Harrison v. N.C. Department of Crime Control

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 31, 2010
DocketI.C. NO. 785754.
StatusPublished

This text of Harrison v. N.C. Department of Crime Control (Harrison v. N.C. Department of Crime Control) 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
Harrison v. N.C. Department of Crime Control, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

*********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Stephenson and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. The Full Commission REVERSES the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Stephenson.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. An employer/employee relationship existed at the time of the alleged incident.

2. The North Carolina Highway Patrol was the duly qualified employer at the time of the incident. *Page 2

3. The parties are subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act, Defendant-Employer employing the requisite number of employees to be bound under the provisions of said Act at the time of the incident.

4. Defendant-Employer was self-insured at the time of the incident.

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $996.96, with a compensation rate of $664.64

6. The alleged date of injury is August 8, 2007.

***********
Based upon all the competent evidence from the record, the Full Commission finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the alleged injury, Plaintiff was employed with the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety as a State Trooper. Plaintiff was employed in that capacity in 2002.

2. Plaintiff has a history of depression going back to his teenage years. On January 24, 2005, Plaintiff sought treatment with Dr. Jeffrey R. Chambers for depressive and anxiety symptoms. Plaintiff described a feeling of alienation that went back to at least his teenage years. Breakups had been especially hard for Plaintiff in the past. Dr. Chambers diagnosed Plaintiff with a major depressive disorder. Dr. Chambers described major depression as "an illness in which there are negative emotions that a person can't bring themselves out of."

3. In 2005, Plaintiff described a pattern of falling back into a depressive state when there was any sort of stressor in his life. Generally the stressors in his life revolved around failed relationships with women and his family. During the early part of 2005, Plaintiff had a definite improvement. In late April 2005 Plaintiff suffered a setback due to a breakup. Another breakup *Page 3 occurred in late summer of 2005 that caused another setback from which Plaintiff eventually improved. None of the stressors in 2005 were work related.

4. Plaintiff continued to see Dr. Chambers in 2006. Dr. Chambers never changed Plaintiff's diagnosis code from major depressive disorder. Early in 2006, Plaintiff felt as if his medications were not working. He had increased irritability, crankiness, and some weight and appetite loss. He had more unhappiness, lack of energy, and continued relationship problems. Plaintiff improved over the course of two months in spite of losing his Grandmother. He lost weight, felt better, and entered into a relationship with a new girlfriend. A medication change also contributed to his improvement.

5. In August 2006, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Chambers complaining of stress. He was angry and most of his focus was again on his relationships. Relationships were about 60% of his misery.

6. In December 2006, Plaintiff began to complain that work was not satisfying. He was not getting as much out of work as he did before, but he could not attribute his dissatisfaction to anything specific.

7. When asked what the cause of Plaintiff's stress and anxiety might be, Dr. Chambers answered that the mood disturbances were mainly developmental issues resurfacing in the present and provoked mainly by a relationship. It was a familiar pattern to Dr. Chambers. He stated that a number of mental health professionals probably would diagnose Plaintiff with a personality disorder.

8. According to Dr. Chambers, Plaintiff was predisposed to having major depressive disorders. He went on to state that it is acceptable to presume a genetic predisposition for depressive episodes in most people who get them. In regard to Plaintiff specifically, Dr. *Page 4 Chambers said that it would be safe to say that somehow through Plaintiff's experiences with his family, his school, and his friends he did not develop a stable and positive view of himself. Overall, Plaintiff's symptoms from 2005 to 2006 were established at a baseline with oscillations.

9. In 2007 Plaintiff was experiencing relationship problems, and Dr. Chambers made some medication changes following the holiday season. In February, Plaintiff moved in with his girlfriend but continued to experience irritability such that he wanted to move out again.

10. In March of 2007, Plaintiff was accused of using excessive force and making inappropriate comments to women in his position as a State Trooper. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was also accused of profiling women while he was looking for drivers who were impaired. The subsequent investigation of these accusations took several months.

11. Television and internet media reported details of the investigation of Plaintiff. Due to Defendant-Employer's policy that its officers may not comment on ongoing investigations, Plaintiff was not allowed to comment to the media about the investigation which made Plaintiff feel helpless. The purpose of this policy is to prevent prejudice to the internal investigation.

12. Plaintiff was eventually cleared of the allegations. During the investigation, Defendant-Employer treated Plaintiff the same as any other highway patrol trooper who was the subject of an internal investigation.

13. On April 16, 2007, Plaintiff was scheduled to appear in two different courtrooms at the Wake County Courthouse. When he was late for his appearance in District Court, the judge held Plaintiff in two counts of criminal contempt of court. The first count was for lying to the judge as to his whereabouts. The second count was for holding up the court's proceedings. The Judge served Plaintiff with a contempt order on May 3, 2007. *Page 5

14. On May 2, 2007 Plaintiff was placed on administrative duty and began working in an administrative capacity in the office on May 3, 2007.

15. On May 8, 2007 Plaintiff presented to Dr. Chambers complaining of having been placed on administrative leave. Plaintiff told Dr. Chambers that he had a hearing coming on June 1, 2007. The problems were such that Plaintiff could hardly drag himself from bed.

16. In June, 2007, Plaintiff pled guilty to disrupting the normal flow of business in a court, a Class B misdemeanor. A Class B misdemeanor conviction suspends a sworn officer's certification from the North Carolina Criminal Education and Standards Commission (Training and Standards).

17. On July 2, 2007, Plaintiff sustained an injury to his neck when he was bending over a filing cabinet to get some files. He presented to Dr. Thomas Griggs on July 5, 2007. Dr. Griggs diagnosed him with a pain syndrome with paresthesias. Dr. Griggs prescribed Percocet for the Plaintiff and referred him to Dr. Timothy Garner. Dr. Griggs recommended that the Plaintiff remain out of work. An MRI of Plaintiff's cervical spine revealed mild disc osteophyte complexes at C4-C5, C5-C6 and C6-C7 without associated central canal stenosis or neural foraminal narrowing. In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Dr.

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

Related

Demery v. Perdue Farms, Inc.
545 S.E.2d 485 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
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)
Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.
290 S.E.2d 682 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Harrison v. N.C. Department of Crime Control, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-nc-department-of-crime-control-ncworkcompcom-2010.