Graham v. Masonry Reinforcing Corp. of America

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 31, 2006
DocketI.C. NOS. 226275 226281
StatusPublished

This text of Graham v. Masonry Reinforcing Corp. of America (Graham v. Masonry Reinforcing Corp. of America) 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. Masonry Reinforcing Corp. of America, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2006).

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, affirms with modifications the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

* * * * * * * * * * *
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. At all relevant times, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant-Employer.

3. The Carrier on the risk for Defendant-Employer in this claim was formerly known as Atlantic Mutual Insurance Companies and is currently known as GAB Robbins, Inc.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage in February 2001, and August 31, 2001, was $55,000.00 annually, which yields an average weekly wage of $1,057.69. The maximum compensation rate for 2001 was $588.00.

5. All parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission and the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

6. Plaintiff alleges that on February 6, 2001, he stumbled over a forklift guard, and sustained leg, hip, and/or back injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Plaintiff further alleges that on August 31, 2001, he slipped on oil on the floor and although he did not fall, sustained either additional injuries or aggravated the injuries from the February 6, 2001 incident. Defendants deny both of Plaintiff's allegations and contend that Plaintiff has not sustained a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment either in February 6, 2001, or on August 31, 2001.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based on the foregoing Stipulations and the evidence presented, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. As of the date of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Plaintiff was 61 years of age. In addition to a high school diploma, he has an associate degree in an accounting related field from a junior college, a bachelor's degree with a double major in finance and accounting from the University of Southwest Louisiana received in 1985, a Master of Business Administration degree from Charleston Southern College received in 1993, and a seminary degree from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary received in 1994. He has worked in the area of cost accounting during his entire professional life. Plaintiff also served in the United States Air Force.

2. Plaintiff began working for Defendant-Employer in May 2000, as a cost accountant. Plaintiff's job duties with Defendant-Employer as a cost accountant required him to prepare cost accounting reports for upper management. In order to obtain the information needed to prepare these reports, he would be required to go out into the manufacturing facilities and observe production, take inventories, obtain data from machines, and perform similar duties. The manufacturing facility was spread out among several buildings on a campus located in Charlotte, North Carolina.

3. On February 6, 2001, while Plaintiff was stepping out of the production office in the manufacturing building, he tripped over a forklift barrier that was bolted to the floor. This caused him to lose his balance and he twisted and fell against a golf cart that was parked near the barrier, striking his lower back and left hip against the golf cart. He felt an immediate onset of intense pain in his left hip, buttock, leg, and lower back. The pain was very intense although he "walked it off" and returned to work.

4. On the date of his injury, Plaintiff reported the incident to his supervisor "Jerry" who indicated his intention to fill out an accident report.

5. On August 31, 2001, Plaintiff was walking across the concrete floor in the manufacturing plant and inadvertently stepped into a pool of spilled hydraulic fluid or oil, causing him to slip and causing his right leg to go out from under him. His left knee buckled and he went down partially, as though he was going to do a "cheerleader's split." He was able to catch himself with his walking cane but the incident exacerbated his pre-existing hip, leg and back condition.

6. Following the February 6, 2001 incident, Plaintiff sought treatment with the Veterans' Administration Hospital and was subsequently diagnosed with avascular necrosis in the left hip.

7. Plaintiff did not fill out a written accident report for his employer pertaining to the February 6, 2001 incident until July 6, 2001, when he was requested to do so by the company's personnel director. Plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for not giving written notice of his injury because he gave oral notice of his injury and at that time his supervisor indicated he would file a written report. Defendants were not prejudiced by Plaintiff's failure to give written notice of his injury because they had actual notice.

8. After the August 31, 2001 fall, Plaintiff's hip condition worsened. There were times when he had difficulty walking. He continued to perform his job duties, which exacerbated his pain.

9. On September 26, 2001, Defendant-Employer's Chief Financial Officer, Mark McClure, made the decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment on the stated basis of economics and poor job performance. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Plaintiff's job performance was satisfactory and the Full Commission gives little weight to testimony indicating that Plaintiff was terminated for poor job performance.

10. Plaintiff was paid by Defendant-Employer through October 15, 2001, and had hip replacement surgery due to his avascular necrosis at the Veterans' Administration Hospital on October 16, 2001. After his surgery, Plaintiff was restricted to lifting no more than 10 pounds, no bending, no stooping, and was required to change positions every 30 minutes.

11. Dr. Scott Stegbauer, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Walterboro, South Carolina, was engaged by Plaintiff's original counsel to review the medical records and render an opinion on medical causation. Dr. Stegbauer testified that if Plaintiff's avascular necrosis was limited to the left hip, rather than bilateral; and, if there was no history of chronic alcohol abuse, then the trauma Plaintiff sustained in his fall of February 2001, would be the most likely cause for the avascular necrosis to the left hip.

12. The greater weight of the medical evidence establishes that Plaintiff's avascular necrosis exists only in the left hip, that it did not exist prior to the February 6, 2001 incident at work, and that as of the most recent medical information in the record, there is no objective evidence of avascular necrosis developing in the right hip.

13. Dr. Maria Galus, Plaintiff's primary care physician at the Veterans' Administration Hospital, testified that Plaintiff does not have a history of chronic alcohol abuse, that based on her review of the medical literature, avascular necrosis is linked to chronic alcoholism only when liver damage and liver cirrhosis due to alcoholism have occurred, and that trauma is one of the major causes for avascular necrosis to the hip.

14. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that although Plaintiff has on occasion engaged in binge drinking and has consumed alcoholic beverages on a regular basis, he has no liver damage and is not a chronic abuser of alcohol.

15.

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

Related

Perkins v. U.S. Airways
628 S.E.2d 402 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2006)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Seagraves v. Austin Co. of Greensboro
472 S.E.2d 397 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Graham v. Masonry Reinforcing Corp. of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-masonry-reinforcing-corp-of-america-ncworkcompcom-2006.