Goodwin v. South River-Merrimon Fire Ems

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedDecember 20, 2010
DocketI.C. NO. W11779.
StatusPublished

This text of Goodwin v. South River-Merrimon Fire Ems (Goodwin v. South River-Merrimon Fire Ems) 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
Goodwin v. South River-Merrimon Fire Ems, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Deluca and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The plaintiff has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. Accordingly, the Full Commission reverses the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. On March 19, 2009, plaintiff was working as a volunteer for the South River-Merrimon Fire EMS. *Page 2

2. Defendant Key Risk Management Services is the administrator on the risk for the subject claim.

3. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent/statutes of limitation pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 97-22, 97-23 and 97-24.

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

5. On March 19, 2009, plaintiff suffered an injury to his right leg, diagnosed as a complete rupture of the right Achilles tendon, arising out of and in the course of his employment with employer-defendant when he stepped across a ditch to get to an ambulance. Plaintiff contends and defendants deny that the injury was an "injury by accident" as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6).

6. The minimum compensation rate payable to a volunteer fireman under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(5) is sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the maximum weekly benefit rate established in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-29. In 2009, the maximum weekly rate was $816.00, resulting in a compensation rate of $544.00.

7. Plaintiff was released from his doctor's care effective July 23, 2009, and returned to volunteer service with defendant-employer on July 24, 2009.

8. Stipulated Exhibit 1 consisted of the medical records. Stipulated Exhibit 2 contained the Industrial Commission forms. The Pre-Trial Agreement was Stipulated Exhibit 3. Plaintiff's recorded statement was Stipulated Exhibit 4. Photos of the gully where the incident took place were stipulated into evidence, although listed as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. The Plaintiff's call log was stipulated into evidence, although it was designated as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3.

*********** *Page 3
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 70 years old, born on December 29, 1939. Plaintiff lives in Beaufort. Plaintiff is 6 feet tall and weighs 240 pounds. Plaintiff had no prior right foot or right leg injuries. Plaintiff is retired from his regular employment.

2. Plaintiff has been working with defendant-employer since 1996, including work as Captain of Truck 2 since 1998, and medical responder since 2008; he is also chairman of the safety committee, and serves on the finance and budget committee, the by-laws committee, and the building and grounds committee.

3. As Captain of Truck 2, plaintiff's duties include driving the fire truck to call scenes where he stays with the truck and operates the truck's panel and pump handles. He makes sure that "the guys" have water. Plaintiff does get in and out of the truck when responding on fire calls. Plaintiff does not man the hoses or directly fight fires, but rather he stays with and operates the fire truck. According to a call log prepared by the defendant-employer, of the 99 calls to which plaintiff has responded since March 4, 1996, approximately 47 have been fire related calls.

4. As a medical responder, plaintiff's duties include driving an ambulance and responding to emergency calls such as motor vehicle accidents and sick calls such as cardiac and respiratory events. Once on scene, plaintiff provides support to the emergency medical technicians (EMTs), assists with patients, and transports patients to the hospital. The ambulance is not an off-road vehicle, is driven on the road, and is usually parked on flat surfaces such as roadways and driveways. Plaintiff is not certified in extrication. *Page 4

5. Plaintiff's job duties as chairman of the safety committee, and member of the finance and budget committee, by-laws committee, and building and grounds committee, are administrative in nature.

6. Plaintiff's job duties as a medical responder require him to walk across uneven surfaces such as yards and unpaved roads and driveways. However, plaintiff could not recall ever having to cross a ditch to support an EMT while on scene as a medical responder, or at any other time while working for the defendant-employer.

7. On March 19, 2009, plaintiff was dispatched in his ambulance to a domestic assault case at a private residence located at 118 Hidden Harbor in the South River District of Carteret County. Upon his arrival, the assault victim was sitting down in the front yard being treated by an EMT. In order to get as close to the patient as possible, instead of parking in the driveway, plaintiff parked the ambulance in the road, directly in front of the patient. Thereafter, plaintiff got out of the ambulance. He crossed what has been referred to as a drainage ditch and walked to the EMT to determine his needs, including whether transport would be required. The EMT told plaintiff they were going to transport the patient. Plaintiff started back to the ambulance to open the back doors. When plaintiff reached the ditch, which was approximately 14 feet wide and 20 inches deep. He took several steps down the side and across the bottom of the ditch. Plaintiff took a normal step as he started up the other side of the ditch. As he transferred weight to the right heel, he heard a pop. Plaintiff immediately experienced acute right calf pain. Plaintiff proceeded to the ambulance where he opened the doors and, after helping walk the patient into the ambulance, drove the patient to the hospital.

8. Chief Edward Wallace has been a member of the South River-Merrimon Fire EMS since 1987, including serving as Chief since 2005. In describing plaintiff's job duties as a *Page 5 medical responder, Chief Wallace indicated that plaintiff worked in a support role to the EMTs and that it would not be unusual for him to walk on uneven surfaces such as yards, unpaved roads, and driveways. Conversely, however, Chief Wallace indicated that crossing a gulley or ditch would not be a usual or customary duty of plaintiff's volunteer work with the EMS squad. Moreover, Chief Wallace could not recall a single occasion where he had observed the plaintiff crossing any type of ditch while working for defendant-employer. Chief Wallace also described the terrain of eastern Carteret County as flat and noted that fire trucks and ambulances are not off-road vehicles and are usually operated and parked on flat surfaces.

9. The greater weight of the evidence is that plaintiff sustained a compensable injury to his right leg arising out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant-employer on March 19, 2009. Plaintiff arrived on scene to find the patient located in a front yard instead of inside a house.

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

Related

Dolbow v. Holland Industrial, Inc.
308 S.E.2d 335 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1983)
Harding v. THOMAS AND HOWARD COMPANY
124 S.E.2d 109 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Goodwin v. South River-Merrimon Fire Ems, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodwin-v-south-river-merrimon-fire-ems-ncworkcompcom-2010.