Collins v. Speedway Motor Sports Corp.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 28, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 737748
StatusPublished

This text of Collins v. Speedway Motor Sports Corp. (Collins v. Speedway Motor Sports Corp.) 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
Collins v. Speedway Motor Sports Corp., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Holmes 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 minor modifications.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Commission and the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

2. All parties have been correctly designated, and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

3. Both plaintiff and defendants are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

4. At all times relevant to this matter, an employer-employee relationship existed between defendant-employer and plaintiff.

5. The date of the injury which is the subject of this claim is August 12, 1997.

***********
Based upon the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner and the evidence of record, the Full Commission finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On August 12, 1997, plaintiff was employed as a ground maintenance worker for defendant-employer in Concord, North Carolina when he sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment with defendant-employer. While riding at approximately forty miles per hour as a passenger in a golf cart, plaintiff's right leg was injured when it struck a concrete pillar.

2. As a result of the August 12, 1997 injury, plaintiff was admitted to University Hospital where x-rays of his right leg revealed comminuted transverse fractures of the distal third of the tibia and fibula. Consequently, plaintiff immediately underwent closed reduction surgery and splinting of the tibia and fibula fractures by John S. Gaul, M.D. On August 14, 1998, plaintiff underwent further closed reduction surgery and intramedullary nailing of the tibial shaft fracture by Matthew David Ohl, M.D.

3. On August 14, 1997, a Form 19 was completed by defendant-employer. Thereafter, on August 22, 1997, defendant-employer completed a Form 22 Wage Chart showing plaintiff's earnings of $7,261 over a period of 142 days (or 20.285714 weeks). However, the Form 22 was not provided to plaintiff, who at that time was unrepresented.

4. On August 22, 1997, plaintiff presented for his first postoperative follow-up visit with Dr. Ohl. Plaintiff's staples were removed and he was placed in a walker boot. He was written out of work for 6 weeks, as no light duty was available for him at work.

5. On September 3, 1997, defendant-carrier admitted liability for plaintiff's injuries and executed a Form 21 agreement, wherein it agreed to pay plaintiff temporary total disability benefits beginning August 22, 1997 at a rate of $213.33 per week, based on an average weekly wage of $320.00. Plaintiff who remained unrepresented executed the Form 21 agreement, which the Commission approved on March 2, 1998.

6. The Form 21 agreement included the standard language on line 5 stating that the average weekly wage was "subject to verification unless otherwise agreed upon on line 9 below" and line 9 of the Form 21 agreement was left blank.

7. The average weekly wage on the Form 21 agreement is inconsistent with plaintiff's earnings listed on the Form 22 Wage Chart.

8. On October 17, 1997, Dr. Ohl found a lack of mobility and dorsiflexion of plaintiff's foot. X-rays revealed early callus formation with anatomic position on the lateral view and slight apex medial angulation on the medial view of plaintiff's foot. Dr. Ohl was concerned about peroneal nerve weakness and recommended that plaintiff return in two weeks to discuss and schedule outpatient surgery for dynamization of the distal screw to allow plaintiff to compress down on the fracture. However, plaintiff did not return to Dr. Ohl before moving to Ohio in December 1997.

9. After moving to Ohio, plaintiff was examined there on December 4, 1997 by Kee P. Wong, M.D. for ongoing right leg pain. Dr. Wong diagnosed plaintiff with a peroneal nerve injury and a delayed union of the left tibia fracture and ordered an EMG and nerve conduction test. On December 18, 1997, plaintiff was seen at Robinson Memorial Hospital where he underwent nerve conduction studies and an electromyogram, which revealed neuropathic abnormalities of the peroneal nerve and the posterior tibialis nerve of plaintiff's right leg.

10. On February 11, 1998, Dr. Wong removed plaintiff's distal locking screw of the right tibia. Thereafter, on February 21, 1998, Dr. Wong found that plaintiff's surgical wounds had healed and plaintiff was to return in one month to evaluate the need for further surgery. Plaintiff was seen for follow-up on March 5, 1998 and reported no pain. Dr. Wong felt further monitoring of healing was necessary to determine the need for further surgery. Plaintiff returned on April 14, 1998 without complaints of pain but continued to have very little ankle motion and minimal dorsiflexion. X-rays revealed proper healing with a disappearing fracture line. Dr. Wong recommended stretching exercises and that plaintiff begin to look for work with the restrictions that he not constantly stand or walk but that the activity level increase with plaintiff's progress.

11. Plaintiff was further seen for follow-up on May 28, 1998 and July 28, 1998. On September 4, 1998, Dr. Wong filled out documents sent by Concentra Managed Care concerning vocational rehabilitation and work restrictions.

12. On January 25, 1999, Dr. Wong found plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement with restrictions of no repetitive lifting and no lifting over 30 pounds with standing for up to four hours and sitting for up to eight hours. Dr. Wong recommended that plaintiff undergo vocational rehabilitation.

13. After plaintiff was released to return to work in January 1999, he attempted to find work within his restrictions in Ohio. However, plaintiff was unsuccessful in Ohio. Therefore, plaintiff moved back to North Carolina to continue his employment search. In August 1999, a vocational rehabilitation professional was assigned to assist plaintiff in his job search. However, the rehabilitation professional was unable to locate employment for plaintiff.

14. On October 15, 1999, plaintiff returned to see Dr. Ohl who found that plaintiff had a healed fracture with continuing peroneal nerve palsy, a permanent peroneal nerve lesion to the foot and ankle and a lack of motion and dorsiflexion. As a result, Dr. Ohl assigned a 35% rating to plaintiff's foot. Dr. Ohl indicated that plaintiff could return to work with restrictions of no prolonged walking greater than 1 hour without a sitting break and lifting restrictions of approximately 45 pounds.

15. In December 1999, plaintiff again left North Carolina and returned to Ohio. Defendant-carrier again assigned a vocational rehabilitation professional to assist plaintiff in his job search. This individual was also unsuccessful in locating work for plaintiff.

16. Plaintiff eventually found work in February 2000. On February 6, 2000, plaintiff began working at approximately $5.25 per hour at an Ohio plastics plant, Four Seasons.

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

Related

State v. Sidden
340 S.E.2d 340 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Arnold v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
571 S.E.2d 888 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
Knight v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
562 S.E.2d 434 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
Moretz v. Richards & Associates, Inc.
342 S.E.2d 844 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Collins v. Speedway Motor Sports Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-speedway-motor-sports-corp-ncworkcompcom-2003.