Crawford v. Phillips

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJune 11, 2009
DocketI.C. NOS. 504754 PH-1327.
StatusPublished

This text of Crawford v. Phillips (Crawford v. Phillips) 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
Crawford v. Phillips, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the entire evidentiary record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and arguments before the Full Commission. Based on all of the evidence of record, and in accordance with the directives of the Court of Appeals, the Full Commission enters the following Opinion and Award.

*********** *Page 2
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matter of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

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

2. Neither of the parties in this action is appearing in a representative capacity.

3. There are no third party defendants or cross claimants.

4. Defendant was uninsured at the time of injury.

5. As a result of plaintiff's fall at work and resulting fracture of his distal radius, plaintiff was totally disabled from February 19, 2005 through April 22, 2005.

6. As a result of plaintiff's fall at work and resulting fracture of his distal radius, plaintiff has sustained a ten percent permanent partial impairment to his right arm.

7. The following were received into evidence at the Deputy Commissioner's hearing and marked as Stipulated Exhibit 1:

a. Pre-Trial Agreement

b. Medical and employment records pertaining to plaintiff

c. Discovery requests and responses

d. Industrial Commission Forms, Orders, and correspondence

e. News articles regarding Mike Phillips or Men at Work Car Care Center.

8. The issues before the Commission are whether defendant is subject to the Workers' Compensation Act; whether plaintiff sustained a compensable injury to his arm and, if so, what benefits he is entitled to receive; and whether plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1. *Page 3

***********
In accordance with the directives of the North Carolina Court of Appeals and based upon the competent evidence of record herein, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the Deputy Commissioner's hearing, plaintiff was 52 years old and was a high school graduate. Plaintiff has work experience in construction, cotton mills and general labor.

2. In November 2004, plaintiff began working for defendant washing and sweeping floors and emptying trash cans. Defendant Mike Phillips operates a car wash under the name "Men at Work Car Care Center" in downtown Raleigh. Plaintiff testified that he worked for defendant approximately ten hours per day Monday through Saturday, earned $150.00 per week, and was paid once per week on Saturday evenings. Plaintiff was paid in cash and has no pay stubs. Plaintiff testified that he received advances on his pay in the amount of $5.00 or $10.00, and that amount would be deducted from his pay. Plaintiff testified that he worked with three or four other employees, who performed the same job duties, but he could not recall their names.

3. On February 19, 2005, plaintiff slipped and fell on water on the floor in the bay while he was washing a car. Plaintiff landed on his outstretched right hand, causing injury to his arm and wrist. Mike Phillips took plaintiff to the emergency room at WakeMed. Plaintiff testified that Mr. Phillips gave him $100.00 when he dropped him off at the emergency room. Plaintiff did not work for defendant after February 19, 2005; however, he testified that several days later he went to defendant's premises and Mr. Phillips gave him an additional $20.00.

4. At Wake Med, plaintiff was diagnosed with a right distal radius fracture. He was released with a splint and instructions to follow up in three to five days with Wake Orthopaedics; *Page 4 however, plaintiff continued to have pain and returned to the WakeMed emergency room on February 25, 2005.

5. On March 10, 2005, plaintiff underwent surgery for an open reduction and internal fixation of his fracture with a distal radius plate. Plaintiff was placed in a soft cast and was prescribed physical therapy. After April 22, 2005, plaintiff discontinued physical therapy because he felt his wrist had healed. Plaintiff was released to return to work on April 22, 2005.

6. As a result of plaintiff's fall at work and resulting fracture of his distal radius, plaintiff was totally disabled from February 19, 2005 through April 22, 2005 and has sustained a ten percent partial impairment to his right arm.

7. Previously, plaintiff worked for Roy Smith as a day laborer, unloading trucks. Mr. Smith testified that he saw plaintiff washing cars at defendant's premises three or four times from November 2004 until February 19, 2005 and that when he was at defendant's premises, he saw on average three or four people washing cars. Mr. Smith has no knowledge of the employment relationship between defendant and plaintiff or the other workers.

8. At the Deputy Commissioner's hearing, Mr. Phillips testified that his business is a sole proprietorship and that he uses "independent contractors" who act as day laborers. Mr. Phillips pays his workers daily in cash and does not keep any payroll records. He testified that he has never paid anyone $150.00 per week as wages. Mr. Phillips stated that he does not have "employees," and although he does have certain men who have worked with him over time, they do not work regularly. He does "tell them what to do," like washing a car or cleaning up the shop, and he also provides the equipment and supplies they need to perform the work. Mr. Phillips also instructs the workers how to wash a car if they are not doing it how he wanted. On cross-examination, Mr. Phillips admitted that Vermont Hinton worked for him several times per *Page 5 week, off and on for six years and that Greg Applewhite also worked for him, on and off for "years." On a rainy day, Mr. Phillips testified that he would have five or six guys come to his premises and he would pay them for any work they performed while they were there, but that usually there were two or three men who wanted to work on any given day.

9. At the Deputy Commissioner's hearing, Mr. Phillips initially testified that plaintiff never worked for him. Mr. Phillips later stated that he did "have him help out a little bit, clean up, but Al was never an employee of Men At Work." Mr. Phillips then acknowledged that plaintiff did wash a car a couple of times; however, plaintiff smelled of alcohol and so Mr. Phillips did not have him continue washing cars. He testified that plaintiff never moved cars because he was not qualified to drive and that plaintiff did not work Monday through Saturday for ten hours each day beginning in November 2004. He testified that he paid plaintiff daily for work performed and that plaintiff worked only a couple of times out of the week. Later, Mr. Phillips testified that plaintiff came by and worked for him approximately five times from November 2004 until February 19, 2005.

10. On February 19, 2005, Mr. Phillips testified that plaintiff was not working, but that he was at defendant's premises. He did give plaintiff a ride to the hospital because plaintiff was not feeling well, but testified that he did not give plaintiff $100.00 once they reached Wake Med.

11. Mr.

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

Related

McCown v. Hines
549 S.E.2d 175 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2001)
Shoup v. AMERICAN TRUST COMPANY
97 S.E.2d 111 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Johnson v. Asheville Hosiery Co.
153 S.E. 591 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Sparks v. Mountain Breeze Restaurant & Fish House, Inc.
286 S.E.2d 575 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Crawford v. Phillips, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-phillips-ncworkcompcom-2009.