Braswell v. Goldsboro Building Supply Co.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 30, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 115784
StatusPublished

This text of Braswell v. Goldsboro Building Supply Co. (Braswell v. Goldsboro Building Supply Co.) 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
Braswell v. Goldsboro Building Supply Co., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Stephenson. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives. The Full Commission AFFIRMS with some modifications the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Stephenson.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission and are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendants on November 10, 2000.

3. On November 10, 2000, North Carolina Forestry Mutual Insurance Company was the carrier at risk.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $331.24, which yields a compensation rate of $220.83 per week.

5. On November 10, 2000, plaintiff sustained a compensable injury to his back which defendants accepted pursuant to a Form 60 dated December 6, 2000.

6. The following exhibits were stipulated into evidence at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

Stipulated Exhibit 1 — Industrial Commission forms

Stipulated Exhibit 2 — medical records of plaintiff

Stipulated Exhibit 3 — surveillance video of plaintiff

Stipulated Exhibit 3a — private investigator's report

Stipulated Exhibit 4 — Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories amended through testimony

Stipulated Exhibit 5 — Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories

7. Following oral arguments before the Full Commission, plaintiff provided copies of his 2000, 2001 and 2002 tax returns to defendants and the Commission. Both parties expressed concerns about whether the information provided was accurate or complete. Therefore, based on the confusion raised by these documents, the Commission denies defendants' motion to reopen the record to receive these tax returns.

8. The issue before the Full Commission is whether plaintiff is entitled to additional compensation and medical benefits as a result of his injury by accident.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On November 10, 2000, plaintiff was 41 years old with an eighth grade education and began his employment with defendants as a yardman in April 2000. Plaintiff's duties consisted of lifting and carrying construction supplies weighing 50 to 100 pounds. Plaintiff was required to stand constantly and frequently bend and squat.

2. Prior to going to work for defendants, plaintiff was employed at Guy C. Lee Building Materials and was self-employed in the construction business.

3. After beginning work with defendants plaintiff continued to work side jobs. Plaintiff often worked with another employee of defendants or performing work for defendants or some of its customers. Defendants' store manager, L.G. Fields, was aware that plaintiff and other employees performed side jobs for customers. There was no company policy that prohibited plaintiff from doing this.

4. On Friday, November 10, 2000, plaintiff sustained a compensable injury to his back while lifting a twenty-foot 6 x 6 piece of lumber. Plaintiff sought treatment on November 13, 2000 from Doctor's Urgent Care, where he was diagnosed with lumbar strain and placed on medications and light duty work restrictions. Plaintiff was kept out-of-work through November 26, 2000. Defendants paid plaintiff temporary total disability for this time period.

5. Plaintiff returned to work for defendants on November 27, 2000 with a 20 pound lifting restriction. Plaintiff spent that day sweeping the floor and organizing the molding.

6. On November 28, 2000 plaintiff returned to regular full duty with heavy lifting although the restrictions from Doctor's Urgent Care indicated not to return to full duty until December 1, 2000. On November 29, 2000 plaintiff returned to Doctor's Urgent Care with increased pain in his back since returning to work, with pain going down his right leg. Doctor's Urgent Care then restricted plaintiff to sedentary work until he could be rechecked on December 6, 2000. Plaintiff's employer had no sedentary work or work within plaintiff's restrictions.

7. During the next few days plaintiff worked with Steve Leech, a co-worker at defendants, on a job plaintiff had contracted for outside his employment with defendants. Plaintiff assisted in putting up vinyl siding, which weighed about a pound. After paying Leech, plaintiff made $250.00 from the job.

8. Plaintiff returned to Urgent Care on December 6, 2000 and reported that he experienced modest improvement with tenderness and inflammation over the sacroiliac joint. Plaintiff was released for light duty with a 20 pound weight restriction until he could be reevaluated on December 11, 2000.

9. Plaintiff's supervisor, Jeff Durham, became angry when plaintiff presented the light duty restrictions. Plaintiff was instructed to report to Mr. Fields, the store manager. Mr. Fields told plaintiff to punch out and go home. Mr. Fields told plaintiff he could not work both for defendants and someone else. Mr. Fields' secretary wrote, "quit" on plaintiff's time card. Defendants have presented no credible evidence that work was available within plaintiff's work restrictions. Defendants did not resume temporary total disability payments to plaintiff and only paid temporary total disability from November 11, 2000 through November 26, 2000. Although defendants had no work available within plaintiff's restrictions, defendants did not resume payment of temporary total disability when plaintiff missed work after November 29, 2000.

10. The Full Commission finds by the greater weight of the evidence that plaintiff did not quit, but was terminated from his position by defendants.

11. Plaintiff returned to Doctor's Urgent Care reporting continued problems and radiating pain. Plaintiff was limited to sedentary work and referred to an orthopaedist. Plaintiff was referred to Goldsboro Orpthopaedic which refused to see him due to a $400.00 unpaid bill. Defendants then referred plaintiff to Kinston Orthopaedic which also refused to see him.

12. Finally in March 2001 plaintiff was authorized to see Dr. Ralph Liebelt with Triangle Orthopaedic who treated him on April 25, 2001. Plaintiff showed signs of radiculopathy and was limited to sedentary work.

13. The greater weight of the evidence shows that plaintiff was temporarily and totally disabled beginning November 26, 2000.

14. It was not until the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner in October 2001 that defendants agreed to allow an evaluation and treatment by Dr. Lestini.

15. Plaintiff saw Dr. Lestini on December 18, 2001. Dr. Lestini ordered an MRI which revealed a significantly degenerative collapsed herniated disc. Dr. Lestini recommended discography prior to surgery, but defendants refused to authorize plaintiff's surgery.

16. Since plaintiff's injury in November 2000, plaintiff has not been able to perform work involving constant bending and squatting or heavy lifting of 50 to 100 pounds.

17. Since plaintiff's injury in November 2000, plaintiff contracted for six side jobs for which he received approximately $1,500.00 after paying for materials and helpers.

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

Related

Lanning v. Fieldcrest-Cannon, Inc.
530 S.E.2d 54 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2000)
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)
Sims v. Charmes/Arby's Roast Beef
542 S.E.2d 277 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Braswell v. Goldsboro Building Supply Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braswell-v-goldsboro-building-supply-co-ncworkcompcom-2003.