Budd v. Sprint North Supply

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 24, 2004
DocketI.C. NO. 360054
StatusPublished

This text of Budd v. Sprint North Supply (Budd v. Sprint North Supply) 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
Budd v. Sprint North Supply, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2004).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Donovan and the briefs and arguments of the parties. 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 finds as a fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act at all relevant times.

2. Defendant RskCo Claim Services was the carrier on the risk.

3. Plaintiff was employed by defendant-employer on July 8, 1993 as a distribution person. He was employed by defendant-employer from July 15, 1991 until October 1993. Plaintiff's last day of actual work was July 15, 1993.

4. On or about July 8, 1993, plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury when he was operating a stock picker and was hit from the rear by another stock picker and plaintiff felt back pain and a sharp pain between his shoulders.

5. Defendants have paid benefits to plaintiff as a result of his July 8, 1993 injury, pursuant to a Form 21 Agreement approved by the Commission on June 13, 1994.

6. On November 2, 1993, Dr. Douglas McFarlane of Cape Fear Orthopaedic Clinic in Fayetteville, N.C., determined that plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement and assigned a 5% permanent partial disability rating to plaintiff's back.

7. Prior to payment of a permanent partial disability rating, plaintiff experienced an exacerbation of back pain and requested and received approval from defendants for additional medical treatment.

8. Plaintiff has not yet been compensated for any permanent partial disability.

9. Defendants have continued to pay medical benefits for on-going medical treatment since 1993 up to and including treatment rendered in 2003.

10. On July 8, 1993, plaintiff's average weekly wage was $484.00, yielding a compensation rate of $322.68.

11. The issues for determination are:

a. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any temporary total disability benefits as a result of his July 8, 1993 compensable injury?

b. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any medical benefits as a result of his July 8, 1993 compensable injury?

c. Whether defendants are barred by equitable estoppel and/or latches to deny plaintiff further benefits on the basis of another injury, which allegedly occurred on October 11, 1994?

d. Whether plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1?

e. Whether plaintiff's exacerbation of his back injury resulted from an independent intervening cause attributable to his own intentional conduct, rendering the exacerbation non-compensable?

7. The parties stipulated the following documentary evidence:

a. Stipulated Exhibit 1 contains plaintiff's medical records, Industrial Commission forms and answers to discovery requests.

***********
MOTION RULING
Plaintiff's Motion to Bar Defendants' Defense of Intervening Cause on grounds of estoppel and/or latches is hereby DENIED.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 47 years old. On July 8, 1993, plaintiff was employed by defendant-employer as a stock picker. On that date, plaintiff was hit in the back by another stock picker and suffered an injury to his back.

2. Defendants accepted plaintiff's claim as compensable and entered into a Form 21 Agreement to pay temporary total disability compensation for necessary weeks. Defendants paid plaintiff indemnity compensation from July 8, 1993 through November 4, 1993.

3. Plaintiff received treatment from Dr. Douglas McFarlane of Cape Fear Orthopaedic Clinic in Fayetteville, North Carolina. He was diagnosed with a moderately severe muscle strain in the dorsal spine and written out of work. Plaintiff was given medication and entered physical therapy.

4. In August 1993, plaintiff began work hardening. He continued to complain of lower thoracic and upper lumbar soreness and stiffness and was continued out of work.

5. Plaintiff continued to receive treatment from Dr. McFarlane and on October 15, 1993 reported that he was still experiencing back spasms. Plaintiff was encouraged to change jobs to one that did not require heavy lifting and was continued out of work through November 2, 1993. On November 2, 1993, Dr. McFarlane opined that plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement despite continuing back spasms. He rated plaintiff with a 5% permanent partial disability rating to his back and imposed permanent restrictions of no prolonged standing, repetitive bending or lifting or carrying more than 25 pounds.

6. On November 4, 1993, plaintiff began working for Cape Fear Harley Davidson as a parts manager. Plaintiff's job did not require heavy lifting, but did require frequent standing on a concrete floor. Plaintiff continued to experience some back pain in his new employment.

7. Plaintiff received a second opinion of his permanent partial disability rating from Dr. Steven P. Montgomery on January 17, 1994. At that time, plaintiff was taking 400 mg of Motrin daily for continuing back pain. Plaintiff also reported to Dr. McFarlane that he continued to have aching in his back with stiffness, especially in the morning, and that he occasionally awoke during the night with back pain. Dr. Montgomery diagnosed plaintiff with a thoracolumbar strain. He recommended that plaintiff increase his dosage of anti-inflammatories and continue home physical therapy. Dr. Montgomery opined that plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement and found no evidence of permanent impairment.

8. On October 11, 1994, plaintiff presented to Dr. Eric Burger of Doctor's Urgent Care Center with complaints of back pain. The office notes state that the onset of plaintiff's back pain began on July 8, 1993 and that he experienced an increase in pain after bending over to pick up a 70 pound object. Plaintiff felt a pop in his mid to low back with pain radiating down his left leg and up his back into his neck.

9. Plaintiff disputes the information contained in Dr. Burger's note. Plaintiff contends that he felt the pop when he tried to stand and that he did not attempt to lift a 70-pound object. Plaintiff maintains that he explained to Dr. Burger that he was required to lift heavy objects in his prior employment and that Dr. Burger mistakenly assigned that information to plaintiff's injury of the previous day.

10. Dr. Burger diagnosed plaintiff with some degenerative disc disease, anterolaterally at C6-7. Plaintiff continued to treat with Dr. Burger and on December 5, 1994, he was referred by Dr. Burger to an orthopedist. Defendants continued to pay for plaintiff's medical treatment.

11. On December 20, 1994, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. David P. Fedder at Pinehurst Surgical Clinic. Plaintiff reported that he was injured at work in July 1993 and that his back pain had continued since that time.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-88.1
North Carolina § 97-88.1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Budd v. Sprint North Supply, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/budd-v-sprint-north-supply-ncworkcompcom-2004.