Brewer v. Oaks of Carolina

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJanuary 8, 2010
DocketI.C. NO. 855204.
StatusPublished

This text of Brewer v. Oaks of Carolina (Brewer v. Oaks of Carolina) 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
Brewer v. Oaks of Carolina, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Stephenson and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award. 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 the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS *Page 2
1. At all times relevant hereto, the parties were bound by and subject to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, the defendant-employer regularly employing three or more employees.

2. On or about September 25, 2007 there was an employer-employee relationship between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

3. On or about September 25, 2007, the carrier on this risk was Travelers Insurance Company.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage, pursuant to the Form 22, was $315.13, which yields a compensation rate of $210.10.

5. It was stipulated and agreed that all medical records and reports were entered into evidence without further identification or proof, and a complete set of records was provided at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner.

6. The following evidence was admitted into the record:

a. The Pre-Trial Agreement marked as stipulated exhibit 1.

b. A set of Industrial Commission forms marked as stipulated exhibit 2.

c. A set of Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Discovery marked as stipulated exhibit 3.

d. A set of motions filed by plaintiff and defendants marked as stipulated exhibit 4.

e. A set of Industrial Commission orders marked as stipulated exhibit 5.

f. Plaintiff's employment records marked as stipulated exhibit 6.

g. Medical records marked as stipulated exhibit 7.

7. The issues for determination are: *Page 3

a. Did plaintiff sustain a compensable injury by accident on or about September 25, 2007 resulting in an injury to his right shoulder;

b. To what, if any, indemnity and medical compensation is plaintiff entitled;

c. What penalties, if any, should be imposed against defendants for failure to respond to the Form 18 notice within 30 days as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-18(j);

d. Whether defendants are entitled to one-half of the mediator's fee, or $151.25 (after subtraction of time agreed to be paid by plaintiff to defendants for defendants' request for costs for plaintiff's delay in beginning mediation), pursuant to the Rules for Mediated Settlement and Neutral Evaluation Conferences of the North Carolina Industrial Commission Rule 7(c);

e. Whether defendants are entitled to a credit for unemployment benefits received by plaintiff in the amount of $169.00 per week from December 28, 2007 through February 28, 2008, totaling approximately $1,521.00;

f. If this claim is found compensable, whether defendants are entitled to a credit for any income received by plaintiff from October 1, 2007 to the present.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT *Page 4
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 40 years old and was employed by defendant-employer as a floor technician. He had no prior history of complications with his right shoulder before September 25, 2007. Plaintiff did have a pre-existing neck condition resulting from a prior work related incident with another employer.

2. On or about September 25, 2007, plaintiff was pulling a laundry cart and pushing a food tray cart down the 500 hallway at defendant-employer's facility when a patient stepped in front of him, causing plaintiff to lose control of the laundry cart. The laundry cart swung out and twisted plaintiff's right arm. Plaintiff experienced pain in his right shoulder and neck.

3. Following the September 25, 2007 incident, plaintiff's supervisor Gerald Simmons transported him to the emergency room at Wake Med Emergency. Plaintiff reported right shoulder pain, but left the ER before being treated. Plaintiff believed that the source of his pain was the area of his neck which he had previously injured while employed with a former employer. Plaintiff informed Mr. Simmons that he did not know whether his neck or his shoulder was injured, but that any injury to his neck was not related to work with his current employer. Mr. Simmons testified that he did not take plaintiff to the ER and that the accident could not have happened as described by plaintiff. Mr. Simmons also testified that plaintiff said his injury occurred at home.

4. The Full Commission finds plaintiff's description of the incident on September 25, 2007, to be credible and gives greater weight to his testimony than to that of Mr. Simmons.

5. Following the September 25, 2007 incident, plaintiff returned to work but was directed to see his primary physician. In the Form 19 prepared by defendants, they admitted knowledge that plaintiff reported a work related injury by October 1, 2007. *Page 5

6. On October 4, 2007, plaintiff sought treatment for pain in his shoulders and neck at Wake Health Services. He informed Wake Health Services that on September 25, 2007 that he injured himself ". . . pulling and pushing a heavy cart/laundry (bin)". He was taken out of work for two weeks and was directed to undergo x-rays, which were done of both his neck and his shoulders on October 8, 2007.

7. Plaintiff's pain worsened and he sought treatment for his right shoulder at the Wake Med Emergency Room on November 5, 2007. Plaintiff told physician's assistant David Goodman that he injured his right shoulder pulling a linen cart at work a few weeks prior to that date. Mr. Goodman referred plaintiff to follow up with an orthopedist.

8. On November 12, 2007, plaintiff sought treatment for his right shoulder with orthopedist Dr. Jonathan Chappell. A progress sheet completed in Dr. Chappell's office reveals that plaintiff reported that his right shoulder pain began when he "was @ work pushing and pulling a cart." Dr. Chappell recommended that plaintiff undergo an MRI.

9. The MRI of plaintiff's right shoulder revealed that he sustained a superior labral tear of his right shoulder.

10. On December 5, 2007, Dr. Chappell kept plaintiff out of work until after an evaluation subsequent to the January 3, 2008 surgery of his right shoulder.

11. On January 3, 2008, Dr. Chappell performed surgical repair of the labrum in plaintiff's right shoulder.

12. At his deposition Dr. Chappell stated that plaintiff's description of the September 25, 2007 incident could have resulted in an injury, causing the findings on the MRI and at the time of surgery. He further stated that this type of injury does not usually occur unless there is a substantial amount of force to the arm. Dr. Chappell believed that plaintiff's description of the *Page 6

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

Related

Taylor v. J. P. Stevens Co.
298 S.E.2d 681 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brewer v. Oaks of Carolina, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brewer-v-oaks-of-carolina-ncworkcompcom-2010.