Bullock v. Headway Corporate Staffing Serv.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 27, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 934263
StatusPublished

This text of Bullock v. Headway Corporate Staffing Serv. (Bullock v. Headway Corporate Staffing Serv.) 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
Bullock v. Headway Corporate Staffing Serv., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner 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, except with certain modifications concerning attendant care. Accordingly, the Full Commission modifies the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. The Employee is Willie Bullock.

2. The Employer is Headway Corporate Staffing Services.

3. The Carrier on the risk is Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company.

4. The employee-employer relationship existed between the parties on the date of the accident.

5. The accidental injury occurred on April 26, 1999.

6. Plaintiff suffered a closed head injury on April 26, 1999.

7. Defendant-employer accepted this claim as compensable.

8. The parties are subject to the Workers' Compensation Act.

9. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $312.00, which yields a compensation rate of $208.00 per week.

10. The depositions of Dr. Karen Smith and Dr. Donald Price are a part of the evidentiary record.

***********
Based on the evidence of record, the Full Commission finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident on April 25, 1999 when he was struck in the head with a piece of molding. Consequently, plaintiff was admitted to Pitt County Memorial Hospital and underwent a CT scan.

2. On April 26, 1999, while still in the hospital, plaintiff was evaluated by neurologist Dr. Donald Price who found post-concussive syndrome and related inappropriate social behavior but no clear history of a seizure at that time. However, plaintiff did experience seizures while admitted to the hospital. Thereafter, on May 10, 1999, plaintiff was again evaluated by Dr. Price for his injury and the seizures. Plaintiff underwent an MRI of his brain and laboratory tests which were essentially normal and was given Dilantin to prevent further seizures. On June 22, 1999, Dr. Price was still unclear of the exact cause of plaintiff's seizures but had ruled out causes other than the injury such as a brain tumor. Dr. Price indicated that head trauma could cause epilepsy. Dr. Price continued to treat plaintiff with anti-convulsants and restricted him from driving or operating heavy machinery.

3. On August 10, 1999, plaintiff was first seen by Dr. Karen Smith, a family practitioner, for his seizure disorder and for high blood pressure. At that time, plaintiff was on Dilantin for his seizures as recommended by Dr. Price. However, plaintiff developed a problem due to the level of Dilantin becoming too high resulting in plaintiff's hospitalization after he passed out and possibly had additional seizure activity. Therefore, Dr. Smith prescribed Tegretol for plaintiff's seizures instead of Dilantin. While hospitalized, plaintiff had episodes where he lacked awareness of his surroundings. Dr. Smith observed these episodes, which she felt, could pose a danger to plaintiff while driving or operating heavy machinery.

4. Considering plaintiff's history, which did not include prior seizure activity, Dr. Smith found that plaintiff's seizure disorder was related to his injury by accident. According to Dr. Smith, plaintiff's seizures could be triggered if he were to fall, have alterations in his blood pressure or take his medications inappropriately. Dr. Smith indicated that plaintiff is not capable of safely monitoring and administering his own medication.

5. On September 8, 2000, plaintiff requested that defendants pay for attendant care services being provided predominantly by his sister, Lena Bullock, as well as by other members of plaintiff's family.

6. According to Dr. Smith, plaintiff is not capable of keeping up with his doctor's appointments. Plaintiff's sister usually accompanies plaintiff and obtains all necessary information for plaintiff's care.

7. Since plaintiff is restricted from driving, plaintiff needs someone to shop for him and run errands for him.

8. Furthermore, plaintiff should not attempt to prepare food and is in need of someone to prepare his meals. In fact, plaintiff's sister indicated that since his injury, plaintiff has put food on the stove to cook and then simply forgot, which could have resulted in a fire, serious injury or death to plaintiff or others.

9. Plaintiff is required to take Tegretol to control his seizures and he must maintain it at a level between 4 and 12. If his Tegretol level falls below or rises above this level, it could trigger a seizure. In fact, the failure to properly time the taking of just one pill could trigger a seizure.

10. When plaintiff has seizures, he is likely to fall and injure himself. Falls during seizures can lead to bleeding, closed head injury, broken bones or death; plaintiff would be utterly helpless during these seizures.

11. Plaintiff's sister has the ability, temperament, and devotion to provide the unskilled care plaintiff requires. Furthermore, plaintiff's sister is a suitable, discreet person who is highly motivated to provide care for her brother. Plaintiff's sister's testimony is convincing on this point and Dr. Smith believes that plaintiff's sister can appropriately provide the required care. Further, Dr. Smith indicates that plaintiff would like for his sister to provide this care.

12. Plaintiff is in need of attendant care by an unskilled caregiver such as a sitter or chore-worker. Plaintiff's sister is well qualified to provide this care. However, another unskilled caregiver could also provide the required care, if necessary. Specifically, plaintiff is in need of assistance with his medications. Further, plaintiff is in need of help with meal preparation not only to regulate his blood pressure through a low salt diet but also due to the danger posed when operating the stove. Finally, as plaintiff is restricted from driving, plaintiff is also in need of someone to run errands for him. While he needs transportation to his medical appointments, plaintiff must be accompanied by someone like his sister who will understand and remember all the necessary details related during the medical appointments in order to appropriately apply the medical information while caring for plaintiff.

13. Plaintiff's attendant care by an unskilled caregiver is required for approximately 16 hours a day, seven days a week. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of record regarding the reasonable rate at which attendant care is paid to an unskilled worker or sitter in plaintiff's geographic location and to base the rate of pay on plaintiff's sister's current job with the City of Rocky Mount would be inappropriate and unreasonable.

14. Plaintiff's sister has taken the following certified courses: 911, various telecommunication courses certified by the state to use Division of Criminal Information machine, CPR, and First-Aid, and she currently earns $11.10 per hour working usually 40 hours per week for the City of Rocky Mount. She has benefits provided to her and has a career opportunity job she enjoys doing.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bullock v. Headway Corporate Staffing Serv., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullock-v-headway-corporate-staffing-serv-ncworkcompcom-2002.