Hunt v. Hunt

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 24, 2010
DocketI.C. NOS. 798586 PH-2092.
StatusPublished

This text of Hunt v. Hunt (Hunt v. Hunt) 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
Hunt v. Hunt, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Phillips and the briefs 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. The Full Commission AFFIRMS with some modifications, the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Phillips.

*********** *Page 2
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
The parties stipulated into evidence the following at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

1. Plaintiff sustained an injury by accident during the course and scope of his employment on July 19, 2007.

2. As a consequence of the above referenced injury, plaintiff sustained a fracture to his right fibula.

3. On all relevant dates, an employee-employer relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $400.00, yielding a compensation rate of $266.67.

5. Plaintiff remained out of work from the date of his injury, July 19, 2007 through November 18, 2008 when he returned to employment earning wages greater than or equal to his pre-injury rate of pay.

6. The following exhibits were stipulated into evidence:

a. Stipulated Ex. #1 — Plaintiff's Medical Records

b. Stipulated Ex. #2 — 2006 and 2007 U.S. Income tax returns of Ricky Hunt

c. Stipulated Ex. #3 — 2006 and 2007 U.S. Income tax returns of Lenwood Hunt

d. Stipulated Ex. #4 — Certificate of Registration of Hunt Hammonds New Used Cars

*Page 3

e. Stipulated Ex. #5 — Plaintiff's Medical Bills

f. Stipulated Ex. #6 — Medicaid Reimbursement Claim Itemization dated July 17, 2008

g. Stipulated Ex. #7 — Photographs of physical address of location of injury

h. Plaintiff's Ex. #1 — Supplemental Discovery Responses of Ricky Hunt, including 2007 Form 1099

i. Plaintiff's Ex. #2 — U.S. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service 2007 Instructions for Schedule C

j. Plaintiff's Ex. #3 — Form 25R

k. Plaintiff's Ex. #4 — Updated Medicaid Reimbursement Claim Itemization dated May 7, 2009

***********
ISSUES
1. Whether an employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act?

2. Whether plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment?

3. What, if any, benefits are due plaintiff?

4. Whether any penalties should be assessed for defendant-employer's failure to provide workers' compensation insurance as required by the Act?

***********
Based upon the competent, credible evidence of record herein, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT *Page 4
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was 40 years old with a date of birth of December 23, 1968. Plaintiff is a high school graduate. Plaintiff previously worked as a mechanic in automotive and small engine repairs.

2. Hunt Hammonds Used Cars is a sole proprietorship owned by defendant, Lenwood Hunt, and is located at 3280 Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive in Lumberton, NC.

3. On July 19, 2007, plaintiff was working as an automobile mechanic for Hunt Hammonds Used Cars at a gross rate of pay of $400.00 per week.

4. In legally required filings with the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Lenwood Hunt, listed his son, Ricky Hunt, as a salesman employed by Hunt Hammonds Used Cars. This listing entitled Hunt Hammonds Used Cars to an extra "Dealer" license plate which was placed on a vehicle owned by Ricky Hunt.

5. Defendant Ricky Hunt ostensibly operated a business also located at 3280 Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive, under the name "Hunt's New Used Tires." Ricky Hunt testified that he employed an individual named Brandon Hill and that this business operated out of a tire shop located at this address. Defendant Lenwood Hunt testified that Hunt Hammonds Used Cars only employed his granddaughter, Amanda Hunt, and plaintiff.

6. Within the year 2007 and before plaintiff's injuries, plaintiff, Ralph "Purcell" Hammonds, Terry Hunt, Sabrina Locklear, a man called "T.J.", Don Eddings, and Ricky Hunt all worked for Lenwood Hunt. Brandon Hill and Amanda Hunt were also regular employees of Lenwood Hunt. All employees answered to Lenwood Hunt, who was in charge of both operations. During the year 2007, three mechanics worked for Lenwood Hunt, including plaintiff, "Purcell" Hammonds and Terry Hunt. Amanda Hunt notarized titles. All employees *Page 5 were typically paid by Lenwood Hunt in cash at a set time. Lenwood Hunt did not withhold taxes and did not provide 1099's to his employees.

7. Brandon Hill was often requested by Lenwood Hunt or Ricky Hunt to assist plaintiff with his job responsibilities. Likewise, plaintiff was often requested by Lenwood Hunt or Ricky Hunt to assist Brandon Hill with Mr. Hill's job responsibilities. Plaintiff believed he would suffer adverse employment consequences if he refused a request made by Ricky Hunt or Lenwood Hunt.

8. When plaintiff applied for his job with Hunt Hammonds Used Cars, he was interviewed by both Lenwood Hunt and Ricky Hunt, and was advised that he would be expected to perform work requested by either Lenwood Hunt or Ricky Hunt.

9. Plaintiff accompanied and assisted Ricky Hunt on a business trip, as instructed by Lenwood Hunt, for the purpose of purchasing tires for sale by Hunt's New Used Tires.

10. Only one vehicle lift was located at the job site at 3280 Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive. This lift was ordinarily utilized by Brandon Hill in the tire shop out of which Ricky Hunt operated his alleged business. If Plaintiff required the use of a vehicle lift in the performance of his duties as an automobile mechanic for Hunt Hammonds Used Cars, Lenwood Hunt required Brandon Hill to immediately allow plaintiff to utilize the vehicle lift.

11. Plaintiff regularly received his wage payment from Lenwood Hunt. Plaintiff received payment of wages from Ricky Hunt once during his employment.

12. Ricky Hunt produced in discovery a 2007 Form 1099 identifying Hunt's New Used Tires as the payer, but listing the federal tax identification number for Hunt Hammonds Used Cars. *Page 6

13. Photographs entered into evidence as stipulated Exhibit #7 depicted advertising signs posted at 3280 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. Although Hunt's New Used Tires had its own signs and Hunt Hammonds Used Cars had its own signs, the identical telephone number was listed on both signs.

14. Plaintiff wore a uniform while at work which did not identify him as being an employee of a particular business. The only identifying characteristic on the uniform was a patch which identified plaintiff only by first name. Brandon Hill and Ricky Hunt wore the same uniform as did plaintiff with similar patches, only identifying first name.

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

Related

Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hunt v. Hunt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-hunt-ncworkcompcom-2010.