Baker v. Moore

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 29, 2000
DocketI.C. NO. 689405
StatusPublished

This text of Baker v. Moore (Baker v. Moore) 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
Baker v. Moore, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2000).

Opinion

Upon review of the competent evidence of record, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission, upon reconsideration of the evidence, affirms the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner, with minor modification.

On 1 May 2000 defendants filed a motion for a new hearing before the Full Commission at the time of the hearing on appeal. By Order issued 17 May 2000 by Commissioner Thomas J. Bolch, this motion was held in abeyance until consideration by the Full Commission at the oral arguments. For the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 1 and 25 below, defendants motion is DENIED.

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Commission and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

2. The parties are unable to agree whether an employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and Moores BP Station, Bill Moores Real Estate, Billy G. Moore, Inc. and/or Billy G. Moore individually.

3. Defendants have denied liability and plaintiff has not received any benefits, either compensation or medical.

4. The medical records of plaintiff may be received into evidence, without need for further authentication or verification, including records from Wilson Orthopaedic Surgery and Neurology Center, P. A., Kurtz Chiropractic Center and Johnston Memorial Hospital.

5. Plaintiffs 1996 IRS W-2 Form may be received into evidence without further authentication or verification.

***********

The Full Commission adopts the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. This matter was set for hearing before Deputy Commissioner Taylor in Benson on 13 January 1999. After completion of the Pre-Trial Agreement in this matter, defense counsel contacted the Deputy Commissioner and requested a continuance on behalf of his client. Defense counsel was informed by the Deputy Commissioner that a continuance would not be granted. Thereafter, defense counsel contacted the Deputy Commissioner indicating that defendant wished to retain other counsel. Defense counsel was informed at that time that he would be allowed to withdraw if the defendant wished to seek other counsel but that a continuance would not be granted. On 11 January 1999, defense counsel, Mr. Leon Lucas, submitted a motion to withdraw as counsel. Mr. Lucas was informed and was requested to inform Defendant Billy Moore that the motion to withdraw would be granted but that the hearing would proceed as scheduled. Mr. Moore had previously contacted the Deputy Commissioners office with a request that the case be continued. Mr. Moore was told that the case would not be continued and that he needed to discuss this issue with his attorney. Following the withdrawal of defense counsel, Mr. Moore again contacted the Deputy Commissioners office requesting that the case be continued and was again told that the case would not be continued and that the hearing would be held as scheduled. On the day of the hearing, plaintiff and his attorney appeared before Deputy Commissioner Taylor at the appropriate time. Defendant Billy Moore failed to appear in spite of repeated instructions to appear because the case would not be continued. After waiting 30 minutes for defendant Billy Moore to appear, the deputy commissioner proceeded to hear evidence from plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff is a 47-year-old male born 24 June 1952. He became employed with defendant Billy Moore in October 1996.

3. Plaintiff worked for defendant Billy Moore at Moores BP, Bill Moores Real Estate, and at a tobacco warehouse owned by Billy Moore. Plaintiff was paid by check from Moores BP. Plaintiff reported to work each day at Moores BP Station. However, renters from defendant Billy Moores rental business, Bill Moores Real Estate, called the BP station and requested that plaintiff performed certain services. Two or three times a week plaintiff performed work at Moores BP store.

4. Plaintiff performed various duties for Billy Moore. He remodeled trailers and repaired their floors and ceilings for Bill Moores Real Estate, stocked the cooler in the BP store, worked at the grill in the store, and cut grass at the BP store and at Bill Moores Real Estate rental properties. Plaintiff also performed work for defendant Billy Moore at his residence and worked at a warehouse owned by Billy Moore in Wilson putting in a wall.

5. Plaintiff worked on a regular basis with at least five other employees: Gloria, who ran the cash register at the BP station and cooked hot dogs, evicted tenants from the rental property and cut grass at the store; Sandra, who performed the same duties as Gloria but did not cut grass; Jimmy, who performed maintenance work on the rental properties and ran the BP store at night; Keith, who cut grass at the rental properties and the BP station as well as defendants house and cleaned defendants pool and performed maintenance work on the trailers; and an African-American man whose name plaintiff was unable to remember who performed various duties.

6. Plaintiff worked for defendant Billy Moore at his various businesses six days a week or more from approximately 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and performed 45 to 66 hours a week earning approximately $250.00 per week. Plaintiff also rented living space from defendant Billy Moore and that money was deducted from his check. After plaintiffs accident, he was evicted from his home by defendant Billy Moore, who also obtained a judgment in court against plaintiff for non-payment of rent. After plaintiff was evicted from his home, he lived "on the street for approximately three weeks.

7. On or about 25 October 1996, plaintiff had a scheduled day off. However, defendant Billy Moore, called plaintiff and instructed him to get a jack and fix the roof of his barn. Plaintiff and his wife went to Billy Moores house to get the jack to perform this task. When plaintiff lifted the jack which weighed approximately 75 pounds, he felt something pull and experienced pain in his back. Plaintiff put the jack in the back of his truck, went to the BP store and informed defendant Billy Moore that he had hurt his back. Plaintiff thereafter attempted to repair the the roof of the barn, but he had to stop work at approximately 1:00 p.m because of continuing back pain. At that time, plaintiff informed defendant Billy Moore that he had stopped working because his back was hurting. Plaintiff informed defendant Billy Moore that he needed to see a doctor, and defendant Billy Moore instructed him to go to the emergency room.

8. Plaintiff presented to the emergency room the next day, 26 October 1996, and was released to apply ice to the lower back and elevate his legs and was given medication. Plaintiff returned to work on Monday but was unable to perform his job duties and informed defendant Billy Moore of his inability to perform certain tasks because of pain.

9. Plaintiff continued to experience pain and began dragging his leg. Plaintiff requested that defendant Billy Moore provide medical care, and defendant informed plaintiff that he should go to social services because defendant Billy Moore did not have workers compensation insurance.

10. By 2 January 1997, plaintiff was unable to pick up his right leg and had to drag it. He was also unable to lift his arms. On that date, when defendant Billy Moore requested that plaintiff fix a roof, plaintiff indicated that he had to go the doctor.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Baker v. Moore, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-moore-ncworkcompcom-2000.