Hunter v. Presbyterian Healthcare System

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMay 5, 2006
DocketI.C. NO. 753963
StatusPublished

This text of Hunter v. Presbyterian Healthcare System (Hunter v. Presbyterian Healthcare System) 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
Hunter v. Presbyterian Healthcare System, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2006).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The undersigned reviewed the prior Opinion and Award, based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Donovan. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Donovan with minor modifications.

* * * * * * * * * * *
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
1. The Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, the parties are properly before the Commission, and the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act at all relevant times.

2. All parties have been correctly designated and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

3. The employee-employer relationship existed between the parties at the time of plaintiff's claim, which has a date of injury of October 28, 1997.

4. Plaintiff's claim was accepted pursuant to a Form 60 for a right shoulder, neck and back injury. The Form 60 lists an average weekly wage of $471.20, yielding a compensation rate of $314.29. Plaintiff received temporary total disability benefits from November 3, 1997 to October 27, 1998.

5. Plaintiff, at the time of the hearing before the deputy commissioner, did not continue to work for defendant-employer.

6. In addition to the above stipulations, the parties at the hearing submitted a set of Stipulated Facts in lieu of testimony, which is hereby incorporated into the record as Stipulated Exhibit #1 and contains the following:

a. Plaintiff suffered a compensable work-related injury on October 28, 1997, when she caught a patient that was falling from a stretcher resulting in an injury to her right shoulder, neck and back.

b. The claim was accepted as compensable by the carrier on a Form 60 filed with the North Carolina Industrial Commission on or about November 18, 1987.

c. Plaintiff's average weekly wage at that time was $471.20, yielding a compensation rate of $314.29.

d. Plaintiff was paid temporary total disability benefits for the time that she was out of work and until she returned to light duty work on October 27, 1998. Thereafter, plaintiff was released to full duty on November 28, 1998.

e. Plaintiff has received medical treatment as contained in the medical records below and includes medical treatment by Dr. Stephen W. Hipp, Drs. Stephen R. Schafer, Dr. William H. Thompson, Dr. Leon A. Dickerson and Dr. Bruce Darden. The employer provided treatment with Drs. Thompson, Dickerson and Darden and plaintiff sought treatment on her own with Drs. Hipp and Schafer. Copies of medical records are attached.

f. On or about July 24, 2000, plaintiff filed a Form 33 requesting additional medical treatment. At that time, plaintiff was represented by Attorney Robert N. Brown of Charlotte. Defendants at that time were represented by Steve Rudisill of Lewis Roberts.

g. As a result of the filing of the Form 33, the parties participated in a mediated settlement conference on July 5, 2001. The counsel indicated above represented both parties. The mediator at that time was Terry Horne of the Mecklenburg County Bar. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. The parties voluntarily entered into and signed the settlement agreement after conducting negotiations. As evidenced by the bill, the settlement conference lasted five hours. The agreement accurately reflects the terms negotiated by the parties.

h. As a part of that settlement document, plaintiff was to resign her position effective July 5, 2001. According to the employer's records, plaintiff did not work after July 4, 2001, resigned her employment, and received all benefits that were due to her at that time.

i. According to the Settlement Agreement, the defendant agreed to pay up to $1,000.00 in unpaid medical expense. The only unpaid medical expense at that time was a bill from Dr. Hipp in the amount of $940.00.

j. The signature appearing on the Settlement Agreement is an authentic signature of the plaintiff.

k. After the mediated settlement conference, formal agreements were prepared by defendants and forwarded to the plaintiff for signature

l. After reviewing the document with her attorney, the plaintiff refused to sign the agreement. Thereafter, plaintiff's attorney moved to withdraw

m. Plaintiff contends that she would not sign the settlement because she sought additional medical treatment. Plaintiff has since seen additional doctors regarding her condition.

n. Defendants' attorney, Steve Rudisill, also withdrew as counsel for defendants. Prior to his withdrawal, defendants sent a copy of the Form 28B to the Industrial Commission as evidenced by the attached. Exhibit I.

7. Subsequent to the hearing, the parties offered the following documentary evidence, which is hereby incorporated into the record as:

a. Stipulated Exhibit #2: Medical records and the lettered Exhibits referenced in the Stipulated Set of Facts.

b. Stipulated Exhibit #3: Medical records

8. The issue for determination is:

a. Whether plaintiff should be required to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement entered in July 2001?

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Following her injury on October 28, 1997, plaintiff received treatment on November 3, 1997 at Presbyterian Healthcare System for complaints of right arm and some right leg pain. On November 6, 1997, plaintiff was diagnosed with resolving muscle pain and was provided with medication and physical therapy.

2. On November 24, 1997, plaintiff presented to Dr. William H. Thompson at Charlotte Orthopedic Specialists complaining of right shoulder pain. She was diagnosed with rotator cuff tendonitis and trapezial spasm, received treatment and was eventually released to return to work without restrictions on December 23, 1997. Plaintiff continued to maintain that she could not work, and on December 29, 1997, Dr. Thompson gave plaintiff a 35-pound lifting restriction and ordered an MRI.

3. Dr. Thompson reviewed the MRI on January 27, 1998, and noted that the MRI of the shoulder was "completely negative," and the MRI of the neck showed "minimal bulging at the C3-4 with slight bulging to the left." It was further noted that plaintiff's "symptoms are on the right." Dr. Thompson continued plaintiff's 35-pound lifting restriction and referred her to the Spine Center to determine whether operative treatment was indicated.

4. Plaintiff presented to Dr. Leon Dickerson on February 3, 1998. Dr. Dickerson diagnosed plaintiff with cervical myofascial pain. He also noted "doubt cervical radiculopathy."

5. Plaintiff sought a second opinion from Dr. Stephen Hipp on February 13, 1998. Dr. Hipp reviewed the MRI and noted the "small central disc rupture" at C3-4 and opined that plaintiff suffered from spinal stenosis resulting from a congenital anomally and the rupture. Although Dr.

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

Related

Lemly v. Colvard Oil Co.
577 S.E.2d 712 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
Lewis v. Craven Regional Medical Center
518 S.E.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hunter v. Presbyterian Healthcare System, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-presbyterian-healthcare-system-ncworkcompcom-2006.