Graham v. Fresenius Medical Care

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMay 14, 2007
DocketI.C. NO. 166946.
StatusPublished

This text of Graham v. Fresenius Medical Care (Graham v. Fresenius Medical Care) 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
Graham v. Fresenius Medical Care, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The undersigned reviewed the prior Opinion and Award, based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Harris. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties or their representatives. Having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission modifies the Opinion and Award by Deputy Commissioner Harris.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are subject to the N.C. Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employee-employer relationship existed between the named employee and named employer.

3. The carrier liable on the risk is correctly named above.

*Page 2

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage will be determined from an I.C. Form 22 Wage Chart to be provided by the defendants with supporting wage documentation.

5. Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury on March 9, 2001 arising out of and in the course of employment with defendant.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was 51 years of age at the time of the hearing before the deputy commissioner and is a registered nurse. She began working with defendant in 1999 in its Lumberton Dialysis Center as a "team leader." In that position, prior to her March 9, 2001 fall, plaintiff typically worked 12-hour shifts, six days per week, then would be off for a full week.

2. On October 6, 2000, plaintiff underwent a total left hip replacement with Dr. Edward G. Lilly, III, an orthopedic surgeon then with Duke Medical Center. This surgery was not work-related. Plaintiff then went through a lengthy, painful rehabilitation process and was very much looking forward to returning to work and resuming her routine.

3. Plaintiff returned to work with defendant in the Lumberton Dialysis Center on February 28, 2001. Dr. Lilly recommended work restrictions for plaintiff of no heavy lifting, bending, squatting or stooping. Dr. Lilly also recommended that plaintiff alternate between sitting and standing for no longer than two hours with frequent ten-minute breaks.

4. On March 9, 2001, while working for defendant, plaintiff went to sit down in a chair. The chair was broken, and when plaintiff sat on it, it collapsed. Plaintiff fell to the floor and injured her left hip and lower back. *Page 3

5. On or about September 5, 2001, plaintiff filed a Form 18, dated August 29, 2001, making a claim for an injury as set out in Paragraph 5 above. Defendants never filed a Form 60, 63 or 61. However, as noted in the Stipulations above, they agree that plaintiff sustained a compensable injury on March 9, 2001.

6. Plaintiff went to the emergency room at Cape Fear Valley Hospital on March 9, 2001 complaining of pain in her left hip and lower back. The emergency room physician's impression was that plaintiff had sustained a lumbar strain. He took plaintiff out of work for four days and placed her on bedrest.

7. On March 15, 2001, plaintiff returned to Dr. Lilly. Dr. Lilly diagnosed plaintiff with a contusion of the left hip and noted that plaintiff would need to progress from using crutches to independent ambulation over the following four weeks. As such, Dr. Lilly wrote plaintiff out of work for four weeks.

8. After her lengthy, painful rehabilitation from the hip surgery and the setback on March 9, 2001 that was causing her not to be able to resume her work routine, plaintiff began to feel like she did not want to be around others, and she spent much of her time at home lying on the sofa overwhelmed by negative thoughts.

9. On March 21, 2001, Dr. Lilly referred plaintiff back to her family physician for further treatment for her left hip condition. That same day, Gloria Jordan, a physician's assistant with plaintiff's family physician, recounted the history of plaintiff's left hip surgery and her fall at work, and she wrote, "This entire situation has caused (plaintiff) extreme anxiety and now to the point of becoming depressed." Ms. Jordan started plaintiff on anti-depressants and recommended that plaintiff begin psychological counseling immediately. *Page 4

10. On or about April 4, 2001, defendants authorized 10 sessions for plaintiff with Deborah Atkinson, Ph.D., a psychologist with Carolina Psychological Associates in Fayetteville.

11. On April 16, 2001, Dr. Lilly noted that, with regard to plaintiff's physical condition, he anticipated that she could return to work on May 13, 2001.

12. Also on April 16, 2001, defendants wrote to Dr. Atkinson, stating that Dr. Lilly had released plaintiff to return to work as of May 13, 2001 and inquiring whether, in Dr. Atkinson's opinion, plaintiff would be emotionally ready to return to work on that date.

13. On April 30, 2001, Dr. Atkinson wrote that plaintiff could return to work on May 14, 2001 with a graduated return to an eight-hour day.

14. Plaintiff returned to work with defendant in the Lumberton Dialysis Center on May 14, 2001.

15. In response to defendants' June 18, 2001 letter, Dr. Lilly noted that any physical work restrictions that plaintiff retained at that time were related to her October 6, 2000 total left hip replacement and not to the March 9, 2001 fall. Dr. Lilly stated that plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) for the injuries she sustained in the March 9, 2001 fall. Dr. Lilly testified, the injuries plaintiff sustained in the March 9, 2001 fall, while relatively minor, did exacerbate her ongoing left hip problems. Dr. Lilly further testified, no further orthopedic treatment is necessary for plaintiff's March 9, 2001 injuries.

16. Following plaintiff's May 14, 2001 return to work, plaintiff continued to receive psychological treatment with Dr. Atkinson and psychiatric treatment with Dr. Susan G. Myers, a psychiatrist with Carolina Psychological Associates.

17. Dr. Myers diagnosed plaintiff with major depression. Dr. Myers testified that the injuries that plaintiff sustained in her March 9, 2001 fall were a direct causative factor for her *Page 5 depression, which developed following the March 9, 2001 fall. Dr. Myers further testified that as of May 31, 2001, plaintiff was in full remission.

18. On September 7, 2001 plaintiff had a confrontation with a co-worker at the Lumberton Dialysis Center. Plaintiff again went out of work immediately following this incident. Dr. Myers testified that as plaintiff was free of depression as of May 31, 2001, this confrontation triggered a recurrence of depression.

19. On October 9, 2001, Dr. Myers wrote that plaintiff was still unable to work.

20. On January 23, 2002, Dr. Myers noted that plaintiff's depression was in full remission again and that plaintiff could return to work in an "ancillary nurse" position at the Fayetteville Kidney Center for 30 hours per week, with an increase in hours as plaintiff could tolerate.

21. In or about late January of 2002, plaintiff returned to work with defendant at defendant's Fayetteville Kidney Center.

22. On February 13, 2002, at defendants' request, plaintiff underwent an independent psychiatric evaluation with Dr. Moira F. Artigues. Dr.

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

Related

§ 97-18
North Carolina § 97-18
§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-24
North Carolina § 97-24(a)
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-42
North Carolina § 97-42
§ 97-88.1
North Carolina § 97-88.1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Graham v. Fresenius Medical Care, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-fresenius-medical-care-ncworkcompcom-2007.