Erickson v. Siegler

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedAugust 24, 2007
DocketI.C. NO. 286398.
StatusPublished

This text of Erickson v. Siegler (Erickson v. Siegler) 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
Erickson v. Siegler, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinions

***********
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence, other than the Form 22 Wage Chart, or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence affirms with modifications the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
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: *Page 2

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employee-employer relationship existed between the named Employee and named Employer.

3. The Carrier liable on the risk is correctly named above.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage will be determined by a Form 22.

5. Plaintiff sustained an injury on or about June 6, 2002, with the exact date to be determined by the Industrial Commission.

6. The issues for determination are:

• Whether Plaintiff has missed the statute of limitations with respect to the alleged neck injury, thus barring his claim for workers' compensation benefits for the injury to the neck?

• Whether Plaintiff's cervical spine condition is causally related to the injury by accident to his lumbar spine on June 6, 2002?

• Whether Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident to his neck arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6)?

*Page 3

• Whether Plaintiff is entitled to ongoing medical treatment for injuries sustained on June 6, 2002, including treatment for his neck?

• Whether Plaintiff is entitled to have medical bills paid for injuries sustained on June 6, 2002, including treatment to the neck?

• Whether Defendants have waived their right to contest the compensability of Plaintiff's neck injury of June 6, 2002, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-18(d)?

• Whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1?

• Whether Defendants are entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1?

• Whether Defendants should be sanctioned for failure to file the necessary Industrial Commission forms specifically denying the neck?

***********
Based on the foregoing Stipulations and the evidence presented, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Plaintiff was 57 years old. Prior to working for Defendant-Employer, Plaintiff was enlisted in the United States Army for twenty-six years until he retired in 1993. In November 1999, Defendant-Employer hired Plaintiff as a mechanic.

2. As a mechanic for Defendant-Employer, Plaintiff worked at the Maritime Operations Building where he repaired maritime equipment, including scuba diving equipment, boats, motors and closed circuit equipment. Plaintiff's work required him to lift in excess of 150 pounds and to bend, stoop, and perform work above his shoulder height on a regular basis. After two years at the Maritime Operations Building, Plaintiff was moved to the Main Post Facility where he worked for the majority of his time on military vehicles, including Hummers, trailers, *Page 4 water buffalo and water trailers. Plaintiff's job continued to require heavy lifting when he worked on military vehicles.

3. On June 6, 2002, Plaintiff was changing an axle on a water trailer. In order to change out the axle, the wheel and hub had to be removed. Plaintiff testified that the wheel and hub weighed approximately 150 pounds. Plaintiff testified that after he removed the lug nuts and pulled the wheel off, he stood up, turned to the right, and immediately felt a pop in his back, resulting in pain, which caused him to fall to the floor. Plaintiff testified that he eventually got up, put his tools away and went home. Plaintiff did not report the injury to Defendant-Employer that same day and the incident was not witnessed.

4. On June 7, 2002, Plaintiff called in and reported to his supervisor that he had hurt his back the day before and he was unable to get out of bed due to pain. Plaintiff experienced pain from his "neck on down," including pain going down into his arms and legs.

5. Plaintiff attempted to go to work the following Monday, June 10, 2002, but he was informed by his supervisor that he needed a note from a doctor before he would be allowed to return to work. Defendant-Employer did not refer Plaintiff for medical treatment.

6. Plaintiff sought treatment at the Veterans' Administration Hospital (VA Hospital) on June 11, 2002. At this visit, Plaintiff was diagnosed with an exacerbation of his lumbar disc disease and was referred for an MRI. The MRI was not performed at that time. Plaintiff returned to the VA Hospital on June 14, 2002, for a re-evaluation of his low back pain. He was prescribed Naproxen 500 mg and ordered to bedrest for seven days. Plaintiff returned to the VA Hospital again on June 24, 2002, with complaints of low back pain and pain radiating into his arms and legs. *Page 5

7. During the course of Plaintiff's treatment, medical providers from the VA Hospital did not provide him with a release to return to work note. Plaintiff has not worked for Defendant-Employer since his June 6, 2002 injury.

8. Plaintiff's medical history revealed that prior to his employment with Defendant-Employer, he was involved in an automobile accident in July 1997. As a result of his injuries, he had surgery on his neck in April 1998.

9. Defendants filed a Form 63, Notice to Employee of Payment of Compensation Without Prejudice, which was completed on July 10, 2002. The Form 63 indicated that benefits commenced on June 27, 2002, for an injury on June 6, 2002. The Form 63 did not specify what body part Plaintiff injured. Defendants also assigned a nurse case manager, Michelle Williams, to Plaintiff's claim pursuant to the North Carolina Industrial Commission Rules for Utilization of Rehabilitation Professionals in Workers' Compensation Claims to assist Plaintiff.

10. Defendants began to direct medical treatment by arranging for Plaintiff to be treated by Dr. Timothy R. Detamore, D.O. at Carolina Neurosurgical Services, P.A., on August 14, 2002. Dr. Detamore noted that no x-rays or MRIs had been performed, and he wanted to have these tests before his examination.

11. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Detamore on September 12, 2002, for a complete evaluation. Plaintiff's chief complaint was of combined back and leg pain. Plaintiff reported that he lifted a trailer wheel weighing from 150 to 200 pounds in June 2002, and developed a sudden, sharp pain radiating into his low back, buttock, right leg and right foot. Plaintiff told Dr. Detamore that the pain had been present since the injury. Plaintiff denied symptoms associated with cervical radiculopathy. Dr. Detamore determined that Plaintiff had a combined lumbar radiculopathy and a myelopathy somewhere in the spinal cord above the L5/S1 level. Dr. *Page 6

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

Related

McGhee v. Bank of America Corp.
618 S.E.2d 833 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Holley v. Acts, Inc.
581 S.E.2d 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Erickson v. Siegler, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erickson-v-siegler-ncworkcompcom-2007.