Garcia v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 13, 2007
DocketI.C. NO. 757834.
StatusPublished

This text of Garcia v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co (Garcia v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co) 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
Garcia v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence modifies the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

* * * * * * * * * * * *Page 2
RULING ON MOTION
At the Full Commission, Plaintiff moved for admission into evidence his Official Transcript from Virginia College at Birmingham (dated January 11, 2007) and his Transcript from Randolph Community College (dated March 14, 2007). Plaintiff's motion is granted and the transcripts are hereby received into evidence.

* * * * * * * * * * *
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:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission and are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. The Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and of the subject matter, and an employer-employee relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant at the time of Plaintiff's injury.

2. Defendant was an approved self-insured at all relevant times.

3. Liberty Mutual is currently the third-party administrator for Defendant. The previous third-party administrator for Defendant was Frank Gates Service Co.

4. This case was accepted on an I.C. Form 60 on February 13, 1998.

5. On July 6, 1998, the third-party administrator completed an I.C. Form 62, stating that Plaintiff had gone out of work on June 12, 1998. Plaintiff has received ongoing temporary total disability benefits in the amount of $424.35 per week from June 12, 1998, to the present.

6. Plaintiff is receiving Social Security disability benefits.

*Page 3

7. On January 25, 2001, immediately prior to a January 26, 2001, Deputy Commissioner hearing, Defendant entered into a stipulation, agreeing to continue Plaintiff's temporary total disability benefits through the completion of his Associate's Degree in Applied Science at Randolph Community College, based upon the understanding that the Associate's Degree would be completed by the end of December 2001.

8. On January 29, 2001, Defendant agreed to pay for Plaintiff's mileage to and from Randolph Community College and for his books for the fall, spring, and summer semesters of 1999 and for the summer semester of 2001. Defendant also agreed to cover Plaintiff's fall 2001 semester books and mileage if he did not obtain a Pell Grant, upon provision of appropriate receipts. Defense counsel notified Plaintiff's counsel that Defendant would do a labor market survey and initiate job search activities at the completion of Plaintiff's Associate's Degree.

9. Plaintiff completed his Associate's Degree in Applied Science at Randolph Community College on May 11, 2002.

10. On July 17, 2002, Plaintiff notified Sharol Siler of Armstrong and Associates' vocational rehabilitation services that he was experiencing increased low back and leg pain.

11. On August 19, 2002, Plaintiff began taking classes at UNC-Greensboro to complete a Bachelor of Science Degree in Information Science.

12. On July 30, 2003, Plaintiff underwent an employability assessment with Anissa Rice, a vocational rehabilitation consultant with Cascade Disability Management, Inc., at Defendant's request.

13. Plaintiff is continuing to receive vocational rehabilitation services from the State of North Carolina Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services. *Page 4

14. Plaintiff alleges that due to the exacerbation of his back pain, he was unable to continue commuting to UNC-Greensboro. In 2003, Plaintiff began studying online to complete his Bachelor's Degree. Plaintiff planned to specialize in computer security systems.

15. Plaintiff underwent an L5-Sl discectomy in August 1997. On April 15, 2004, Plaintiff underwent a fusion at L5-Sl. Plaintiff is currently receiving prescription pain medications through his family physician as a result of his compensable injury by accident.

16. The parties agreed to stipulate into evidence all Industrial Commission Orders and Industrial Commission forms filed with the Industrial Commission in this case.

17. Plaintiff represents that he has been treated and/or evaluated by the following health care providers and the medical records from those providers have been stipulated into evidence: White Oak Family Physicians; Craig Derian, M.D.; Armstrong Associates; Russell Amundson, M.D., at The Johnson Neurological Clinic, Inc.; Asheboro Rehabilitation Center; Microneurosurgical Specialists of Central Carolina; Daniel Collins, M.D.; The Rehab Center; Danville Regional Medical Center; Randolph Hospital; and Karen Caviness at North Carolina Department of Vocational Rehabilitation Services.

18. The contested issues before the Commission according to Plaintiff are:

a.) Is Plaintiff entitled to complete his Bachelor's degree in computer science, so that he can regain his pre-injury earning capacity, accommodate his substantial work restrictions, and find suitable employment?

b.) Is Defendant equitably estopped from changing Plaintiff's course of study and trying to do a job search again, after Defendant obtained multiple vocational evaluations that showed Plaintiff's unemployability without further education and after Defendant failed to take any contradictory *Page 5 action for the past three years and Plaintiff has detrimentally relied on Defendant's conduct?

c.) Is Defendant liable for reimbursement of Plaintiff's accrued student loans and payment of his future college tuition and fees, given Plaintiff's limitation to online college programs that are in large part not covered by the State of North Carolina Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services?

d.) Is Plaintiff entitled to ongoing temporary total disability benefits until he completes his education and obtains suitable employment close to his pre-injury wage earning capacity and within his work restrictions?

e.) Is Defendant subject to sanctions under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1 for unreasonably prosecuting and defending this case, including attorney's fees and costs, by filing a Form 33 with no good faith basis and by refusing to pay for vocational retraining?

f.) Is Plaintiff entitled to any additional benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act?

g.) Is Defendant liable for the payment for the N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-27(b) IME performed by Dr. Paul Wright on July 19, 2005?

19. The contested issues before the Commission according to Defendant are:

a.) Is Plaintiff entitled to vocational retraining beyond that which would return him to suitable employment?

b.) Is Defendant responsible for providing such training, and is Plaintiff equitably estopped from pursuing payment for the same, since Defendant *Page 6 has offered to pay for certain reasonable retraining, as long as it can direct the course work, and Plaintiff has refused said offer?

c.) Is Plaintiff's current course of study the only option or the most likely option for returning him to suitable employment upon completion?

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

Related

Foster v. U.S. Airways, Inc.
563 S.E.2d 235 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
Schofield v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
264 S.E.2d 56 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Garcia v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-goodyear-tire-and-rubber-co-ncworkcompcom-2007.