Hammond v. Atlantic Group

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 19, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 065395
StatusPublished

This text of Hammond v. Atlantic Group (Hammond v. Atlantic Group) 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
Hammond v. Atlantic Group, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Pfeiffer. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, and rehear the parties or their representatives. The Full Commission MODIFIES and AFFIRMS 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 before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission, and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

3. All parties have been correctly joined, and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

4. The Atlantic Group, Inc. is the defendant-employer in this matter, with Argonaut Insurance Company as the carrier on the risk for workers' compensation purposes.

5. On July 18, 2000, plaintiff was employed by defendant-employer as a pipewelder/fitter, and earned wages in the amount of $16.00 per hour, working 50 hours per week. Plaintiff's total average weekly wage at that time was $800.00.

6. Plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury by accident to his back arising out of and in the course of his employment on July 18, 2000.

7. Plaintiff has been out of work and has received from defendants ongoing temporary total disability compensation benefits from August 18, 2000 in the weekly amount of $588.00.

8. In addition to the deposition transcripts and the exhibits attached thereto, the parties stipulated into evidence in this matter a packet of 129 pages of medical records marked collectively as stipulated exhibit one. Defendants introduced and the Deputy Commissioner admitted into evidence the following: (1) plaintiff's answers to interrogatories; (2) health questionnaire dated August 23, 1999; (3) job description for nuclear welder; (4) investigative report for October 2000; (5) videotape (October 27, 2000); (6) investigative report from November 9, 2000; (7) videotape (November 9, 2000); and (8) investigative report for February 8, 2001.

9. The issues before the Commission are whether plaintiff's back symptoms and complaints of pain are causally related to his admittedly compensable injury by accident of July 18, 2000, and to what disability and medical benefits, if any, does plaintiff remain entitled.

***********
Based upon the competent evidence of record herein, the Full Commission finds:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. As of the date of the Deputy Commissioner hearing in the matter, plaintiff was 47 years old. Plaintiff has earned his G.E.D. His previous work history consists of auto mechanic work, welding, and pipe fitting. Plaintiff had been a welder for 20 years.

2. In May 1992 plaintiff sustained a work-related injury to his back when he lifted a car transmission and strained his back. Plaintiff was working for an employer other than defendant-employer at that time. Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim for this injury, and received medical treatment for the injury. This injury did not warrant surgical intervention. Plaintiff recovered from this injury after being out of work for two to three years, and was assigned a five percent permanent partial impairment rating to his back from Dr. Carol M. Wadon. Dr. Barry E. White, from Cape Fear Neurology Associates, assigned a 12.5 percent permanent partial impairment rating and gave a 50 pound lifting restriction in May 1993.

3. In August 1999 plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident as a result of which he developed shoulder, neck, and low back pain with radicular symptoms. Plaintiff was seen by chiropractor Robert W. Twaddell. Plaintiff reported to Dr. Twaddell that he had not experienced the same or similar complaints in the past, a report that was untrue. Plaintiff underwent a course of conservative treatment from which he testified that he fully recovered. On January 19, 2000 Dr. White was of the opinion that the motor vehicle accident exacerbated plaintiff's underlying low back condition, and he increased plaintiff's permanency rating to 17.5 percent.

4. An MRI done on September 23, 1999 after the motor vehicle accident revealed marked degenerative changes at L4-5 and L5-S1 with disc bulging.

5. Plaintiff testified at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner that he lied to Dr. Twaddell and Dr. White when he told them that after his motor vehicle accident in August 1999 he developed low back pain with radicular symptoms into his left leg. Plaintiff's purported purpose for lying about his symptoms was to get more money from the claim. Plaintiff testified:

"I told a lie that my back was hurting, and my back was not hurting. I told a lie about the burning going down the center of my back and my left leg. Who wouldn't, when somebody rear-ends you, when you know he's going to be at fault? Come on, now. Who wouldn't?"

6. Plaintiff became employed as a welder by defendant-employer in March 2000, at which time he indicated that he was capable of lifting 50 to 100 pounds. However, defendant-employer accommodated plaintiff's lifting restrictions of no greater lifting than 50 pounds unassisted.

7. On July 18, 2000 plaintiff was helping a coworker lift a heavy piece of steel when plaintiff felt a sharp pain in his back. Plaintiff reported that same day to Sanford Medical Group where he was initially seen by a physician's assistant, but later came under the care of Dr. Emile G. Vandermeer. At this initial visit, plaintiff complained of low back and cervical pain, and was diagnosed with low back strain and cervical strain. Plaintiff failed to report the August 1999 motor vehicle accident to Dr. Vandermeer. Plaintiff's symptoms were similar if not identical to those he experienced following his August 1999 motor vehicle accident.

8. Defendants admitted the compensability of and their liability for plaintiff's July 18, 2000 injury to his back by filing a Form 60 that was dated September 20, 2000 and have been paying benefits to plaintiff since August 2000.

9. Plaintiff treated with Dr. Vandermeer for several weeks, and he prescribed a course of physical therapy. Dr. Vandermeer never thought that plaintiff had a surgical problem, and diagnosed back strains. An MRI taken August 15, 2000 revealed an extruded disc at L4-5; however, plaintiff's symptoms could not be explained based solely upon the MRI results, and his complaints of pain were not consistent with his physical exam. Dr. Vandermeer was unable to conclude that the incident of July 18, 2000 caused or aggravated plaintiff's underlying cervical and lumbar problems thereafter.

10. Although he did assign restrictions, Dr. Vandermeer never took plaintiff out of work as a result of the injury. On August 1, 2000 plaintiff reported to the physician that he had taken himself out of work due to purported difficulties driving and "problems with coworkers." By August 25, 2000, Dr. Vandermeer felt that plaintiff was capable of returning to work in some capacity, and that his failure to attempt to do so was probably related to "non-physical" factors. Plaintiff became very upset when informed by Dr. Vandermeer that he was capable of doing some restricted work activity.

11. In his deposition Dr.

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

Related

Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.
290 S.E.2d 682 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)
Sims v. Charmes/Arby's Roast Beef
542 S.E.2d 277 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hammond v. Atlantic Group, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-atlantic-group-ncworkcompcom-2003.