Baker v. Paxton Media Group

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 30, 2011
DocketI.C. NO. 152284.
StatusPublished

This text of Baker v. Paxton Media Group (Baker v. Paxton Media Group) 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. Paxton Media Group, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Harris and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. Accordingly, the Full Commission modifies the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Harris and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
The Full Commission finds as facts and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing or after the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, and/or in the executed Pre-Trial Agreement, as:

STIPULATIONS *Page 2
1. The parties are subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act, and the North Carolina Industrial Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.

2. An employee-employer relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant-Employer.

3. The Phoenix Insurance Company is the carrier on the risk in this claim.

4. There is no issue as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage in this claim is $367.20 per week.

6. Plaintiff sustained an injury on or about August 26, 2008.

7. Plaintiff's right knee condition arose out of and in the course of employment and is compensable.

8. Temporary total disability ("TTD") compensation was paid from September 4, 2008 through October 31, 2008, for a total of $1,993.45.

9. Plaintiff has received $18,646.12 in medical compensation.

On August 26, 2010, Deputy Commissioner Harris entered an Order admitting into evidence the following post-hearing Stipulations entered into by the parties on August 26, 2010:

1. Plaintiff received $2766.24 in short-term disability payments from Employer-Defendant. The short-term disability payments Plaintiff received were 100% funded by Employer-Defendant.

2. The chart below is an accurate record of Plaintiff's days worked, time missed from work, temporary total disability and short-term disability payments received during the time she was out of work after her August 26, 2008 motor vehicle accident:

DATES             WORK             PAYMENT        AMOUNT OF           STIPULATED
                  STATUS           RECEIVED       TTD/STD             EXHIBIT
                                                  RECEIVED
9/4/08-10/29/08   Out of work      TTD            $1,993.45 for       No. 9, p. 162
                                                  time period of
                                                  9/4/08-10/31/08
 *Page 3 
10/30/08-         Worked           Wages          n/a                 n/a
11/14/08
11/15/08-         Out of work for  STD            $1,346.40 for       No. 11, p. 100
12/14/08          DVT                             time period of
                                                  11/17/08-
                                                  12/15/08
12/15/08-         Worked           Wages          n/a                 n/a
12/31/08
1/1/09-6/9/09     Worked           Wages          n/a                 n/a
6/10/09-8/9/09    Out of work for  STD            $1,419.84 for       No. 11, p. 101
                   "white outs"                   time period of
                                                  6/10/09-7/12/09

8/10/09-9/27/09 Worked Wages n/a n/a

***********
EXHIBITS
The following documents were accepted into evidence by the Deputy Commissioner as stipulated exhibits:

• Exhibit 1: Executed Pre-Trial Agreement

• Exhibit 2: Industrial Commission Forms

• Exhibit 3: Accident report dated 8/26/08

• Exhibit 4: Correspondence

• Exhibit 5: Job description

• Exhibit 6: Plaintiff's discovery responses

• Exhibit 7: Plaintiff's medical records

• Exhibit 8: Termination documentation

• Exhibit 9: Indemnity payment history

• Exhibit 10: Medical payment history

• Exhibit 11: Employment records

*Page 4

• Exhibit 12: Unemployment benefits payment history

• Exhibit 13: Job search logs

• Exhibit 14: Accident report dated 1/21/10

Transcripts of the depositions of the following were also received following the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

• Dr. John Maggiore (with Exhibit 1)

• Dr. Dale A. Menard, Jr. (with Exhibits 1 2)

• Dr. Mary Ann Knovich (with Exhibits 1-3; Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 2, and; Defendants' Exhibits 1 2)

• Dr. Cormac A. O'Donovan (with Exhibit 1)

• Dr. Thomas Gualtieri (with Defendants' Exhibits 1-3)

***********
ISSUES

1. Whether Plaintiff's blood clots are compensable?

2. Whether Plaintiff's headaches and related symptoms are compensable?

3. Whether Plaintiff constructively refused suitable employment?

4. Whether Plaintiff remains disabled?

5. To what further compensation, if any, is Plaintiff entitled?

6. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a suspension of the limitations period of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-25.1 for any of her medical treatment?

7. To what credit(s), if any, are Defendants entitled?

*********** *Page 5
Based upon all of the competent credible evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following additional:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is 41 years old, with a date of birth of November 8, 1969. She graduated from high school in Maryland in 1987 and completed two years of nursing school.

2. Plaintiff started working for Defendant-Employer, a daily newspaper, in October 2007. At the time of her injury in this claim, she was District Manager of Circulation. In that capacity, Plaintiff oversaw the paper carriers, sellers and newspaper racks. Plaintiff's job involved lifting bundles of newspapers, walking, and at least four hours of driving per day. Plaintiff typically spent one to two hours of her eight hour work day in the office.

3. On August 26, 2008, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Plaintiff was driving as part of her job when her vehicle went off the road during a cloudburst. Plaintiff's vehicle struck a large tree while traveling at a speed of approximately 20 miles per hour. Plaintiff was wearing a lap belt but no chest belt. The collision threw Plaintiff forward forcefully, but the vehicle's airbag did not deploy.

4. Plaintiff sustained injuries to her right knee and ankle as a result of jamming her right foot on the brake. She also either hit her head on the steering wheel or underwent an abrupt and significant deceleration. The emergency room note from the date of the accident reflects that Plaintiff complained of jaw pain but that she reported no loss of consciousness, dizziness, visual changes or vomiting.

5. Defendants accepted "a contusion to the chin and right knee" as compensable via a Form 60 dated November 13, 2008. *Page 6

6.

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

Related

Demery v. Perdue Farms, Inc.
545 S.E.2d 485 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.
290 S.E.2d 682 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Baker v. Paxton Media Group, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-paxton-media-group-ncworkcompcom-2011.