Deroche v. Canine

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 21, 2011
DocketI.C. NO. 199407.
StatusPublished

This text of Deroche v. Canine (Deroche v. Canine) 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
Deroche v. Canine, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Griffin, and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The parties have not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties or their representatives. Having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Griffin, with modifications.

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

STIPULATIONS *Page 2
1. On December 14, 2008, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. On that date, an employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer. The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company was the workers' compensation carrier on the risk, and St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company was the third-party administrator.

3. On December 14, 2008, plaintiff alleges that she sustained compensable injuries to multiple body parts due to an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant-employer. Defendants accepted the compensability of plaintiff's December 14, 2008 injury by accident to her right leg and vagina.

4. Defendants paid temporary total disability compensation at the rate of $125.35 per week from December 15, 2008 to March 23, 2009. Defendants paid plaintiff temporary total disability compensation at the rate of $108.63 per week from March 24, 2009 to April 20, 2009.

5. Plaintiff returned to work on or about April 19, 2009.

6. The parties have not stipulated to plaintiff's average weekly wage and resulting compensation rate. Defendants contend the average weekly wage should be calculated based on the wages plaintiff earned while employed part-time, from September 1, 2008 to December 14, 2008. Plaintiff contends her average weekly wage should be calculated based on the wages she earned during her entire period of employment with defendant-employer, from April 19, 2008 to December 14, 2008.

7. Defendants have paid for all of plaintiff's medical treatment.

***********
The following were submitted as:

EXHIBITS *Page 3
1. Stipulated Exhibit Number 1, Pre-Trial Agreement.

2. Stipulated Exhibit Number 2, Industrial Commission Forms, Medical Records, Payroll Records, Discovery Responses, Employment Documents.

3. Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1, Photographs of Plaintiff's Right Thigh Scarring.

4. Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2, Photographs of Plaintiff's Genitalia Scarring.

5. Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 3, Photographs of Plaintiff's Genitalia Scarring.

***********
The following were received into evidence as:

DEPOSITIONS
1. Oral deposition of Dr. Donald P. Hanna taken on April 12, 2010 with Defendants' Exhibit Number 1 attached to the deposition transcript.

2. Oral deposition of Dr. Katherine Barrett taken on April 13, 2010 with Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 attached to the deposition transcript.

***********
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation for serious bodily disfigurement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-31(22)?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation for loss of use or permanent injury to important external or internal organs or part of the body pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-31(24)?

3. What is the proper method to calculate plaintiff's average weekly wage and resulting compensation rate? *Page 4

4. Are defendants entitled to a credit for overpayment of temporary total disability benefits paid between December 15, 2008 and April 20, 2009?

***********
Based upon all the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 21 years old. Plaintiff is a student at Wake Tech Community College where she is pursuing a two-year program in office assistance/management.

2. On or about April 19, 2008, plaintiff began working for defendant-employer as a camp counselor. Her job duties included grooming, clipping, feeding and playing with dogs, and other general supervision of and care for dogs. When she began her employment, plaintiff worked part-time while she was attending school. During her summer break, from July through August 2008, plaintiff worked full-time. She resumed her part-time schedule in September 2008. Plaintiff earned $7.50 per hour for her work.

3. On December 14, 2008, plaintiff was working for defendant-employer when she was bitten on the right inner thigh and genitalia when she attempted to separate two fighting dogs. Plaintiff was transported by Emergency Management Services to the emergency room at WakeMed. At the emergency room, plaintiff's most severe wounds on her thigh and genitalia were repaired with stitches. Plaintiff was advised to follow-up with her regular gynecologist. Defendants accepted the compensability of plaintiff's right leg and vaginal injuries via the filing of a Form 60. *Page 5

4. On December 16, 2008, plaintiff presented to her regular gynecologist, Dr. Katherine Barrett, for further evaluation of her injuries. Dr. Barrett removed the sutures and prescribed pain medication and antibiotics.

5. Thereafter, plaintiff continued to treat with Dr. Barrett, who recommended physical therapy to improve plaintiff's pain and break up scar tissue. Plaintiff participated in therapy once a week for six weeks.

6. On January 24, 2009, plaintiff presented to Dr. Paul Mele at Rex Urgent Care in Cary with a chief complaint of right leg pain due to her compensable accident. Based on his examination, Dr. Mele referred plaintiff to a plastic surgeon for evaluation of cosmetic and pain/adhesion issues. Dr. Mele opined that plaintiff could return to full duty work.

7. On March 2, 2009, plaintiff presented to Dr. Donald Hanna, a plastic surgeon, for evaluation of her scars. Dr. Hanna's examination revealed multiple scars to plaintiff's right inner thigh and genitalia. Dr. Hanna released plaintiff to full-duty work and recommended that she massage the affected areas and return for a follow-up appointment. He noted that it would take approximately one year for plaintiff's scars to stabilize.

8. Following her injury by accident on December 14, 2008, plaintiff did not return to work for defendant-employer. On April 19, 2009, plaintiff began employment with Old Navy as an associate cashier and cash handler earning the same or greater wages as she was earning prior to her injury.

9. On November 19, 2009, plaintiff presented to Dr. Barrett's partner, Dr. Christin Richardson, for her annual examination. Following the examination, Dr. Richardson opined that plaintiff's numbness and discomfort should improve. *Page 6

10. On December 7, 2009, plaintiff returned to Dr. Hanna.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(5)
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-25.1
North Carolina § 97-25.1
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31(22)
§ 97-42
North Carolina § 97-42

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Deroche v. Canine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deroche-v-canine-ncworkcompcom-2011.