Chriqui v. Belk, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJanuary 9, 2009
DocketI.C. NOS. 287848 291426.
StatusPublished

This text of Chriqui v. Belk, Inc. (Chriqui v. Belk, Inc.) 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
Chriqui v. Belk, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

***********
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 (except for medical documentation provided pursuant to the Order reopening the case) or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission affirms with minor modifications the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award.

*********** *Page 2
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing, and in the executed Pre-Trial Agreement, as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are bound by and subject to the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. At all relevant times, an employer-employee relationship existed between Employer-Defendant and Employee-Plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff has alleged two injuries, one occurring on November 15, 2000 (I.C. File No. 291426) when two boxes fell on her head, and another occurring on March 5, 2002 (I.C. File No. 287848) when she struck her left shoulder on a wall. The first claim was a medicals only claim and Plaintiff missed no time from work. The second claim was accepted as compensable under a Form 60 noting an average weekly wage of $416.74 with a corresponding compensation rate of $277.84.

4. Employee-Plaintiff took a one-month leave of absence in August 2003 and returned to work for Employer-Defendant at the same or greater average weekly wage in September 2003.

5. Employee-Plaintiff took a leave of absence from August 28, 2004 through January 3, 2005. Employee-Plaintiff returned to her job with Employer-Defendant at the same or greater wages on January 3, 2005.

6. All parties have been correctly designated, there is no question as to misjoinder of the parties, and the parties are subject to the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. *Page 3

7. Plaintiff received her initial medical treatment for her left shoulder complaints with Dr. Gualteros of Concentra Medical Centers. Plaintiff later began treatment with Dr. Noah at High Point Orthopedics and Sports Medicine in April of 2002. Plaintiff was then evaluated by Dr. Jackson of Triad Neurological Associates on May 20, 2002. Plaintiff eventually saw Dr. Curling with Winston Neurological Spine Surgery Associates and Dr. O'Brien with Orthopaedic Specialists of the Carolinas.

8. Plaintiff was released at maximum medical improvement on February 26, 2003 by Dr. Curling. She was provided a 5% rating to the back.

9. On March 29, 2004, Plaintiff underwent an independent medical evaluation with Dr. O'Brien. As a result of the examination, Plaintiff received a 0% rating.

***********
EXHIBITS
The following documents were accepted into evidence as stipulated exhibits:

• Exhibit 1: Executed Pre-Trial Agreement

The following documents were accepted into evidence as Plaintiff's exhibits:

• Exhibit 1: Medical records and bills

The following documents were accepted into evidence as Defendants' exhibits:

• Exhibit 1: Medical records

• Exhibit 2: Dr. Laura A. Black's responses to Defendants' written questions

• Exhibit 3: Dr. Damien S. Scelfo's responses to Defendants' written questions

The following were also received post-hearing: *Page 4

• Dr. O. Del Curling's opinion letter dated April 10, 2006

• Dr. Black's opinion letter dated January 26, 2006

Deputy Commissioner Harris received a letter from Plaintiff dated May 31, 2006, which was in the nature of a reply to Defendants' Contentions. The record in this case closed on May 25, 2006 and Plaintiff's May 31, 2006 letter was not considered by Deputy Commissioner Harris.

***********
ISSUES
The issues for determination before the Deputy Commissioner were:

1. Whether Plaintiff has received all appropriate medical benefits in I.C. No. 291426?

2. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to further medical treatment in I.C. No. 291426, and, if so, what treatment?

3. Whether Plaintiff has received all appropriate medical and indemnity benefits in I.C. No. 287848?

4. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to further medical treatment in I.C. No. 287848, and, if so, what treatment?

***********
ORDER
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Appeal filed November 17, 2008 is DENIED.

***********
Based upon all of the competent, credible evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following: *Page 5

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. During the period including 2000 and 2002 and following, Plaintiff was employed with Defendant-Employer in a retail sales position as a cosmetics consultant. In her position, Plaintiff had a variety of duties, including stocking inventory.

2. On November 15, 2000, two boxes of inventory weighing approximately 40 pounds apiece fell from a shelf and landed on Plaintiff's head. Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim for this incident, in which she alleged, via a Form 18 dated July 10, 2002, that she sustained injuries to her head and neck in the incident. This claim was assigned I.C. No. 291426.

3. Defendants handled I.C. No. 291426 as a "medicals-only" claim because Plaintiff did not miss any work time as a result of the November 15, 2000 incident, and her medical treatment immediately following the incident was, apparently, minimal.

4. Following the November 15, 2000 incident, Plaintiff treated with Concentra Medical Centers in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where she was diagnosed with a cervical strain.

5. On March 5, 2002, Plaintiff jammed her left shoulder into a doorframe as she was passing through a door at work. Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim for this incident, in which she alleged, via a Form 18 dated July 10, 2002, that she sustained injuries to her left shoulder, neck and back in the incident and that she had suffered from continuous migraine headaches since the incident. This claim was assigned I.C. No. 287848. 6. Defendants accepted I.C. No. 287848 as compensable via a Form 60 dated July 6, 2004. On the Form 60, Defendants described the injuries as being to Plaintiff's "upper back/neck area, left shoulder and lower back." *Page 6

7. Following the March 5, 2002 incident, Plaintiff initially treated with Concentra, where she was diagnosed with a left shoulder contusion and left cervical and thoracic strains. Defendants directed Plaintiff to Concentra.

8. Plaintiff then treated with Dr. H. Bryan Noah, an orthopedist, from April 15, 2002 through August 16, 2002. Defendants directed Plaintiff to Dr. Noah. Dr. Noah's impression was that Plaintiff suffered from a left shoulder contusion, cervical sprain and headaches.

9. On May 20, 2002, Plaintiff had a one-time consultation with Dr. Travis H. Jackson, a neurologist, based upon a referral by Dr. Noah. Dr.

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

Related

Perez v. American Airlines/AMR Corp.
620 S.E.2d 288 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Holley v. Acts, Inc.
581 S.E.2d 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chriqui v. Belk, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chriqui-v-belk-inc-ncworkcompcom-2009.