Haywood v. Diyahs Homes, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 7, 2011
DocketI.C. NO. 676118.
StatusPublished

This text of Haywood v. Diyahs Homes, Inc. (Haywood v. Diyahs Homes, 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
Haywood v. Diyahs Homes, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Ledford and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties. The Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Ledford and enters the following Opinion and Award:

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

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and of the subject matter. *Page 2

2. The parties are subject to and bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

3. The employer Diyahs Homes, Inc. was insured at the time of the accident with Travelers Insurance Company as the carrier on the risk.

4. On October 19, 2006, plaintiff was employed by defendant-employer as a residential home manager.

5. On October 19, 2006, plaintiff fell in the course and scope of her employment and alleged injuries to both her knees.

6. Defendants filed a Form 60 dated March 22, 2008, admitting plaintiff's right to compensation for her October 19, 2006 injury to her right knee.

7. On September 9, 2008, Dr. Douglas Martini, who saw plaintiff for a second opinion, assigned an eighteen percent permanent partial disability rating (18% PPD) to plaintiff's right knee.

8. On January 23, 2009, Dr. Barnes assigned a twenty percent permanent partial disability rating (20%PPD) to plaintiff's right knee.

9. Plaintiff has not been compensated for any disability rating to her right knee.

10. Plaintiff filed a Form 18M dated January 30, 2009, regarding future medical treatment for both knees. Defendants filed a Form 33 dated March 9, 2009, requesting a hearing to obtain a determination of recommended medical treatment in regards to the Form 18M.

11. On October 19, 2006, plaintiff's average weekly wage was approximately $360.00, yielding a compensation rate of $240.00, subject to verification by a Form 22 and wage records. *Page 3

12. The Pre-Trial Agreement was received as Stipulated Exhibit 1. Post-hearing, the following exhibits were received by agreement of the parties: IC Forms as Stipulated Exhibit 2 and Medical Records as Stipulated Exhibit 3.

***********
As set forth in the Pre-Trial Agreement and Deputy Commissioner Ledford's August 25, 2010 Opinion and Award, the Full Commission addresses the following:

ISSUES
1. Are plaintiff's current left knee symptoms and problems causally related to her October 19, 2006 injury by accident?

2. What future medical treatment should be approved for plaintiff's injury by accident, per the Form 18M?

3. Whether this matter was pursued and defended by defendants without reasonable grounds so as to impose attorney's fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1?

***********
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On the hearing date before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 45 years of age. She completed high school and has some college credits. Plaintiff was enrolled as a student at Fayetteville Community College and was serving as a foster parent.

2. Plaintiff worked for defendant-employer at a residential ("group") home for children with disabilities from July 2002 until November 2003, and then again from January 2005 to October 2006. Plaintiff was responsible for making sure the children's needs were met and had *Page 4 much interaction with the residents. Plaintiff had become the manager just a couple of weeks prior to her accident.

3. On October 19, 2006, plaintiff was walking down the driveway of the group home with a child resident, whom she was taking to school, when she slipped and fell forward, landing on both knees on the pavement. She felt immediate pain in both knees and her left ankle. Although plaintiff intended to seek medical attention immediately afterward, and was on her way to do so, her supervisor requested that she return to the school to stay with the child client.

4. Defendants completed a Form 19 on October 24, 2006, and filed the same with the Commission on October 31, 2006. Per the Form 19, defendants had notice of plaintiff's fall as of the date of the accident, October 19, 2006, and such notice is not in dispute. The Form 19 is poorly completed, stating on line 13 as to injuries and body parts "All other specific injuries" and "Multiple body parts." Defendants began paying medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits, without filing any other forms with the Commission, in violation of statute and Commission Rules.

5. No form acknowledging compensability of plaintiff's accident was filed thereafter for approximately 17 months. The Form 60, specifically admitting the compensability of plaintiff's right knee, was filed with the Industrial Commission on March 27, 2008.

6. Plaintiff was seen at Cape Fear Valley Health System ER on or about August 22, 2006. She complained primarily of pain in her right knee, and underwent right knee x-rays with no evidence of fracture. The radiologist's impression was "patellar spurs." Pain medicine was prescribed, and plaintiff was returned to work August 26, 2006.

7. Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Deborah Morris at MedEx Urgent Care on or about October 29, 2006. Plaintiff reported her fall and that she felt pain and swelling in her right knee, *Page 5 on which she had prior arthroscopic surgery. Plaintiff also reported that she had banged her left knee and twisted her left ankle, and had pain in both. Plaintiff was written out of work, and started on a course of conservative treatment.

8. An MRI of Plaintiff's right knee was done on October 30, 2006, at Carolina Imaging. The MRI indicated the following: (1) complete anterior cruciate ligament tear; (2) complex tear of posterior horn of the medial meniscus; (3) bone bruising of the medial and lateral tibial plateaus and minimally depressed fracture of the posterolateral tibial plateau margin; (4) strain/partial tear of the lateral collateral ligament. Plaintiff was then referred to Dr. Snead, an orthopedic surgeon with Fayetteville Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine.

9. Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Snead on November 8, 2006. She complained primarily of her right knee pain. After examining plaintiff and reviewing her MRI results, Dr. Snead assessed the following conditions which warranted surgery: a right anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear and right medial meniscal tear. He recommended anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and medial meniscal repair. Dr. Snead placed plaintiff on light duty restrictions pending her surgery.

10. Plaintiff returned to MedEx Urgent Care on November 28, 2006, for follow-up of her right knee pain. She also reported pain in her left knee, which she was experiencing occasionally. She was told to remain out of work.

11. On January 8, 2007, Dr.

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

Related

Click v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.
265 S.E.2d 389 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Haywood v. Diyahs Homes, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haywood-v-diyahs-homes-inc-ncworkcompcom-2011.