Frazier v. American Modular Tech.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJanuary 30, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 875666
StatusPublished

This text of Frazier v. American Modular Tech. (Frazier v. American Modular Tech.) 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
Frazier v. American Modular Tech., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Ledford. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence; therefore, the Full Commission MODIFIES and AFFIRMS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
Based on the evidence of record and the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner, the Full Commission finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The parties are subject to and bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. The Industrial Commission has jurisdiction to hear this case and determine the issue of the award of attorney's fees.

2. Anna Caldwell is licensed to practice law in the State of North Carolina. Ms. Caldwell has been so licensed since 1985.

3. On or about October 29, 1998, plaintiff contacted Ms. Caldwell's law firm regarding this workers' compensation claim. Ms. Caldwell consulted plaintiff over the phone at no charge. Ms. Caldwell told plaintiff that her husband, who worked for her law firm at the time, would schedule a follow-up visit with plaintiff.

4. Ms. Caldwell's husband was not a lawyer, but he conducted client interviews for the firm. Ms. Caldwell's husband scheduled and carried out a visit with plaintiff in plaintiff's home on October 30, 1998. At that time, a questionnaire was completed regarding plaintiff's claim. Also at that time, plaintiff signed a Retainer Agreement in which he agreed to pay his attorney, Ms. Caldwell, twenty-five percent (25%) of any compensation he may recover whether by settlement or by opinion and award. A copy of that contract has been received and marked as Defendants' Exhibit 4. Plaintiff's testimony that he was so under the influence of pain medications at the time that he did not understand the fee agreement is not credible.

5. On November 3, 1998, Ms. Caldwell notified defendant-carrier, St. Paul Fire Marine Insurance Co., that she had been retained to represent plaintiff. Ms. Caldwell made a request, pursuant to I.C. Rule 607, for copies of any medical and employment records related to plaintiff's claim for injuries arising from an accident. Ms. Caldwell also sent a letter on the same date to defendant-employer.

6. On November 15, 1998, the Commission received defendants' Form 61 providing notice of its denial of plaintiff's claim. A copy of that Form 61 has been received into evidence as Defendants' Exhibit 5.

7. At the deputy commissioner hearing of this matter, Ms. Caldwell presented as evidence her entire file on plaintiff' claim. That file contains extensive records of work performed by Ms. Caldwell in pursuing the claim including copies of correspondence, medical records, notes of phone calls, and time sheets.

8. On February 3, 1999, Ms. Caldwell filed a Form 33 request for hearing with the Industrial Commission. Before filing that request, Ms. Caldwell had written many letters requesting medical records. After receiving those records, Ms. Caldwell served discovery on defendants on March 1, 1999.

9. In early 1999, defendants requested that plaintiff provide a recorded statement regarding his claim. Ms. Caldwell talked with plaintiff and prepared him to give this statement which was taken on February 1, 1999.

10. Following these events, on February 23, 1999, Ms. Caldwell received a phone call from Brenda Warnock, a representative of defendant-carrier. Ms. Warnock advised that defendant-carrier would accept plaintiff's claim as compensable and requested out of work notes from plaintiff's physicians. Ms. Caldwell then followed-up to request any such notes from the treating physicians. There was some difficulty securing these notes from the physicians as it appeared plaintiff had already given the original notes to defendant-employer. By March 24, 1999, Ms. Caldwell requested that Ms. Warnock request these records directly from defendant-employer.

11. On March 22, 1999, Ms. Caldwell received notice that attorney Henry Byrum had been retained to represent defendants. Although defendant-carrier had previously given oral notice of acceptance of plaintiff's claim, no Form 60 had been filed and no benefits had yet been paid to plaintiff. Consistent with the procedures of the Industrial Commission, plaintiff's case was ordered to mediation.

12. On or about May 26, 1999, Ms. Caldwell received from defendants a Form 60 accepting plaintiff's claim. A copy of the Form 60 was also sent to plaintiff and to Henry Byrum, counsel for defendants. The Form 60 apparently showed the wrong date of injury, and Ms. Caldwell requested that defense counsel get the error corrected.

13. A revised Form 60 was completed on June 14, 1999 and received in Ms. Caldwell's office on July 15, 1999. Under that agreement, defendants accepted plaintiff's claim for a back injury sustained on October 14, 1998 and agreed to pay compensation for temporary total disability beginning on October 16, 1998 and continuing at the rate of $366.68 per week.

14. On June 16, 1999, Ms. Caldwell talked with Marianne Crump, the claims representative with St. Paul's who was handling plaintiff's claim at that time. Ms. Caldwell learned that defendant-carrier had sent plaintiff a check for thirty (30) weeks of compensation owed and would be paying plaintiff ongoing compensation. These checks had been sent directly to plaintiff and he had not informed Ms. Caldwell that he was receiving benefits.

15. On June 17, 1999, Ms. Caldwell spoke with plaintiff and inquired about updated medical information. Ms. Caldwell also advised plaintiff that she would be sending him a bill for twenty-five percent (25%) of the thirty (30) weeks of compensation he had received.

16. Prior to June 17, 1999, in January and again in March 1999, in phone calls to Ms. Caldwell's office, plaintiff had expressed frustration that he had not yet been paid any benefits. However, plaintiff had not discharged Ms. Caldwell's firm from representing him, or at any time asked them to withdraw. Ms. Caldwell's records show that she was still representing plaintiff and making efforts to secure his benefits.

17. Ms. Caldwell's office first learned that plaintiff contended she no longer represented him on or about September 1, 1999. At that time, Ms. Caldwell talked to plaintiff and he confirmed that he had told his rehabilitation counselor that Ms. Caldwell no longer represented him. In response, Ms. Caldwell advised plaintiff that she would need a letter from him indicating that he no longer wanted her firm to represent him.

18. On September 20, 1999, Ms. Caldwell received a hearing calendar showing that plaintiff's case was set for hearing on October 27, 1999 before Deputy Commissioner Edward Garner, Jr. Ms. Caldwell contacted the defense firm regarding discovery responses, which were overdue, as well as the upcoming hearing.

19. On September 24, 1999, Ms. Caldwell's office received a letter from plaintiff stating that he no longer wished her firm to represent him. On that same day, Ms. Caldwell prepared a motion to withdraw as counsel.

20. Over the next four days, Ms. Caldwell completed her review of the file and preparation of time sheets, which she then submitted with her fee request to the Commission.

21. Ms. Caldwell's request for an attorney's fee of twenty-five percent (25%) of plaintiff's recovery was filed with the Commission on or about September 28, 1999. With that request, she submitted four and one-third pages of her time records, beginning on October 30, 1998 and continuing through September 28, 1999.

22. Deputy Commissioner Edward Garner, Jr.

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

Related

§ 97-90
North Carolina § 97-90

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Frazier v. American Modular Tech., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-american-modular-tech-ncworkcompcom-2003.