Barber v. Air Specialties of Pinehurst, Inc

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 30, 2010
DocketI.C. NO. W11223.
StatusPublished

This text of Barber v. Air Specialties of Pinehurst, Inc (Barber v. Air Specialties of Pinehurst, Inc) 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
Barber v. Air Specialties of Pinehurst, Inc, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinions

The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Houser and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the Opinion and Award, except for minor modifications. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Houser with minor modifications.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered by the parties as: *Page 2

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

2. All parties have been correctly designated, and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

3. All parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

4. An employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff-employee and defendant-employer prior to and on March 25, 2009.

5. Accident Fund Insurance Company is the carrier on the risk for defendant-employer.

6. Plaintiff's compensation rate is to be determined and will be based on an Industrial Commission Form 22 and wage records.

7. Plaintiff sustained an injury on March 25, 2009.

8. Defendants have denied liability for plaintiff's wrist injury pursuant to an Industrial Commission Form 61.

9. At and subsequent to the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the parties submitted the following:

a. A Packet of Various Stipulated Exhibits, which was admitted into the record and marked as Stipulated Exhibit (2) and which included the following:

i. GPS Printouts;

ii. Wage Records From 2008-2009;

*Page 3

iii. A Worksheet from Epic Enterprises dated March 25, 2009;

iv. Timecards;

v. A Photograph of Defendant-Employer's Work-Van;

vi. Photographs of Saunders Supply and Epic Enterprises and;

vii. Medical Records;

b. A Packet of Industrial Commission Forms, which was admitted into the record and marked as Stipulated Exhibit (3) and;

c. Invoice Records From Hubbard Pipe Supply, which are admitted into the record and marked as Stipulated Exhibit (4).

10. Also made part of the record is the deposition of Mr. Tim Bailey.

***********
The following were admitted into the record by the Deputy Commissioner as:

EVIDENCE
a. A Copy of Transcribed Notes of the Adjuster, which was admitted into the record and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit (1).

b. A "GPS" Summary of Plaintiff's Timecards, which was admitted into the record and marked as Defendant's Exhibit (1).

***********
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
1. Whether plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer on March 25, 2009, and if so, to what indemnity and medical compensation, if any, is he entitled; and

2. What is plaintiff's applicable average weekly wage and compensation rate. *Page 4

***********
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. As of the date of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was thirty-eight (38) years of age with his date of birth being December 10, 1970.

2. On March 25, 2009, plaintiff was employed by defendant-employer as a service tech, salesman, and supervisor for an installation crew. As of that date, plaintiff had been employed in that capacity for approximately five years.

3. Also on March 25, 2009, defendant-employer assigned plaintiff to perform work on an air handler at Epic Enterprises. Part of plaintiff's duties in this regard required him to load and unload equipment from a work van provided by defendant-employer. On the date in question, the work at Epic had been completed, and plaintiff was attempting to secure an extension ladder to the top of the van when he fell, injuring his left arm and wrist.

4. GPS records reflect that plaintiff arrived at Epic at approximately 11:59 a.m. When the job was completed, Mr. Mike Whitaker, an employee of Epic, signed defendant-employer's invoice. Plaintiff departed from Epic at approximately 12:45 p.m., with his workday for defendant-employer being completed. Plaintiff then drove to Saunders Supply to purchase PVC pipe for his personal use.

5. Plaintiff testified that subsequent to his alleged fall, he did not return inside the Epic facility to inform Mr. Whitaker or other Epic employees that he had been injured. Plaintiff testified that he attempted to telephone defendant-employer to notify them of his injury, but was unable obtain reception on his cellular phone. Initially, plaintiff believed he had only sustained a *Page 5 sprain at Epic. He testified as to the condition of his arm after his fall at Epic, stating: [I]t didn't really look bad, really swollen or nothing . . . a slight hump on my arm. But by the time I got to Saunders, it was starting to swell at that point." Plaintiff testified that his arm did not start to hurt until he was at Saunders Supply and that it was at that time that he realized the extent and severity of his injury. Plaintiff's testimony regarding the circumstances of his March 25, 2009 injury and the events immediately thereafter is accepted as being credible by the Commission.

6. Defendants have asserted that plaintiff's injury occurred while at Saunders Supply and not while in the course and scope of his employment at Epic. Defendants have offered the testimony of Tim Bailey, the manager of Saunders Supply. Mr. Bailey could not testify as to witnessing any event or incident occurring at Saunders Supply during which plaintiff injured his arm or wrist, but did state that plaintiff did not appear to be injured when he was initially inside Saunders Supply. Mr. Bailey testified that when he later saw plaintiff in the yard of Saunders Supply, plaintiff appeared pale and stated to Mr. Bailey that he may have broken his arm. In considering the testimony of Mr. Bailey, the Full Commission finds that it is consistent with plaintiff's own testimony. Plaintiff testified that he was not in much pain when he first arrived at Saunders Supply, and that the pain and swelling began to worsen while he was there. In fact, plaintiff admitted during his testimony that he told Mr. Bailey his arm hurt and stated to Mr. Bailey: "Hey, I think I broke my arm." However, at no time did plaintiff state he broke his arm at Saunders Supply. Thus, the Full Commission finds that the testimony of Mr. Bailey, taken as credible, does not contradict plaintiff's version of the events as they occurred on March 25, 2009.

7. Although it is undisputed that plaintiff was at Saunders Supply shortly after he contends his injury occurred, and that he admitted to Mr. Bailey that his arm was hurting at that time and possibly broken, the Full Commission finds there to be insufficient evidence of record *Page 6

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

Related

Harvey v. Raleigh Police Department
384 S.E.2d 549 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1989)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Holley v. Acts, Inc.
581 S.E.2d 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2003)
Bigelow v. Tire Sales Company
182 S.E.2d 856 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)
Henry v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co.
57 S.E.2d 760 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Crymes v. State
182 S.E. 856 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Gaddy v. Kern
195 S.E.2d 141 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1973)
Poe v. Acme Builders
316 S.E.2d 338 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Barber v. Air Specialties of Pinehurst, Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-air-specialties-of-pinehurst-inc-ncworkcompcom-2010.