Gibson v. Duke Energy Corp.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 3, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 535184
StatusPublished

This text of Gibson v. Duke Energy Corp. (Gibson v. Duke Energy Corp.) 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
Gibson v. Duke Energy Corp., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Mary Moore Hoag, and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, and modify and affirm the Opinion and Award. Accordingly, the Full Commission modifies and affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Hoag.

Plaintiff raised an issue of timeliness of defendant's appeal. The Full Commission finds that defendants did not receive a copy of the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award at the same time as plaintiff and that defendants appeal was timely considering when defendants received the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award.

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

STIPULATIONS
The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

An employee-employer relationship existed between the parties at all relevant times.

Hartford Specialty Risk Services is the third-party administrator on this claim.

Plaintiff's compensable injury occurred on May 5, 1995. He was unable to work for several days as a result of his injury and received temporary total disability benefits based on a compensation rate of $478.00 per week. Plaintiff has received compensation for all missed work days.

Employer-defendant completed a Form 21, accepting plaintiff's claims for a broken and dislocated jaw and four broken teeth as compensable on May 22, 1995.

By order dated August 31, 2000, and without objection by plaintiff, the Industrial Commission approved a Form 18-M entitling plaintiff to additional medical compensation related to his original injury.

The issue to be resolved concerns the amount to which plaintiff should be compensated for his permanent injuries, including a broken jaw, broken teeth, facial scaring, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, and loss of hearing.

The parties have stipulated into evidence the following documents:

Industrial Commission forms;

Plaintiff's medical records and report;

Form 21, submitted to employee-plaintiff by defendants on October 4, 2001;

Letter dated January 28, 2001, from Janet Rudisill of Hartford Specialty Services to Paula Barnes;

Letter dated February 21, 2001, from the North Carolina Industrial Commission to Janet Rudisill; and

Letter dated March 26, 2001, from Paula Barnes to Janet Rudisill.

***********
Based upon all of the competent evidence in the record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff has worked for defendant-employer, Duke Energy, since February 1981. As of May 4, 1995, plaintiff was employed by defendant-employer as a line-technician.

2. On May 4, 1995, plaintiff suffered an admittedly compensable injury by accident while employed by Duke Energy. He was injured when an air break canister exploded and struck him in the face. Following the accident, plaintiff underwent surgery at St. Joseph's Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina, on May 5, 1995, by Dr. John D. Mathieson, an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon. The operative report reveals that both plaintiff's right and left jaws were fractured and dislocated. Plaintiff's right jaw joint and chin were forced back into place and reconstructed using plates and screws while the left jaw joint was forced back into place and anchored with sutures. The first operation lasted six hours. Dr. Matheson continues to treat plaintiff for jaw pain and TMJ dysfunction resulting from the accident.

3. Plaintiff presently suffers from headaches and "some moderate masticatory dysfunction with limited range of motion and chronic intra-articuiar right and left TMJ pain and ear pain" and plaintiff may need "reconstructive TMJ surgery utilizing allogenic or autologous bone grafting procedures" to ameliorate his jaw problem. Plaintiff will have "lifelong TMJ dysfunction with facial pain and headaches." On August 16, 2001, X-rays taken at that time revealed that plaintiff had "a severe deformity of the left Mandibular condyle" that had been acquired as a result of the injury to plaintiff's right jaw. Plaintiff was also experiencing stomach problems from the medication he was taking for pain.

4. Plaintiff cannot open his mouth wide and has difficulty chewing food; when he does chew, his jaws "heat up." Plaintiff's jaw is not level after it was repaired.

5. Plaintiff's left jaw was fractured and dislocated but not as severely as the right jaw. During surgery, the left jaw was forced back into place and was sutured into position. The right jaw was more severely fractured and dislocated than was the left jaw. The right jaw and mandible had to be reconstructed using permanent screws and plates. Plaintiff may need further reconstructive surgery for the right jaw, but there is no indication that further reconstructive surgery of the left jaw will be needed. Plaintiff has lost motion in both jaws and has difficulty chewing with both jaws. The Full Commission finds reasonable compensation pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-31(24) for the left TMJ to e $8,000.00 and reasonable compensation for the right jaw to be $12,000.00, based upon the severity of injury to each.

6. On October 25, 1999, Plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement with regard to his TMJ. Dr. Matheson was not aware of any rating for such an injury, but did determine that plaintiff suffered from permanent disability due to chronic TMJ dysfunction.

7. During the course of his recovery, the plaintiff was also treated by Dr. Vollmar for dental repair. Plaintiff has had nine teeth extracted and four teeth crowned as a result of his compensable May 4, 1995, accident.

8. As a result of his May 4, 1995, accident, plaintiff complained of neck pains and headaches. He has undergone two courses of physical therapy in September 1996 and March 2000 to treat his neck and headaches. Dr. Goebel of Blue Ridge Bone and Joint released plaintiff at maximum medical improvement with regard to his neck pain and headaches on April 13, 2000, with a zero-percent rating for cervical strain.

9. Following his May 4, 1995, accident, plaintiff also complained of hearing problems. He presented first to Dr. Durham of Mountain Neurological Center on December 4, 1995. However, Dr. Durham did not find any neurological reasons for plaintiff's hearing complaint. Dr. Durham referred plaintiff to Dr. Bringaze of Asheville Head, Neck, and Ear Surgeons.

10. Dr. Bringaze performed an audiogram on plaintiff on December 29, 1995. He diagnosed plaintiff at that time with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus. Dr. Bringaze did not give plaintiff a prescription for hearing aides, but suggested that plaintiff might require bilateral hearing aides in the future

11. Plaintiff returned to Asheville Head, Neck, and Ear Surgeons on March 2, 2000, and presented to Dr. Powell in that office. Dr. Powell performed another audiogram on plaintiff on March 2, 2000, and found normal hearing through 2,000 cycles per second (CPS), with a drop in hearing at the 4,000 CPS level. According to Dr. Powell, plaintiff would not be helped at the current time by hearing aides because his hearing was too good.

12. Plaintiff sought a second opinion from Dr. Lane at Western North Carolina Ear, Nose, and Throat regarding his hearing. Upon review of his March 2000 audiogram, Dr.

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

Related

§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31(24)
§ 97-53
North Carolina § 97-53(28)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gibson v. Duke Energy Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-duke-energy-corp-ncworkcompcom-2003.