Hardee v. Icr Contracting Co., Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedApril 28, 2009
DocketI.C. NO. 667000.
StatusPublished

This text of Hardee v. Icr Contracting Co., Inc. (Hardee v. Icr Contracting Co., Inc.) 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
Hardee v. Icr Contracting Co., Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Harris and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission adopts the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Harris with minor modifications.

***********
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 bound by and subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. *Page 2

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

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

4. The alleged injury that is the subject of this claim occurred sometime in September 2006.

5. In September 2006, Defendant-Employer was insured by Stonewood Insurance Company.

***********
EXHIBITS
The following documents were accepted into evidence as stipulated exhibits:

• Exhibit 1: Executed Pre-Trial Agreement

• Exhibit 2: Industrial Commission Forms

• Exhibit 3: Parties' discovery responses

• Exhibit 4: Transcript of pre-hearing deposition of plaintiff

• Exhibit 5: Plaintiff's medical records

The following documents and materials were accepted into evidence as Defendants' exhibits:

• Exhibit 1: Surveillance reports

• Exhibit 2: DVDs of surveillance footage

Transcripts of the depositions of the following were also received post-hearing:

• Dr. Neil H. Musselwhite

• Dr. George V. Huffmon, III (with Plaintiff's Exhibits 1-9)

*Page 3

• Dr. Mark Foster

• Alan Simmerman, P.T. (with Defendants' Exhibit 1)

***********
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was 51 years old at the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, with a date of birth of April 1, 1957. He graduated from UNC-Wilmington in 1980 with a degree is geology and worked in the oil business for some time. He started working construction, as a carpenter, in about 1989 and has been in that line of work ever since.

2. Plaintiff began working for defendant on or about June 26, 2006 as a carpenter and job coordinator. His average weekly wage at this time was $630.49 which yields a weekly compensation rate of $420.35.

3. On or about September 14, 2006, plaintiff was on a demolition job with defendant. The tip of a 90-pound jackhammer became stuck in some concrete that was being broken up, and plaintiff tried to pull the jackhammer out of the concrete. As he pulled up on the jackhammer, plaintiff felt a pop in his low back. Plaintiff immediately felt pain and fell to his knees. After a few minutes, plaintiff began to feel pain and numbness going down his right leg.

4. Plaintiff had had back pain prior to this incident, but never to this degree and character, and never with radiation down his right leg. Plaintiff characterized his right leg as "paralyzed."

5. Plaintiff left work early that day and missed work the next day because he was in so much pain. Eddie Brock, the principal of defendant, called plaintiff to ask him where he was, *Page 4 and plaintiff told him that he had hurt his back at work the day before. Brock did not offer to send plaintiff to a doctor, but wanted plaintiff to come into work and supervise while sitting down. Plaintiff declined to do so.

6. Plaintiff waited a few days to seek medical treatment, figuring that his pain might improve on its own. When his pain did not improve, plaintiff decided to seek medical treatment on his own.

7. Plaintiff went to see Dr. James D. Hundley, an orthopedist, on September 20, 2006. Dr. Hundley noted that plaintiff had very limited lumbar motion, a positive straight leg raising test on the right, marked weakness in the right extensor hallucis longus muscle, and reflex changes. Dr. Hundley diagnosed "low back pain with EHL weakness and reflex changes secondary to HNP." He prescribed Percocet for pain, recommended bed rest and ordered an MRI.

8. Plaintiff underwent an MRI on October 7, 2006, which was read to show multilevel lumbar spondylotic changes particularly at L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1, right-sided foraminal narrowing in conjunction with disc and facet changes at L3-4 abutting the far lateral right L3 root, central canal narrowing at L4-5 due to congenital and acquired features with associated biforaminal narrowing, and a left disc bulge at L5-S1 abutting the far lateral left L5 root without significant central stenosis.

9. Plaintiff filed a Form 18, Notice of Accident to Employer and Claim of Employee, Representative, or Dependent for Workers' Compensation Benefits on October 12, 2006. Defendants denied plaintiff's claim via a Form 61, Denial of Workers' Compensation Claim dated November 2, 2006.

10. Plaintiff followed up with Dr. Mark Foster, Dr. Hundley's partner, on October 17, *Page 5 2006 and again on December 5, 2006. Dr. Foster did not recommend surgery but referred plaintiff for physical therapy. As of December 5, 2006 Dr. Foster released plaintiff to return to medium level work.

11. Plaintiff saw Dr. Huffmon, a neurosurgeon, on November 28, 2006. Dr. Huffmon did a physical examination, noting among other things that plaintiff had an antalgic gait, right-sided SI joint tenderness, a positive straight leg raise on the right, weakness in the right EHL and a decrease in the right patellar reflex. Dr. Huffmon believed that all these findings were consistent with nerve root compression and that plaintiff is suffering from L5 radiculopathy. He also read the MRI as showing degenerative disc disease at L3-4, L4-5, L5-S1, a bilateral disc bulge at L3-4 and right-sided disc herniation at L4-5.

12. Dr. Huffmon's impression was that plaintiff was most symptomatic from the right-sided disc herniation at L4-5, and he recommended pain management. He noted that if plaintiff's right leg were to get weaker, he would need surgery as soon as possible. All of Dr. Huffmon's physical findings were consistent with plaintiff's history of the September 2006 injury and the MRI results.

13. Since his September 2006 injury, plaintiff has followed up with his family physician, Dr. Musselwhite, for pain medications and muscle relaxers. While on his pain medications, plaintiff can function at about 50 percent of his pre-injury capacity. Dr. Musselwhite opined that from time to time plaintiff would need pain medications and muscle relaxers for ongoing back pain.

14. On or about September 14, 2006 plaintiff suffered a specific traumatic incident of his assigned work whereby he sustained a low back injury when he pulled up on a jack hammer he was using when it became stuck. *Page 6

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

Related

Hendrix v. Linn-Corriher Corp.
345 S.E.2d 374 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.
290 S.E.2d 682 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hardee v. Icr Contracting Co., Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardee-v-icr-contracting-co-inc-ncworkcompcom-2009.