Green v. Austin Quality Foods

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 2, 2009
DocketI.C. NO. 249021.
StatusPublished

This text of Green v. Austin Quality Foods (Green v. Austin Quality Foods) 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
Green v. Austin Quality Foods, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Griffin and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. With reference to the errors assigned by defendants, the Full Commission finds that defendants have in part shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. Accordingly, the Full Commission AFFIRMS in part and MODIFIES in part the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
1. What is defendants' remedy for plaintiff not timely returning the $64,224.25, which was deposited into his personal banking account? *Page 2

2. Whether plaintiff should be held in civil and/or criminal contempt for his failure to comply with an order of the Industrial Commission and whether criminal sanctions should be imposed?

***********
EVIDENTIARY MATTERS
At the hearing, plaintiff submitted the following:

a. The April 3, 2007 Full Commission Opinion and Award, which was admitted into the record and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit (1);

b. Correspondence dated April 15, 2008, which was admitted into the record and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit (2);

c. A Packet of Emails, which was admitted into the record and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit (3);

d. A Mortgage Document, which was admitted into the record and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit (4) and;

e. A Copy of a Check, which was admitted into the record and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit (5).

Also at the hearing, defendants submitted the following:

Correspondence dated July 25, 2008 requesting a Return of Overpayment, and attached case law defendants contend support their argument in this claim, which were admitted into the record and collectively marked as Defendants' Exhibit (1).

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

STIPULATIONS *Page 3
1. All parties are properly before the Commission, and this is the Court of proper jurisdiction for this action.

2. All parties have been correctly designated, and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of the parties.

3. On the date of injury, the parties were subject to, and bound by, the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

4. At all relevant times, an employment relationship existed between the parties.

5. On all relevant dates, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. was the compensation carrier on the risk.

6. This is an accepted claim.

7. Plaintiff's date of injury was May 10, 2002.

8. In addition to the other stipulations contained herein, the parties hereto stipulate and agree with respect to the following undisputed facts:

a. Pursuant to an Opinion and Award of the Full Commission entered April 3, 2007, defendants were ordered to pay plaintiff permanent total disability compensation at the rate of $411.74 per week commencing as of May 11, 2002.

b. Pursuant to the same Opinion and Award, defendants were ordered to compensate Ms. Darlene Green, who was then plaintiff's wife, for non-skilled attendant care. This amount was determined to be $362,175.00, less a twenty-five percent (25%) attorney's fee.

*Page 4

c. Plaintiff's counsel sent correspondence to counsel for defendants on April 15, 2008, requesting that the compensation due Ms. Green, be sent in care of counsel for plaintiff pursuant to her request.

d. On July 15, 2008, defendants tendered funds owed to plaintiff and Ms. Green by way of direct deposit into plaintiff's account. This amount included the $271,631.25 ($362,175.00, less a twenty-five percent (25%) attorney's fee) owed to Ms. Green.

e. On July 16, 2008, counsel for plaintiff advised counsel for defendants that plaintiff and Ms. Green had become estranged and requested that defendants re-issue the $271,631.25 ($362,175.00, less the twenty-five percent (25%) attorney's fee) directly to Ms. Green.

f. Counsel for plaintiff also instructed plaintiff to obtain a bank check for the amount owed to Ms. Green and deliver it to him so that it may be returned to defendants. The bank check was to be made payable to defendant-carrier. Counsel for defendants then advised that, upon receipt of the bank check, defendant-carrier would re-issue the funds directly to Ms. Green.

g. Plaintiff's estranged wife, Ms. Darlene Green, expressed to counsel for plaintiff and to counsel for defendants that she was concerned that plaintiff had misappropriated the funds owed to her for his own personal use. Ms. Green also reported that she had received a call from her former church pastor, who advised that plaintiff had recently made a charitable contribution in the amount of $7,407.00, an action uncharacteristic of plaintiff. Further, Ms. Green indicated that the family home, occupied by *Page 5 plaintiff, was in danger of foreclosure. Ms. Green expressed to counsel for defendants that she was concerned by the reports she had received.

h. On August 8, 2008, counsel for plaintiff hand-delivered to the office of counsel for defendants a bank check from the church made payable to defendant-carrier.

i. Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Return Funds Paid by Defendants and for Temporary Suspension of Benefits on July 25, 2008. On July 28, 2008, the Commission entered an Order compelling plaintiff to return funds to defendants in the amount of $271,631.25 ($362,175.00, less the twenty-five percent (25%) attorney's fee) on or before August 1, 2008.

j. On July 25, 2008, counsel for plaintiff advised counsel for defendants that a bank check in the amount of $200,000.00 had been received in the mail from plaintiff. Counsel for defendants then sent someone to counsel for plaintiff's office to pick up the bank check later that day.

k. To date, plaintiff has failed to return $64,224.25 of the amount owed, and thus failed to comply with the Industrial Commission's order of July 28, 2008.

l. On June 19, 2008, plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to Fully Comply with the Opinion and Award of the Full Commission entered April 3, 2007.

*Page 6

m. On July 29, 2008, the Full Commission entered an Order compelling defendants to tender the funds owed to Ms. Green within thirty (30) days of the Order.

n. On August 28, 2008, defendant-carrier mailed checks to Ms. Green which totaled $271,631.25.

9. At the hearing, the parties submitted the following:

A Pre-Trial Agreement, which was admitted into the record and marked as Stipulated Exhibit (1).

***********
Based upon a review of all the credible evidence in the record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1.

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

Related

Rice v. City of Winston-Salem
572 S.E.2d 793 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
Moretz v. Richards & Associates, Inc.
342 S.E.2d 844 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Church v. Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc.
409 S.E.2d 715 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Green v. Austin Quality Foods, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-austin-quality-foods-ncworkcompcom-2009.