Gordon v. Griffen Services

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 21, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 954096
StatusPublished

This text of Gordon v. Griffen Services (Gordon v. Griffen Services) 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
Gordon v. Griffen Services, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award based on the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission hereby modifies the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner as noted below.

The Full Commission finds as facts and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing as:

STIPULATIONS
1. That all parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and this claim. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. The employer-employee relationship existed between the defendant-employer and the plaintiff at all relevant times herein.

3. Atlantic Mutual Insurance provided defendant-employer with workers' compensation coverage at all relevant times herein.

4. On May 4, 1999, plaintiff sustained injury to her right ankle, foot and leg as a result of being involved in an automobile accident while in the course and scope of her employment with defendant-employer.

5. Liability was accepted by the defendants by a Form 21 agreement. It was approved by the Industrial Commission on December 13, 1999. TTD benefits were paid based on an average weekly wage of $538.40.

6. The parties agree that plaintiff is currently disabled due to her compensable worker's compensation injuries and is entitled to temporary total disability benefits.

7. Plaintiff contends that as a result of her altered gait from foot and leg casts, crutches and canes, she has developed back pain and requires treatment. Defendant-employer contends that the back condition pre-existed or is unrelated to the injury of May 4, 1999.

8. Plaintiff has returned to work for Defendant-employer in light duty positions on various occasions. Defendants have provided temporary partial disability benefits to Plaintiff based on an average weekly wage of $538.40 for the periods of time she worked light duty for Defendant-employer.

9. The parties agree that plaintiff made a Motion for Approval of additional medical treatment for her back condition on March 6, 2001. Defendants responded to the Motion and on April 10, 2001, Special Deputy Commissioner Cammerano denied the Motion.

10. The issues to be determined before the Deputy Commissioner were:

a. What is Plaintiff-Employee's correct average weekly wage and what, if any, additional benefit is she owed?

b. Whether Plaintiff's fibromyalgia was aggravated by her compensable injuries and is she entitled to medical benefits for treatment for her fibromyalgia?

***********
The Pre-Trial Agreement along with its attachments and any stipulations that have been submitted by the parties are hereby incorporated by reference as though they were fully set out herein.

***********
Based on the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission enters the following

FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. Plaintiff began working for Griffin Services on March 15, 1999. In this position, she was to be paid a salary of $28,000.00 per year and commissions calculated as 3% on gross sales. Ms. Gordon was advised in her discussions with other Griffin employees that she should expect to earn $40,000.00 to $60,000.00 per year. Plaintiff testified that she expected in her first year she would be able to earn $40,000.00 in income.

2. Plaintiff had only been on her job for two months before she was injured in a work place accident. Ms. Gordon was required by the Employer to complete a time period of training. Due to her previous experience as a sales representative, she was allowed to make client contact earlier than other trainees. She had made sales prior to her accident, but those sales were not yet reflected in her earnings.

3. Defendants admitted that a first year account representative should be able to earn between $5,000.00 to $6,000.00 per year in commissions, in addition to the $28,000.00 in base earnings. By their own admission, first year account representatives could earn $33,000.00.

4. Plaintiff was injured on May 4, 1999, when she was traveling to call on a potential customer and a car traveling in the opposite direction struck her vehicle head on, wherein she sustained serious and multiple ankle fractures. As a result of her injuries, plaintiff was required to use various casts, braces, and boots from the date of her injury to the date of the hearing. She had open reduction internal fixation of her ankle fractures on the day of the accident and subsequently has had two other surgeries to remove the screws and remove scar tissue from tendons. The ankle injuries significantly altered her gait.

6. Dr. Eric Laxer performed plaintiff's emergency surgery and followed up with her treatment. When her ankle did not recover, Dr. Laxer referred her to Dr. Gilbert, at the same clinic. Dr. Laxer and Dr. Gilbert both moved from the Nalle Clinic to Charlotte Orthopedic Specialist and Dr. Gilbert continued his treatment of plaintiff's ankle.

7. Plaintiff started to have back pain after her second surgery. Dr. Gilbert referred plaintiff back to Dr. Laxer for assessment of her back pain. Dr. Laxer related her back pain to her abnormal gait and use of assistive devices. Dr. Laxer issued a letter of March 3, 2000, "Melanie Gordon is a patient in my practice who sustained a right ankle fracture dislocation and had surgery in May of 1999. Since that time she has either been on crutches or using a cane and has developed difficulties with back pain which I relate to not walking normally during this time."

8. Plaintiff required and was refused additional treatment for her accepted ankle injuries. Dr. Gilbert made a referral to Dr. Sebold for a second opinion about an ankle fusion in January 2001. After calling the adjuster for a month, Dr. Gilbert's office advised plaintiff that she would have to involve her attorney to obtain authorization for additional care for her ankle. Plaintiff paid out of her own pocket to see Dr. Sebold for evaluation. Dr. Sebold recommended that plaintiff obtain an AFO, Ankle-Foot Orthosis, to limit the flexibility of her ankle in an attempt to reduce pain. If the AFO does not adequately relieve her pain, plaintiff will require an ankle fusion in the future.

9. Dr. Sebold confirmed Dr. Laxer's findings that plaintiff had an abnormal gait due to her ankle injury. Dr. Sebold also indicated that the degenerative changes that plaintiff has experienced in her ankle joint from the injury would be painful and the pain would also affect her gait.

10. Prior to her automobile accident, plaintiff had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Her condition was under control and she rarely missed time from work due to fibromyalgia symptoms. After the severe ankle fracture, with plaintiff's additional surgeries and restrictions concerning activity level, she had an aggravation of her fibromyalgia. As a result of this aggravation and acceleration, plaintiff has had increased fibromyalgia symptoms which influence her ability to return to work.

***********
Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts, the undersigned makes the following:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.

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

Related

§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gordon v. Griffen Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-griffen-services-ncworkcompcom-2002.