Heatherly v. Hollingsworth Company, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 3, 2006
DocketI.C. NO. 451639
StatusPublished

This text of Heatherly v. Hollingsworth Company, Inc. (Heatherly v. Hollingsworth Company, 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
Heatherly v. Hollingsworth Company, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2006).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence affirms with minor modifications 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 as:

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. Plaintiff contends and Defendants deny that Plaintiff suffered a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on July 12, 2004.

3. Defendants contend and Plaintiff agrees that the Hollingsworth Company, Inc., is a potential statutory employer under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-19, and that Plaintiff did not receive wages from the Hollingsworth Company, Inc.

4. The parties further agree that Plaintiff's average weekly wage is an issue that will have to be determined by the Commission.

5. Plaintiff has not received any compensation for the claimed injury by accident sustained on July 12, 2004, and has not received payment for any of the medical bills which he alleges were incurred as a result of the claimed July 12, 2004 injury by accident.

6. The parties stipulated the following documents into evidence:

(a) Pre-Trial Agreement;

(b) All Industrial Commission Forms filed in this matter to include Forms 18, 19, 61, 33, 33R and an Amended 33R;

(c) Defendants' Motion dated January 11, 2005;

(d) Medical records from Medical Associates of Transylvania, P.A. dated July 15, 2004, and consisting of 2 pages;

(e) Medical records from the Transylvania Community Hospital dated July 12, 2004, and consisting of 11 pages;

(f) Medical bills from Transylvania Community Hospital and consisting of 7 pages;

(g) Plaintiff's responses to Defendants' pre-hearing interrogatories;

(h) Plaintiff's recorded statement dated July 23, 2004;

(i) Chain of Custody Document documenting transfer of custody of telephone from Danny Hollingsworth, to Sean Fokes for inspection;

(j) Wage records from Danny Hollingsworth showing wages paid to Randy Heatherly/CDS Drywall. These documents were all provided to the Deputy Commissioner at hearing.

(k) The telephone used on July 12, 2004, was submitted as an exhibit to the deposition of Sean Fokes, and was mailed to the Commission.

(l) During the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the Plaintiff admitted Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1, which consisted of the Plaintiff's amended answers to the Defendants' pre-hearing interrogatories.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based on the foregoing Stipulations and the evidence presented, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On the date of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Plaintiff was 43 years of age. On July 12, 2004, his brother Randy Heatherly/CDS Drywall employed him as a drywall hanger.

2. Randy Heatherly paid Plaintiff an average of $500.00 per week, which was paid in cash. This generates a compensation rate of $333.35.

3. On July 12, 2004, Plaintiff was working for Randy Heatherly/CDS Drywall at a jobsite on Ridge Mountain in Brevard, North Carolina — a location high on the mountain, where a new house was being built. The house had a metal roof and weather vanes on top. Plaintiff and the other members of the crew setup their tools and equipment in the garage and ran all of the electrical cords for their work equipment from the garage to various parts of the house. The Plaintiff was hanging drywall inside the house, along with his uncle, Billy Justice. A thunderstorm arose, and they had to stop work early.

4. Plaintiff was standing inside the garage, about five feet from the open entrance. He had just called and was on the phone with his brother Randy Heatherly to tell him that they were finishing up on the job site, due to the storm. While he was on the phone, Plaintiff suddenly received an electrical charge or jolt, which picked him up into the air and threw him backwards approximately 8 feet from where he had been standing. He landed on his head and shoulder on the concrete floor, striking his head, shoulders and right arm. Plaintiff was dazed and confused, but was aware that his uncle, Billy Justice, was present and assisting him. Plaintiff felt pain and burning in his right hand and left foot.

5. Randy Heatherly's testimony confirms that something happened while he was on the phone with Plaintiff. As they were speaking, Randy Heatherly heard a loud bang and the phone call was suddenly disconnected.

6. Billy Justice witnessed Plaintiff being picked up and thrown about 8 feet, and landing on his head and shoulders. Billy Justice was standing in the door opening leading from the house into the attached garage. He testified, "There were sparks coming out of the drop cord and all where the lightning was hitting all around us." Mr. Justice ran to Plaintiff who was lying on the floor dazed, confused, and hurting. He helped Plaintiff get up, gathered the tools, and took Plaintiff to the hospital. Mr. Justice's testimony, which is not contradicted by anyone, is found to be credible, and supports a finding that Plaintiff incurred some type of electrical jolt, or charge, which lifted him into the air and threw him backward and that Plaintiff landed on the concrete floor, striking his head, shoulder, and right arm.

7. Although the Plaintiff alleges that he sustained a lightning strike, the evidence is disputed in this regard. It is undisputed that he sustained an injury due to lightning, but he did not sustain a direct strike from lightning. Plaintiff received an electrical charge or jolt from lightning. As to whether it came through the telephone line, the Defendants' expert witness, Sean Fokes, testified that the lack of damage to the telephone indicates that there was no electricity passing through it. Plaintiff does not contend that the lightning strike necessarily came through the phone line. The Full Commission finds as fact that lightning hit some portion of the premises near Plaintiff, which became charged and the charge was transmitted to Plaintiff. The charge could have come from lightning striking the electrical drop cord, other work equipment in the garage, or some portion of the garage in the area near the place where Plaintiff was standing. Plaintiff testified that as he dialed the phone, the lightning was popping in the open garage. The electrical charge or jolt generated by the lightning was sufficient to lift Plaintiff into the air and throw him backwards approximately 8 feet.

8. In weighing the evidence, the Full Commission has determined that Plaintiff's evidence does not require a finding that the electricity came through the telephone line, or a finding that he sustained a direct lightning strike. The evidence, especially the eyewitness testimony of Billy Justice, is sufficient to establish that Plaintiff sustained an electrical charge or jolt, either by lightning hitting the electrical drop cord, other tools or equipment in the garage, or some other part of the premises producing an electrical charge or jolt that was transmitted to Plaintiff. The evidence shows that the electrical charge or jolt lifted Plaintiff into the air and threw him backwards approximately 8 feet on the concrete floor.

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

Related

Perkins v. U.S. Airways
628 S.E.2d 402 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2006)
Click v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.
265 S.E.2d 389 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Heatherly v. Hollingsworth Company, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heatherly-v-hollingsworth-company-inc-ncworkcompcom-2006.