Decker v. Masco Corp. Manu. Co., Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 18, 2000
DocketI.C. NO. 863348
StatusPublished

This text of Decker v. Masco Corp. Manu. Co., Inc. (Decker v. Masco Corp. Manu. Co., 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
Decker v. Masco Corp. Manu. Co., Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2000).

Opinion

The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Lorrie L. Dollar and the briefs and arguments on appeal. Prior to arguments before the Full Commission defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs appeal for failure to perfect. However, the Full Commission will determine this matter on its merits and Defendants Motion is hereby DENIED. The appealing party had not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for a New Hearing and his Motion for Reconsideration are hereby DENIED. Pursuant to it authority under G.S. 97-85, the Full Commission has made some non-substantive modifications to the findings of fact, and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties in their Pre-Trial Agreement, filed 24 March 1999, and at the hearing of the same date as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, the parties are properly before the Commission, and the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers Compensation Act at all relevant times.

2. Defendant was self-insured with Specialty Risk Services, Inc., as the third-party administrator.

3. An employment relationship existed between the parties at all times relevant hereto.

4. Plaintiffs average weekly wage was $863.20, which yields a compensation rate of $532.00

5. The issues for determination are:

a. Did plaintiff sustain an injury as a result of a specific traumatic injury to his back on or about 3 June 1998?

b. Did plaintiff sustain an injury as a result of a specific traumatic injury to his back on or about 29 June 1998?

c. If plaintiff sustained a compensable injury, is he entitled to temporary total disability benefits from 11 July 1998 and continuing for necessary weeks?

d. If plaintiff sustained a compensable injury, is he entitled to medical treatment?

e. Were the medical services of Richard Escajeda, M.D.; William R. Brown, Jr., M.D.; Forsyth Memorial Hospital; and Piedmont Anesthesia and Pain consultants reasonably required to effect a cure, provide relief or lessen the period of disability and should the defendant pay for these services?

f. Whether the condition for which plaintiff seeks compensation is causally related to the alleged incidents of 3 June 1998 or 29 June 1998?

6. The parties stipulated one hundred and twelve pages of documentary evidence, marked as Stipulated Exhibit (1), into the record.

***********
Based upon the entire record of evidence, the Full Commission enters the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner on 24 March 1999, plaintiff was a fifty-nine year old married male. Plaintiff began working for defendant on 18 February 1969 as a long distance truck driver.

2. On 10 February 1992, plaintiff was admitted to Forsyth Memorial Hospital after a six-week history of low back pain radiating down the anterior lateral and posterior aspect of his left leg to his ankle. Dr. William Brown, Jr., ordered diagnostic testing for a suspected lateral disk herniation at L4-5. Dr. Brown performed a lumbar hemilaminectomy at left L4-5 and a left medial facetectomy at L4-5 on 13 February 1992. Following the surgery, plaintiff reported his leg pain had resolved, and he was discharged from the hospital on 14 February 1992.

3. Plaintiff was released to return to work without restrictions by Dr. Brown on 26 April 1992.

4. On 5 April 1994, plaintiff returned to Dr. Brown with complaints of a gradual onset of left hip and left leg pain. Plaintiff reported using crutches to walk and of having pain in the right leg also. Plaintiff was diagnosed with a herniated nucleus pulposus at L3-4. Dr. Brown excused plaintiff from work through 25 April 1995 and recommended surgery.

5. In December of 1997, plaintiff asked his employer to reassign him from a trip to Michigan due to his back.

6. On 3 June 1998, plaintiff was driving his tractor-trailer. As he turned on the I-85 ramp, the trailer came loose and fell to the right. The right passenger side of the cab was damaged when the trailer struck it.

7. State Trooper E. C. Smith investigated this accident. Plaintiff reported to Trooper Smith that he did not need medical care as a result of the incident. Trooper Smith prepared an Accident Report which reflected there were no injuries as a result of this accident. Trooper Smiths report also reflected that there was only one person in the truck at the time of the accident, based upon what plaintiff reported to him.

8. Joseph Barnes, a maintenance machinist with defendant, went to the scene of the accident to cut the pins from the landing gear so the wrecker could move the trailer.

9. On 3 July 1998, plaintiff spoke with Ray Dennis and Steve Harrison.

10. After the accident, plaintiff drove the cab back to the plant. Defendant sent him to Med Zone drug and alcohol testing, in accordance with company policy. Also per company policy, plaintiff was not permitted to drive a load until the test results came back. On 9 June 1998, plaintiffs negative test results were reported and he was assigned a trip.

11. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner on 24 March 1999, plaintiff testified that his wife was in the sleeper compartment at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs wife, Mrs. Doris Decker, testified she left the scene after the accident because she had a cold sore and went to the store. Plaintiff testified he told her to leave the cab before anyone arrived because he did not want to get his supervisor in trouble, even though he said he had permission to take her on the trip. Because of the inconsistencies regarding this testimony, it is given little weight by the Full Commission.

12. Plaintiff contends he told his supervisor that he had back pain after the accident. Plaintiff said that he called Dr. Browns office but was told no appointment was available for two months. This testimony not accepted as being credible.

13. On 23 June 1998, plaintiff was examined by his family doctor, Dr. Richard Escajeda, for cough, headache, nose bleeds and ear ringing per the medical records. Plaintiffs testimony that he went to Dr. Escajeda on 23 June 1998 due to his back pain is not accepted and is not corroborated by the medical evidence.

14. Plaintiff took vacation leave from 31 June 1998 through 8 July 1998. While on vacation at Holden Beach, plaintiff contends he had to see a doctor and had to use crutches to walk. However, no medical evidence was offered to reflect any visit to a medical provider during this vacation for back pain.

15. Plaintiff last worked for the defendant on 10 July 1998. When plaintiff saw Sharon Armstrong, defendants Human Resources Manager, on 20 July 1998 for the filing of his medical leave of absence, he reported that his back pain was a work-related injury which started on 29 June 1998 while untarping the truck. Plaintiff prepared a written statement to that effect.

16. On 20 July 1998, plaintiff reported to Ms. Armstrong that he had another ruptured disc and that his back had begun hurting while he was in Ohio.

17. Plaintiff first reported having back pain to Dr. Dennis on July 9, 1998.

18.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Decker v. Masco Corp. Manu. Co., Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decker-v-masco-corp-manu-co-inc-ncworkcompcom-2000.