Huie v. Humphrey Heating Air Conditioning

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 20, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 123523
StatusPublished

This text of Huie v. Humphrey Heating Air Conditioning (Huie v. Humphrey Heating Air Conditioning) 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
Huie v. Humphrey Heating Air Conditioning, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award, based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Hall and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the Opinion and Award. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Hall.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are properly named in the caption.

2. An employee/employer relationship existed between plaintiff and employer on February 9, 2001.

3. CNA Insurance Company was the carrier on the risk for Humphrey Heating Air Conditioning.

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

5. All parties are properly before the Commission for hearing and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter.

6. Plaintiff's average weekly wage will be determined from an I.C. Form 22 wage chart provided by employer/carrier at the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner.

7. The issues before the Commission are:

Whether plaintiff was injured by accident while in the scope of his employment on or about February 9, 2001;

Whether plaintiff is entitled to temporary total disability, permanent partial disability, medical bills paid, and ongoing medical treatment for injuries sustained; and,

Whether Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable 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 February 9, 2001, plaintiff was employed as a plumber for defendant. Plaintiff was working for defendant in Beulaville, North Carolina, on the Meadow Crossing Apartment Project, along with his project superintendent, Roy Melton, and several other plumbers. The crew was installing all of the plumbing for the entire site.

2. On February 9, 2001, Ferguson Enterprises delivered to the site four handicap bathtubs, each weighing between 200 to 400 pounds. The tubs were delivered just before lunchtime, so the crew moved the tubs off the back of the delivery truck and out of the way until after lunch. Later, the crew carried the tubs into the apartment units for installation. Plaintiff and Jeff Mills flipped over one tub and proceeded to carry it into an apartment unit. Plaintiff lead the way and stepped up first into the unit. As Mr. Mills stepped up to follow plaintiff into the unit, the tub pushed forward causing plaintiff's foot to slip. Plaintiff felt a pull in his back, but maintained his grip on the tub so that it would not fall. Plaintiff felt immediate pain in his back that shot down the posterior of his leg, but thought he had just pulled a muscle in his back.

3. Plaintiff continued to work the rest of that day, which was Friday, and rested over the weekend. On Monday, February 12, 2001, plaintiff went to work and worked the whole day. Plaintiff spent part of the day hooking the drain lines to the tubs. He was still having back pain that day, so plaintiff went to Snead's Ferry Clinic on his way home from work. Plaintiff presented to Dr. Warren complaining of lower back pain with some burning down his leg.

4. Plaintiff told Dr. Warren on Monday, February 12, that he was hurt the week before and that the pain had worsened over the last three days. Friday, February 9, would be the week before, and Saturday, Sunday, and Monday would be the three days in which the pain was worse, since plaintiff did not see Dr. Warren until after work on February 12. Dr. Warren's notes from plaintiff's February 12, 2001, appointment indicate that plaintiff "felt back pull burning pain while moving a bathtub at work last week. Worse pain last 3 days." This note corroborates Plaintiff's testimony regarding when the injury by accident occurred. Dr. Warren testified when asked about when the triggering event occurred, "I can only say that it was prior to February the 12th." Later in his deposition testimony, Dr. Warren stated that the February 9 date of injury given by plaintiff did not make sense because plaintiff had told Dr. Warren's office that it had happened a week before. The Full Commission finds this statement by Dr. Warren lacks credibility, based on the fact that Dr. Warren's own notes from that office visit indicate that plaintiff said his injury by accident occurred last week as opposed to a week ago.

5. Dr. Warren examined plaintiff and found him to have varied tenderness in the right lower back and a positive straight leg-raising test. Plaintiff was injected with Celestone, which is a cortisone steroid, and Xylocaine, and given a pain medication. Plaintiff did not have any x-rays done that day due to the clinic's x-ray machine being out of order. Nothing in plaintiff's medical records prior to February 12, 2001, indicated a positive straight leg-raising test, which Dr. Warren found to be significant. Dr. Warren thought this to be a case of plaintiff having degenerative disc disease and that the lifting of the bathtub was what caused the disc to protrude. Plaintiff was scheduled for an x-ray three days later and scheduled to see the orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Langley.

6. Dr. Langley believed plaintiff had a ruptured disc with radiculopathy of the right leg, signifying pressure on the sciatic nerve roots. Dr. Langley referred plaintiff to Dr. Abraham, a neurosurgeon, and scheduled plaintiff for an MRI of his lower back.

7. Plaintiff continued to show up for work, attempting as much of his duties as he could with the ongoing pain. Plaintiff did not want to have a "lost time" accident and attempted to work through what he still believed was a pulled muscle.

8. Plaintiff's MRI scan revealed a right herniated nucleus pulposus at L5-S1. Dr. Abraham also conducted a physical examination of plaintiff with findings consistent with the findings of the MRI scan. Dr. Abraham recommended immediate surgery, and an L5-S1 microdiskectomy was performed the day after the MRI scan, on February 22, 2001.

9. On February 21, 2001, after speaking with Dr. Abraham, plaintiff called Mr. James Evans, a project manager with defendant. Plaintiff informed Mr. Evans that he had injured himself while carrying a bathtub at work and that he thought it was just a pulled muscle. Plaintiff told Mr. Evans that he would need to have surgery and he would be out of work for a while. Plaintiff asked Mr. Evans to fill out the paperwork for a workers' compensation claim.

10. On April 5, 2001, plaintiff returned to the Sneads Ferry Clinic for pain in his right leg and heel. Dr. Mearns ordered a repeat MRI exam. Plaintiff had an MRI done on April 18, 2001, at Onslow Memorial Hospital, which showed he had either more disc problems or scar tissue on the right side in the lateral recess, but no new disc herniation. Plaintiff still had problems with pressure on the nerve root.

11. On September 10, 2001, plaintiff was referred to Dr. Ira Hardy, an expert in spinal surgery. Based on physical examination and plaintiff's complaints, Dr. Hardy believed that plaintiff had a lumbar disk problem on the right side.

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

Related

Gordon v. City of Durham
571 S.E.2d 48 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Huie v. Humphrey Heating Air Conditioning, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huie-v-humphrey-heating-air-conditioning-ncworkcompcom-2003.