Deluca v. Regis Cost-Cutters

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJanuary 28, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 247605
StatusPublished

This text of Deluca v. Regis Cost-Cutters (Deluca v. Regis Cost-Cutters) 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
Deluca v. Regis Cost-Cutters, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned reviewed the prior Opinion and Award, based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Phillips. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; and having reviewed the competent evidence of records, the Full Commission reverses the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Phillips.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The date of the accident is February 26, 2002.

2. The parties are bound by and subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

3. As of February 26, 2002 an employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant-employer.

4. The average weekly wage is $656.38, yielding a compensation rate of $437.58.

5. This is a claim for temporary partial disability benefits, temporary total disability benefits, medical treatment, authorization for medical care.

6. Plaintiff has received treatment from Dr. Robert T. Wyker that was paid for by defendants. In addition, the parties stipulated into evidence the following:

A. All of plaintiff's medical records including notes from Dr. Robert T. Wyker, Raleigh Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Specialists, Dr. Kevin P. Speer, and Rex Healthcare Physical Therapy.

B. All I.C. Forms including without limitation Forms: 19, 21, 25R (7-29-02), 25R (1-21-03), 28, 28T, 28U, 62, and 90.

C. All of plaintiff's work and personnel records from employer-defendant, served under cover of letter to plaintiff's counsel on December 11, 2003.

D. All of plaintiff's responses and materials provided in response to defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and First Requests for Production of Documents.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing as:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing, the plaintiff was a 48-year-old graduate of Cosmetology school.

2. The plaintiff began working for defendant in March 1994. Through her years of employment with the defendant, the plaintiff was promoted and eventually became district manager over 12 of defendant's stores. In addition to her managerial duties, plaintiff routinely performed six haircuts per hour and cut hair during a six-hour shift, cutting more hair than her employees.

3. On February 26, 2002, plaintiff contracted an admittedly compensable occupational disease/injury by accident to her left shoulder while working for defendant. Plaintiff had surgery performed on the shoulder in September 2002 by Dr. Robert Wyker, orthopaedic surgeon. Dr. Wyker rated plaintiff with a 5% disability rating notwithstanding the fact that she continued to experience pain. Plaintiff was released to return to work on January 21, 2003.

4. The plaintiff returned to work with defendant-employer but worked in pain and had difficulty completing a full shift. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff's co-workers, Emily Lindler and Nikki Jones testified that the plaintiff had been a hard working and a very fast employee and that upon her return to work for defendant, after her work-related injury, she worked in obvious, visible pain and her work capabilities had dwindled.

5. Plaintiff continued to treat with her physical therapist, Claire Little, who stated that the plaintiff continued reporting pain in her left shoulder and that plaintiff did not seem to be getting any better, even after the surgery.

6. Plaintiff continued to work for defendant even though she continued to experience pain. Plaintiff complained of left shoulder pain in February and March of 2003 to Dr. Wyker and of pain in her right hip, a condition for which he had treated plaintiff for a period of time. Dr. Wyker prescribed a cortisone shot and pain medications for both conditions.

7. On May 16, 2003, the plaintiff's pain persisted and Dr. Wyker ordered an MRI for the first time and restricted plaintiff to light duty work with only working a couple of hours a day of actual hair cutting.

8. During May of 2003, the plaintiff continued to experience pain and requested a second opinion with Dr. Kevin Speer, orthopaedic surgeon. Defendants denied plaintiff's request. Dr. Wyker took plaintiff back out of work in June 2003 after her continuing complaints of pain. Plaintiff began receiving temporary total disability benefits in August 2003 back dated to June 26, 2003.

9. The plaintiff filed a Motion with the Executive Secretary of the North Carolina Industrial Commission requesting that Dr. Speer be her authorized treating physician, for surgery to be authorized and for defendant to pay plaintiff for back temporary partial disability benefits for the time period January 21, 2003 to June 26, 2003. The Executive Secretary granted plaintiff's motion, however, the defendant refused to comply and the plaintiff filed a Motion to Show Cause and requested a Show Cause hearing. The defendants subsequently filed a Motion to Reconsider and set aside the Executive Secretary's Order. The Executive Secretary vacated her Order of August 12, 2003. However, the Full Commission finds that the Executive Secretary lacked jurisdiction to Vacate her Order while the Motion to Show Cause was pending and set before a Deputy Commissioner.

10. On May 22, 2003, the plaintiff presented to Dr. Speer for a second opinion. Dr. Speer opined that plaintiff's impingement signs were positive and he also ordered an MRI. Upon Dr. Speer's review of this MRI on June 19, 2003, he completely removed plaintiff from work. Dr. Wyker's physician assistant, also took plaintiff out of work from June 26, 2003 and continuing.

11. Drs. Wyker and Speer both opined that the plaintiff needed additional surgery for her left shoulder notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Wyker opined that the plaintiff could not perform her regular duty job, but probably could perform light duty deskwork with `no lifting or cutting with her left arm".

12. The plaintiff wanted to have her second surgery performed as soon as possible so that she could return to work quickly. Dr. Speer was able to perform the surgery in July. Therefore, Dr. Speer performed plaintiff's second left shoulder surgery on July 21, 2003 and repaired two tears in her shoulder. Dr. Speer opined that during plaintiff's first shoulder surgery with Dr. Wyker, Dr. Wyker "removed things", but he did not repair anything. Dr. Speer focused on a biceps tendon release, subacromial decompression release and repairing the supraspinatus tendon.

13. The defendants contend that an intervening event caused plaintiff's continued left shoulder pain because plaintiff reported increased pain to Dr. Wyker in early November, 2002 allegedly due to plaintiff's reaching from the front seat of her car into the back seat for a book. However, plaintiff subsequently reported in December 2002 that her shoulder was improving and Dr. Wyker opined her shoulder problems were not serious and that she had probably just aggravated her shoulder. Also, from March 2003 to June 2003, the plaintiff moved in to live with her daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren. The plaintiff testified at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner that she babysat her two grandchildren on average for four days a week.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-30
North Carolina § 97-30

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Deluca v. Regis Cost-Cutters, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deluca-v-regis-cost-cutters-ncworkcompcom-2005.