on his car. On 14 November 1993 (about one week after Dr. Dhillon's 9 November 1993 examination) plaintiff was helping to change a starter in his car when he experienced increased low back pain. Plaintiff tried to drive himself to the emergency room, but was not able to drive. At 4:00 o'clock in the morning, he called the rescue squad to transport him to the hospital.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31(23)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bailey v. Lee Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-lee-company-ncworkcompcom-1997.