Barrett v. All Payment Services

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 15, 2008
DocketI.C. NO. 418610.
StatusPublished

This text of Barrett v. All Payment Services (Barrett v. All Payment Services) 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
Barrett v. All Payment Services, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence REOPENS the record for receipt of additional evidence.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following which were entered into between the parties in a Pre-Trial Agreement and during the hearing proceedings as:

STIPULATIONS *Page 2
1. On October 25, 1993, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. On October 25, 1993, an employee-employer relationship existed between Plaintiff and Employer-Defendant.

3. October 25, 1993 is the date of the injury by accident which is the subject of this claim.

4. Employer was insured by Reliance Insurance Company on October 25, 1993. Reliance Insurance Company subsequently declared bankruptcy, and this case is now covered by the North Carolina Guaranty Association.

5. Plaintiff's medical records, consisting of 364 pages, were received into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit No. 1.

6. The deposition of Melvin Cheatham, M.D. was received into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 2.

7. The Stipulations with Request for Award was received into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 3.

8. The issues for hearing before the Deputy Commissioner were:

a. What is Employee-Plaintiff's average weekly wage?

b. Is Employee-Plaintiff entitled to benefits under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-29 for temporary total disability benefits following his date of injury on October 25, 1993?

c. Is Employee-Plaintiff entitled to benefits pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-30 for loss of wage earning capacity following his injury on October 25, 1993?

*Page 3

d. On what date did Employee-Plaintiff reach maximum medical improvement as a result of his injury of October 25, 1993?

e. Did Employee-Plaintiff subsequently sustain a change of condition pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-47 as a result of his surgery on August 30, 2001?

f. Is Employee-Plaintiff entitled to benefits under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-29 for temporary total disability benefits following his surgery of August 30, 2001?

g. Is Employee-Plaintiff entitled to payment of benefits for a permanent impairment rating following his surgery of August 30, 2001?

h. Is the Screen Actors Guild entitled to be reimbursed for medical expenses paid on behalf of Employee-Plaintiff for treatment for his injury of October 25, 1993?

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon all the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing, Employee-Plaintiff was a 63-year old male, born June 26, 1943 and had worked as a stuntman for over 35 years. During the course of his career, Employee-Plaintiff had worked as a stunt double for Paul Newman and Burt Reynolds and had been employed in various movies and television programs as either a stuntman or stunt coordinator. These movies and television series included "The Undefeated," "Little Big Man," "Dan August," "Vegas," "Airport 77", "Hooper," and "The Last of the Mohicans". Plaintiff's *Page 4 reputation and career were based on high-impact, big stunts. Plaintiff was hired specifically for these stunts. Plaintiff was employed as a NASCAR driver and had set the world land speed record in 1979 by being the first person to break the sound barrier in a vehicle. Employee-Plaintiff had a fusion performed at the L4-5 level and L5-S1 level prior to the injury that is the subject of this matter. Employee-Plaintiff had also undergone a previous fusion at the C5-6 level. Plaintiff had returned to active high impact stunt performing following his recovery from these surgeries.

2. On October 25, 1993, Employee-Plaintiff was employed as a stuntman and stunt coordinator on "Bandit, Bandit", a television series being filmed in North Carolina. He had been so employed for six weeks. As part of his job as a stunt coordinator, Employee-Plaintiff was responsible for performing all of the high impact stunts. Employee-Plaintiff's sons were also working on this job site with him.

3. The television series was being filmed in Wadesboro, North Carolina. Employee-Plaintiff was residing in Boone, North Carolina, at the time of his accident.

4. On October 25, 1993, Employee-Plaintiff was performing a stunt that involved jumping a car approximately 120 feet. During the process of performing this stunt, plaintiff was going 70 mph. The car landed awkwardly on one side due to a breaking shock and snapped sideways. When the car stopped, Employee-Plaintiff felt immediate pain in his low back and neck.

5. Employee-Plaintiff had intense pain in his back and this pain radiated into his leg. Plaintiff couldn't move his legs. He also had pain in his neck. He was taken to Charlotte and examined by Dr. Scott McLanahan. Dr. McLanahan found plaintiff had lumbar pain secondary to trauma and ordered a CT scan. The CT scan, performed the same day, revealed an attempted *Page 5 fusion at L5-S1 as well as L4-5. Dr. McLanahan instructed plaintiff not to participate in stunt work the next day as it would be unsafe.

6. On October 28, 1993, Dr. McLanahan found plaintiff had a pseudarthrosis at L5-S1 and noted that Employee-Plaintiff would need to "have something done at the L5-S1 level."

7. Employee-Plaintiff returned to the job site and attempted to continue to coordinate stunts. At that time, his sons were working on the project and he was concerned for their safety since he was supervising the stunts.

8. On November 2, 1993, Dr. McLanahan noted that Employee-Plaintiff's continued work as a stunt driver exposed him to considerable risks.

9. Employee-Plaintiff continued to experience significant pain in his back and left leg. On November 8, 1993, he was seen by Dr. Gary Pitts who diagnosed him with a contusion through his kidney and his bladder.

10. Due to his symptoms, Employee-Plaintiff was unable to continue his work as a stuntman performing high impact stunts.

11. Employee-Plaintiff returned to Dr. McLanahan on May 23, 1995. At that time, he was complaining of low back pain which radiated into both legs with the left side being worse than the right. He also noted that he had pain in his neck. Dr. McLanahan recommended that Employee-Plaintiff have new studies performed.

12. Employee-Plaintiff returned to Dr. McLanahan in May of 1996. A CT scan was performed on May 28, 1996 revealing segment instability at L5-S1. Dr. McLanahan recommended that Employee-Plaintiff be seen by Dr. Finger for the problems that he was having with his low back. *Page 6

13. Employee-Plaintiff's work as a stunt coordinator and as a stuntman required him to do high impact stunts. The stunt coordinator position, while supervisory in nature, requires a stuntman who can perform difficult and dangerous stunts to instruct others in how to perform the stunt and to place rigging. It is a job that is very physical in nature.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(5)
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-30
North Carolina § 97-30
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31
§ 97-47
North Carolina § 97-47

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Barrett v. All Payment Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-all-payment-services-ncworkcompcom-2008.