Bradshaw v. Southeastern Freight

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMay 24, 2007
DocketI.C. NO. 640827.
StatusPublished

This text of Bradshaw v. Southeastern Freight (Bradshaw v. Southeastern Freight) 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
Bradshaw v. Southeastern Freight, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinions

***********
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned and finding no good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission affirms with some modifications the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Commission, and this is the Court of proper jurisdiction for this action.

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

3. On the date of injury, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

4. At all relevant times, an employment relationship existed between the parties.

5. Zurich North America was the compensation carrier on the risk.

6. All of Plaintiff's medical records will be submitted as a Stipulated Exhibit.

7. All Industrial Commission forms and filings will be submitted as a Stipulated Exhibit.

8. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $867.49, yielding a maximum compensation rate for 1996, of $492.00.

9. Plaintiff's date of injury is February 6, 1996.

***********
Based on the foregoing Stipulations and the evidence presented, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. This matter was originally reviewed by the Full Commission on July 31, 2001, upon the appeal of Plaintiff from an Opinion and Award filed on January 22, 2000, by Deputy Commissioner Chrystal Redding Stanback. At the time of the hearing before Deputy Commissioner Stanback, Plaintiff was receiving temporary total disability benefits. *Page 3

2. The Full Commission filed its original Opinion and Award in this case on November 15, 2001. The Full Commission found that on February 6, 1996, Plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury by accident in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant-Employer when he was involved in an accident while driving an eighteen-wheeler tractor-trailer in snow and icy conditions in Tennessee.

3. The Full Commission found that the record in this matter lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Plaintiff's depression was related to the February 6, 1996 injury. The Full Commission concluded that Plaintiff had failed to prove by the greater weight a causal relationship between Plaintiff's depression and his compensable back injury, and consequently, Plaintiff was not entitled to payment by Defendants for treatment of this condition.

4. The Full Commission found that Plaintiff had filed a motion requesting a change of treating physician to Dr. Derian, Plaintiff sought the request for approval within a reasonable time and the treatment proposed by Dr. Derian was required to effect a cure or give relief of Plaintiff's symptoms. The Full Commission concluded that Plaintiff sought approval of Dr. T. Craig Derian as his treating physician and authorization of recommended treatment within a reasonable time. Further, the Full Commission in its award ordered that Dr. T. Craig Derian was approved as Plaintiff's treating physician and that Defendants shall pay all reasonably necessary medical expenses, including expenses for the recommended surgery, for Dr. Derian's treatment related to Plaintiff's February 6, 1996 injury for so long as such treatment tends to effect a cure, provide relief or lessen the period of Plaintiff's disability.

5. In addition, Plaintiff had requested approval of Dr. Thomas English and Dr. Wayne Harper as additional treating physicians. The Full Commission concluded that insufficient evidence exists *Page 4 in the record to approve Dr. Thomas English or Dr. Wayne Harper as additional treating physicians for Plaintiff. In the third paragraph of its award, the Full Commission ordered that the motion to allow Dr. Thomas English and Dr. Wayne Harper as additional treating physicians for Plaintiff was denied.

6. Neither party appealed the November 15, 2001 Opinion and Award of the Full Commission.

7. Currently, Plaintiff is receiving ongoing total disability benefits.

8. On May 23, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Form 18M employee's application for additional medical compensation for psychological evaluation and care, as well as other medical compensation. On June 24, 2003, Defendants responded in opposition to *Page 5 Plaintiff's 2003 Form 18M on the grounds that, among others, Defendants paid and continued to pay for all medical treatment allowed in the 2001 Full Commission Opinion and Award, and that the 2001 Full Commission Opinion and Award specifically denied any treatment for alleged psychological condition. On July 11, 2003, the Executive Secretary filed an Administrative Order, which denied Plaintiff's 2003 Form 18M as to psychological evaluation and care.

9. On August 5, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Form 33 request for hearing, in part, on the ground that the Commission improperly denied his Form 18M application. On August 18, 2003, Defendants filed their Form 33R response to request for hearing stating, in part, that the Commission previously ruled on the issue of whether the medical and psychological treatment sought by Plaintiff is related to his compensable claim.

10. On February 12, 2004, Plaintiff filed another Form 18M for psychological evaluation and care, as well as other medical compensation. Further, Plaintiff requested a full evidentiary hearing on the denial of the 2003 Form 18M. On February 19, 2004, Defendants responded in opposition to Plaintiff's Form 18M. On May 17, 2004, the Executive Secretary filed an Administrative Order, which denied Plaintiff's 2004 Form 18M. On June 2, 2004, Plaintiff filed an Amended Form 33.

11. This claim came on for hearing before the former Deputy Commissioner Lorrie L. Dollar on October 4, 2004. Subsequent to former Deputy Commissioner Dollar's resignation, the case was reassigned to Deputy Commissioner George R. Hall, III, for determination. By Opinion and Award filed June 24, 2005, Deputy Commissioner Hall found and concluded, in part, that Plaintiff's psychological condition is related to his admittedly compensable injury of February 6, 1996, and awarded medical compensation for Plaintiff's psychological condition. Defendants appealed to the Full Commission and argued, in part, that the principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata rendered void Deputy Commissioner Hall's award of medical compensation for psychological treatment received from Dr. Harper, Dr. English and Dr. James Bellard.

12. Plaintiff has been treating with Dr. Harper and Dr. English since 1999, for injuries received in his admittedly compensable February 6, 1996 motor vehicle accident.

13. His treating physicians, including Dr. T. Craig Derian, have referred Plaintiff to Dr. Harper and Dr. English.

14. Dr. Wayne L. Harper, an expert in internal medicine, is well qualified to direct the care and treatment of Plaintiff for his chronic back and leg pain. In the opinion of Dr. Harper, Plaintiff is permanently and totally disabled from competitive employment at the present time.

15. On June 26, 2002, Dr. T. Craig Derian, an authorized treating physician, specifically referred Plaintiff to Dr.

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

Related

Hogan v. Cone Mills Corp.
337 S.E.2d 477 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1985)
Jenkins v. Piedmont Aviation Services
557 S.E.2d 104 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bradshaw v. Southeastern Freight, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradshaw-v-southeastern-freight-ncworkcompcom-2007.