Coup v. Tradesmen Intl.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 26, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 324981
StatusPublished

This text of Coup v. Tradesmen Intl. (Coup v. Tradesmen Intl.) 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
Coup v. Tradesmen Intl., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Stanback 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 for modifications regarding plaintiff's ongoing disability.

***********
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 dated March 23, 2004 and at the hearing before the deputy commissioner as

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

2. All parties have been correctly designated, and there is no question as to mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties.

3. The parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act on the date of plaintiff's alleged injury, March 11, 2003.

4. Defendant-employer carried an applicable policy of workers' compensation insurance with CNA Insurance Company, on the date of plaintiff's alleged injury, March 11, 2003.

5. Plaintiff and defendant-employer entered into an employment relationship on or about June 23, 2000; an employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer on the date of plaintiff's alleged injury, March 11, 2003; and plaintiff last performed work for defendant-employer on or about March 28, 2003.

6. Plaintiff alleges that he injured his lower back on March 11, 2003, and plaintiff does not contend that he injured other body parts and/or that he suffered any injuries while working for defendant-employer on any date other than March 11, 2003.

7. Plaintiff's average weekly wage at the time of his alleged injury was $450.00, yielding a compensation rate of $300.00 per week.

8. The parties complied with the North Carolina Industrial Commission's Order to participate in a mediated settlement conference; the mediated settlement conference occurred on August 25, 2003; the mediated settlement conference ended in a partial settlement of the disputed issues as is documented in the parties' Consent Order; defendants have paid the entire mediator's fee of $750.00; defendants are entitled to be reimbursed by plaintiff in the amount of $375.00.

9. Plaintiff has not worked for defendant-employer or any other employer since March 28, 2003.

10. Plaintiff has previously received $1,000.00 from defendant-employer to which he was not entitled, on account of a check that was inadvertently issued. In the event that plaintiff should recover any compensation benefits, or in the event that the parties should enter into a settlement, then that $1,000.00 shall be considered as a pre-payment against any sums otherwise due plaintiff.

11. Plaintiff received unemployment benefits in the amount of $246.00 per week from April 14, 2003 through August 4, 2003, and defendants are entitled to a credit for these sums pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-42.

12. The parties' Post-Hearing Stipulations I and II are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

13. Documents stipulated into evidence include the following:

a. Stipulated Exhibit #1 — Plaintiff's medical records

14. The deposition of Leonard Nelson, M.D. was submitted and received in evidence after the hearing before the deputy commissioner.

***********
Based upon all the most competent, credible evidence in the record, the Full Commission makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Defendant-employer is a third party staffing service for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled tradespersons that places its employees at the job sites of others who provide direct supervision of persons so placed. At the time of the injury, plaintiff had worked for defendant-employer on various projects for approximately three years. He had no other employment during that time.

2. On March 11, 2003, plaintiff was assigned by defendant-employer to work at GE Modular Systems on Highway 401 South in Garner. Plaintiff's direct supervisor was Mike Goins. His job involved fixing modular trailers used for office space on construction "headquarters" on various job sites and for temporary classrooms at schools. Plaintiff worked primarily at the "yard" where GE Modular Systems kept and maintained its trailers.

3. On March 11, 2003 plaintiff was working with his supervisor, Mike Goins, and riding in a truck owned by GE Modular Services. While climbing out of and exiting a transfer truck, he felt a severe pain in his back.

4. Plaintiff immediately told Mike Goins that he hurt his back and that he thought that he had pulled a muscle, but that he would try to continue working. Plaintiff did not consider the situation to be "a big deal" at the time. Plaintiff worked for a couple of days that week for GE Modular Systems, but left later in the week due to the pain.

5. Consistent with the general practice employed by plaintiff, GE Modular Systems and Tradesmen, plaintiff completed his time card provided by Tradesmen at the end of the week during which he sustained the injury. Plaintiff noted on his time card for the week of March 10-14, 2003, that he had sustained an on-the-job injury. Plaintiff continued to work for defendant-employer after March 11, 2003, but his back pain continued to worsen.

6. Plaintiff went to Wake Med emergency room on March 31, 2003 complaining of lower back pain that began "when he stepped out of a truck three weeks ago." The emergency room physician, Jervi David Cicin, DO, diagnosed a lumbar strain and provided plaintiff a work note restricting him from climbing on ladders for four days.

7. Plaintiff provided defendant-employer with a copy of the work note from Dr. Cicin. Defendants' Exhibit 3A, entitled "Plaintiff Separation Information," indicates that defendant-employer had in its possession a "doctor note [that] says he can't work anyway" when plaintiff was terminated from employment.

8. Upon receiving plaintiff's work restrictions, defendant-employer did not offer plaintiff suitable work that complied with his restrictions.

9. Plaintiff last worked for defendant-employer on March 28, 2003. While defendant-employer did not inform plaintiff that he was terminated, they assigned him no work after March 28, 2003.

10. On March 14, 2003, plaintiff spoke with Mr. Charlie Thomke at Tradesmen. During that conversation, Mr. Thomke told plaintiff that he was denying plaintiff's claim and that plaintiff was supposed to report injuries within two hours of their occurrence.

11. Defendant-employer completed an Employee Separation Information Form terminating plaintiff on April 18, 2003, with a retroactive date of March 28, 2003. On or about March 21, 2003, plaintiff completed an employee incident report that is consistent with his hearing testimony and plaintiff's original report of injury. The form bears the signature of Mr. Thomke.

12. During the course of his employment with defendant-employer, plaintiff routinely worked fewer than 40 hours per week. On December 19, 2002 defendant-employer paid plaintiff for a painting job he had not yet performed. Plaintiff was informed that if he were to fail to complete the job, the payment for the same would be taken out of a future paycheck.

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

Related

Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Seagraves v. Austin Co. of Greensboro
472 S.E.2d 397 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Coup v. Tradesmen Intl., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coup-v-tradesmen-intl-ncworkcompcom-2005.