Dorsey v. the Pantry

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJanuary 10, 2008
DocketI.C. NO. 127418.
StatusPublished

This text of Dorsey v. the Pantry (Dorsey v. the Pantry) 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
Dorsey v. the Pantry, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

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

* * * * * * * * * * *
EVIDENTIARY RULING
Dr. Donald Getz was initially deposed in this case on December 14, 2006. After three hours of testimony, the deposition ended and was rescheduled for January 17, 2007. On January 17, 2007 the deposition was suspended after 3.5 hours of testimony when plaintiff attempted to introduce rebuttal evidence into the record to which defense counsel objected. On February 16, 2007, Deputy Commissioner Gillen denied plaintiff's motion to offer rebuttal evidence of an *Page 2 audiotape allegedly taken by plaintiff during plaintiff's post-hearing Independent Medical Examination with Dr. Getz. On March 27, 2007, Deputy Commissioner Gillen denied plaintiff's motion to tender an offer of proof. The undersigned hereby affirm Deputy Commissioner Gillen's February 16, 2007 and March 27, 2007 evidentiary rulings.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. Plaintiff is James M. Dorsey and defendant is The Pantry, Inc.,

2. Defendant-carrier is Liberty Mutual Insurance Group.

3. At all relevant times, defendant regularly employed three or more employees and was bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. The employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant on or about March 10, 2001, the date of the alleged injury by accident.

4. A Form 60 was filed in this claim on or about April 9, 2001. The description of the injury by accident as listed on the Form 60 reads as follows: Bruise to left shoulder and upper leg, cracked two ribs.

5. On December 30, 2005 plaintiff, by and through counsel, filed a Motion to Provide Medical Treatment. On January 23, 2006 Special Deputy Commissioner Elizabeth M. "Lacy" Maddox denied plaintiff's Motion to Provide Medical Treatment. Plaintiff appealed Special Deputy Commissioner Maddox's Administrative Order denying medical treatment on January 31, 2006.

6. The following were received into evidence as stipulated exhibits: *Page 3

a. The parties' Pre-Trial Agreement, marked as stipulated exhibit 1.

b. A collection of the Industrial Commission Forms filed in this matter as well as plaintiff's medical records, collectively paginated and marked as stipulated exhibit 2.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon all the competent evidence from the record, the Full Commission finds as follows:

FINDING OF FACTS
1. On December 29, 2004 Deputy Commissioner John B. Deluca entered an Opinion and Award in this matter, finding plaintiff's claim for the March 10, 2001 injury compensable and awarding plaintiff temporary total disability compensation from December 4, 2002 through March 6, 2003. This Opinion and Award is HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE as if fully set forth herein.

2. Pursuant to a Form 60 dated April 9, 2001, defendants accepted the compensability of plaintiff's March 10, 2001 injury by accident. Defendants' Form 60 description of plaintiff's injury by accident indicates a bruise to plaintiff's left shoulder and upper leg, and two cracked ribs.

3. On December 30, 2005 plaintiff, by and through counsel, filed a Motion to Provide Medical Treatment. Defendants filed a response to plaintiff's motion on January 9, 2006 objecting to plaintiff's motion on the basis that plaintiff's right knee, low back, hip, and leg pain were not a direct and natural consequence of plaintiff's compensable left knee injury. On January 23, 2006 Special Deputy Commissioner Maddox denied plaintiff's Motion to Provide *Page 4 Medical Treatment. Plaintiff appealed Special Deputy Commissioner Maddox's Administrative Order denying medical treatment on January 31, 2006.

4. As a result of plaintiff's March 10, 2001 accident and plaintiff's resultant left knee condition, Deputy Commissioner John B. Deluca awarded plaintiff temporary total disability compensation from December 4, 2002 through March 6, 2003. Defendants continued paying temporary total disability to plaintiff beginning March 7, 2003.

5. On March 7, 2003, plaintiff underwent a second left knee arthroscopy with Dr. Shepherd F. Rosenblum. Plaintiff was released by Dr. Rosenblum with no restrictions as of June 15, 2003.

6. Plaintiff participated in physical therapy from April 15, 2003 until approximately May 2004 with little or no complaints of right knee pain. Plaintiff returned to work as a computer troubleshooter. Plaintiff eventually resigned from this position and applied for unemployment compensation.

7. On March 24, 2004 plaintiff, having moved to the Myrtle Beach area, requested that Dr. James W. Yates, Jr., a South Carolina physician and orthopedic surgeon, be named as his authorized treating physician. Defendants did not oppose this motion, and plaintiff's care was transferred to Dr. Yates. Defendants filed a motion to have plaintiff's care transferred to Dr. Mark Rodger in Wilmington, North Carolina. Plaintiff opposed this motion. During oral arguments before the Full Commission, defendants agreed for plaintiff's care to be transferred to Strand Orthopedics in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

8. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Yates on May 3, 2004. At that time Dr. Yates suspected osteoarthritis in plaintiff's left knee and thought plaintiff may have either a meniscus or cartilage tear or arthritis. On June 3, 2004, Dr. Yates performed a diagnostic arthroscopy of plaintiff's *Page 5 right knee. This procedure showed a torn medial meniscus as well as degenerative arthritis in plaintiff's right knee. Defendants paid for plaintiff's right knee arthroscopy procedure.

9. Plaintiff returned to physical therapy for both his left and right knees from approximately June 28, 2004 until July 5, 2005 with no complaints of left hip pain. On July 5, 2005, plaintiff complained during physical therapy of left hip pain and reported to Conway Medical Center on July 29, 2005 complaining of low back and left hip pain.

10. On August 24, 2005, plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. William Mills, Dr. Yates' partner at Coastal Orthopaedic Associates, who specializes in spinal surgery. Plaintiff complained of left hip pain and was diagnosed with radiculopathy and sciatica. An MRI of plaintiff's left hip and back was performed. The MRI of plaintiff's left hip was negative; however, plaintiff's lumbar spine showed broad-based bulges from L3-4 to L5-S1. Plaintiff returned to physical therapy. Dr. Mills testified that plaintiff's history of problems with his left leg did not have any relationship to plaintiff's back problems, and that plaintiff's back condition and spinal stenosis were caused by aging and degeneration, not gait alteration.

11. On November 9, 2006, in his contentions to Deputy Commissioner Gillen, plaintiff withdrew his claim for low back pain and left sciatica.

12. Dr.

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

Related

Holley v. Acts, Inc.
581 S.E.2d 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2003)
Hodgin v. Hodgin
583 S.E.2d 362 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
Young v. Hickory Business Furniture
538 S.E.2d 912 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dorsey v. the Pantry, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorsey-v-the-pantry-ncworkcompcom-2008.