Dickerson v. Riteway Express, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedAugust 10, 2000
DocketI.C. NO. 693902
StatusPublished

This text of Dickerson v. Riteway Express, Inc. (Dickerson v. Riteway Express, 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
Dickerson v. Riteway Express, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2000).

Opinion

Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the award, except for minor modifications, the Full Commission AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

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

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission, and there is no dispute as to the misjoinder or non joinder of parties.

2. On the date of the hearing giving rise to this claim, the employer was self-insured for workers compensation purposes, with AIG Claim Service acting as its servicing agent.

3. Plaintiffs average weekly wage was $833.35, which is sufficient to yield the maximum compensation rate for 1996 of $492.00.

4. Along with the deposition transcripts, included in the record in this case are Dr. Lincolns operative report and discharge instructions dated 29 and 30 November 1996, the accident report completed by Trooper Hartsell, and the medical records from Baptist Hospital of Cocke County. Finally, over objection by plaintiff, the subpoena to obtain plaintiffs medical records dated 14 January 1997 is admitted into evidence in the matter.

5. The issues to be determined from the hearing are whether plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident on 23 November 1996, and if so, to what benefits is he entitled; whether defendant is estopped from denying liability for the injuries sustained by plaintiff on 23 November 1996; and whether plaintiffs claim is barred by N.C.G.S. 97-12.

***********
The Full Commission adopts the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner with some modifications and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On the date of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was forty-three years old. Plaintiff has an eighth-grade education. Prior to 23 November 1996, plaintiff had been employed as a truck driver for ten to twelve years, and had been employed as a tractor trailer driver for defendant for approximately two years. On 23 November 1996 plaintiff maintained a valid commercial drivers license.

2. On 23 November 1996, which was a Saturday, plaintiff was dispatched to pick up and deliver a load of pre-forms to Illinois. Because plaintiff did not expect to make a trip that evening, he had consumed several alcoholic beverages prior to leaving his house at approximately 4:00 p.m. that day to pick up the truck. Plaintiff picked up the tractor at 5:00 p.m., and then picked up the trailer of pre-forms in Enka, North Carolina at Southeastern Container.

3. As plaintiff was leaving for Illinois, he picked up a friend, Marilyn Burrell, who accompanied him on his trip. Ms. Burrell was not authorized to be a passenger on plaintiffs commercial vehicle, and he was later cited for this violation.

4. Plaintiff was traveling westbound Interstate 40 through Tennessee when at approximately 8:15 p.m. he lost control of his tractor trailer. This particular stretch of westbound I-40 is curvy and mountainous, and at night is dark as there are no streetlights. This four-lane highway is separated by a concrete divider, with the inside lane of westbound I-40 being narrow. A number of accidents involving tractor trailers coming in contact with the concrete divider on this curvy and hilly road have occurred at the location where plaintiff lost control of his truck.

5. Tennessee state Highway Patrol Trooper Randy Hartsell was dispatched to the accident scene and arrived there at 8:38 p.m., approximately fifteen minutes after being dispatched. Trooper Hartsell found plaintiffs truck overturned and blocking both westbound lanes of I-40. Plaintiff was lying outside the truck. Shortly after Trooper Hartsell arrived, the emergency medical personnel arrived, so the trooper did not have an opportunity to talk to plaintiff on the scene. However, the trooper noticed the smell of alcohol about plaintiffs person. Trooper Hartsell also found some beer containers inside the truck, although the accident report does not relate this finding.

6. Based upon his investigation of the accident scene, it was the troopers opinion that the accident was caused by plaintiff driving around the curve in the road too fast, which caused him to lose control of his truck and hit the concrete barrier. After the truck hit the barrier, the cargo in the trailer shifted and the truck overturned. The factors contributing to the accident were, in the troopers opinion, drinking and speeding.

7. Plaintiff was taken to Baptist Hospital of Cocke County in Newport, Tennessee, where he was admitted at 9:32 p.m., at which time blood work was taken by a laboratory technician at the hospital. A chemistry panel indicates that plaintiff had 233.0 mg/dL ethyl alcohol. There is a handwritten entry below the panel results that reads: "(Intoxication 101-350 mg/dL). There is no evidence of record to show who made this handwritten notation on the chemistry panel report, or even how to interpret the result. Defendant presented insufficient evidence to authenticate the alcohol test results.

8. While at the hospital, plaintiff was seen and treated by Dr. Trzil, and underwent x-rays in addition to the labwork. The records from the emergency room visit do not indicate plaintiffs state of being, except that the radiological study was noted to have been limited by the fact that plaintiff was being uncooperative. There are no reports in these records that plaintiff appeared to behave as if he were intoxicated, impaired, or otherwise under the influence of alcohol. In the nurses notes plaintiff was noted to be alert instead of being disoriented, lethargic, or exhibiting slurred speech.

9. After he finished working at the accident scene, Trooper Hartsell proceeded to the hospital to finish the accident investigation. At 2:10 a.m., when the trooper was at the hospital, a urine sample was taken from plaintiff for DOT drug screening. The trooper indicated that plaintiff appeared to be intoxicated at the hospital. However, the trooper gave no description of actual appearance or behavior suggesting impairment on the part of the plaintiff, and he did not describe what he meant by plaintiff "appearing intoxicated.

10. Even if plaintiff were intoxicated at the time of the motor vehicle accident, there is insufficient evidence of record to show that the accident was proximately caused by plaintiffs intoxication.

11. At 2:45 a.m. plaintiff was discharged from the hospital into the custody of the trooper, who took plaintiff to the courthouse and cited him for driving without a drivers license in his possession, not having a logbook in the truck, having an unauthorized passenger in the commercial vehicle, and driving while under the influence. Plaintiff subsequently was found guilty of reckless driving instead of driving under the influence. The remaining charges were dismissed.

12. Plaintiffs employment was terminated with defendant on 25 November 1996.

13. When plaintiff was released from Baptist Hospital in Tennessee, he was instructed to follow up with an orthopedist. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Lincoln, an orthopedic surgeon, on 27 November 1996, four days after the motor vehicle accident. Dr. Lincoln diagnosed a displaced fracture of plaintiffs right distal tibia. On 29 November 1996 Dr. Lincoln performed an open reduction and internal fixation of plaintiffs fracture at St. Josephs Hospital in Asheville.

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

Related

Inscoe v. DeRose Industries, Inc.
232 S.E.2d 449 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dickerson v. Riteway Express, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickerson-v-riteway-express-inc-ncworkcompcom-2000.