Coby v. Manring

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 20, 2011
DocketI.C. NOS. W56609 PH-2465.
StatusPublished

This text of Coby v. Manring (Coby v. Manring) 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
Coby v. Manring, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Phillips and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties or their representatives. Having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission affirms in part, with modifications, and remands in part the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
The following were submitted to the Deputy Commissioner as:

EXHIBITS *Page 2
1. Plaintiff's Ex. #1: IC Forms, Medical Records, Medical Bills

2. State's Ex. #1: NCIC Coverage Screen Printout

***********
ISSUES
1. Whether an employment relationship existed between Plaintiff and Mr. Manring under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act?

2. Whether Plaintiff was injured in the course and scope of employment, and if so, to what benefits is Plaintiff entitled, if any?

3. Whether any penalties should be assessed for Mr. Manring's failure to provide workers' compensation insurance as required by the Act?

4. What is Plaintiff's average weekly wage?

***********
Based upon all of the competent credible evidence of record and the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Plaintiff was 30 years old having a date of birth of May 5, 1980. Plaintiff did not complete high school, however, he earned a GED.

2. Plaintiff was employed by Warner Manring as a laborer installing roofing, sheet metal siding and skylights in connection with a construction project Mr. Manring was performing for Universal Steel which began on or about April 1, 2009.

3. Steven Ronald Carrico, his son, who is also named Steven Carrico, and James Atkins were also employees of Mr. Manring on May 2, 2009, and had worked with Plaintiff for *Page 3 approximately one and one-half weeks before Plaintiff's injury by accident. Mr. Manring also employed his step-son on an as-needed basis.

4. Plaintiff was paid $10.00 per hour for his work for Mr. Manring. Mr. Manring typically gave money to employee Steven Ronald Carrico to pay the other employees.

5. Mr. Manring testified, and his testimony was corroborated by Mr. Carrico, that he was just getting started in the sheet metal roofing business. Plaintiff had only worked for Mr. Manring for approximately two weeks before the date of his injury. Mr. Manring, however, was simultaneously performing a job at the Union County Schools and at a school in Holden Beach. The Union County job employed nine different people. Mr. Manring advised that he didn't obtain workers compensation coverage because he was performing the work under Universal Steel's name. In Mr. Manring's words "I was getting by lucky then I guess. They didn't — they never asked for it." Mr. Manring has had a pipeline of business with Universal Steel such that during a three year period (including the two years prior to the date of Plaintiff's injury), he did not need to bid on any other project.

6. Mr. Manring obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage effective May 27, 2009.

7. On May 2, 2009, Plaintiff was assisting a coworker who was operating a piece of heavy machinery commonly referred to as a "cherry picker." In order to assist his co-worker, Plaintiff had to walk in front of the cherry picker. While he was doing so, the cherry picker struck the back of Plaintiff's right heel and lower leg.

8. Following the accident, Plaintiff presented to High Point Regional Hospital where he was diagnosed with undisplaced lateral malleolar/tibial plafond variant and lateral malleolar *Page 4 fractures of the right ankle. Plaintiff was placed in a short leg fiberglass cast to stabilize his fractures and was ordered to keep his right leg elevated to decrease the swelling.

9. After it was applied, Plaintiff's cast became soaked in water and Plaintiff removed it. A May 12, 2009 medical note from Dr. Richard Avioli of Regional Physicians Orthopaedics states that Plaintiff removed a second cast because of pain. Dr. Avioli's examination on that date revealed a small superficial blister with a benign appearance on the medial side, with significantly decreased swelling since the date of injury. Plaintiff's blister was dressed and a new short leg cast was applied. Plaintiff was ordered to elevate his right leg and to continue to use crutches with touchdown weight-bearing and to follow up with his physician in three weeks. No evidence was introduced regarding a final visit and release from treatment by Dr. Avioli.

10. As a result of his injury by accident, Plaintiff was unable to return to work for Mr. Manring. Mr. Manring offered to provide Plaintiff with light-duty work and payment of his medical bills, however, this did not materialize.

11. Plaintiff made diligent job search efforts, and on or about June 2, 2009, he obtained a position with a tree crew earning $9.00 per hour. Plaintiff became physically incapable of performing this work and resigned from the job on or about July 15, 2009.

12. On or about August 15, 2009, Plaintiff accepted a position with Food Lion as a stocker earning $320.00 per week. Plaintiff was physically capable of performing this job with some difficulty. Plaintiff worked in this position for two months until his employment was terminated as part of a general layoff on or about October 15, 2009. *Page 5

13. Plaintiff was unemployed for two to three months following his layoff from Food Lion until he obtained a cashier position with Pop Shoppe. Plaintiff earned $7.50 per hour in this position.

14. As a result of his work related accident, Plaintiff is unable to perform strenuous physical work such as he did for Mr. Manring. Climbing ladders and performing activities requiring him to twist or bend his foot causes Plaintiff pain. In addition, Plaintiff cannot put pressure on his injured foot on angles. Plaintiff requires and uses the assistance of an over-the-counter brace for his right ankle.

15. It is unclear whether Plaintiff is yet at maximum medical improvement from his work related injuries, and no evidence was introduced regarding a permanent partial disability rating assignment.

16. The record does not contain sufficient evidence of the number of hours worked by Plaintiff during his employment with Mr. Manring from which to determine Plaintiff's average weekly wage. There is no Form 22 in the record and Plaintiff testified that he did not keep a record of the hours he worked for Mr. Manring. While the Form 18 dated November 24, 2009 indicates that Plaintiff worked "8+" hours per day and "5+" days per week, this is contradicted by Plaintiff's testimony that he worked between one and two weeks for Mr. Manring and that there were some days during the one to two week period when he did not work due to weather conditions.

***********
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Full Commission concludes as follows:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW *Page 6
1.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-30
North Carolina § 97-30
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31
§ 97-93
North Carolina § 97-93
§ 97-94
North Carolina § 97-94(b)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Coby v. Manring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coby-v-manring-ncworkcompcom-2011.