Hunter v. Upstate Constr. Co.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 16, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 964082.
StatusPublished

This text of Hunter v. Upstate Constr. Co. (Hunter v. Upstate Constr. Co.) 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. Upstate Constr. Co., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Edward Garner, Jr., as well as the briefs and oral arguments of both parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence or to amend the prior Opinion and Award. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms and adopts the Deputy Commissioner's holding and enters the following Opinion and Award.

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

2. At the time of the injury sustained by plaintiff, an employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and the defendant-employer.

3. The carrier on the risk is correctly named above.

4. On September 4, 1998, plaintiff sustained injuries to the right knee and back. Defendants accepted these injuries as compensable.

5. The stipulated exhibits at hearing consisted of the following: Stipulated Exhibit 1 — stipulated medical records.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of hearing, plaintiff was a fifty-three year-old man. Plaintiff was working for Upstate Construction Company on September 4, 1998, when he sustained compensable injuries to the back and right knee. Defendants accepted these injuries as compensable. Defendants have paid, and continue to pay, temporary total disability benefits to the plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery on the right knee on November 4, 1998. Plaintiff underwent decompression at the two lowest levels of the back on May 18, 1999. Both surgeries were successful, although plaintiff continued to complain of pain. Plaintiff received follow-up treatment with Dr. DePerczel and pain management with Dr. Oberlin. Plaintiff has not received any treatment for his work injuries since June 18, 2001.

3. In August of 2001, plaintiff allegedly fell and spent the night outdoors. However, there is no evidence to indicate the reason for plaintiff's fall.

4. In August 2001, the office of plaintiff's attorney contacted Detective Doug C. Carter to check on the plaintiff. Detective Carter could not remember the date of the visit. Around 4:00 p.m., Detective Carter and a fellow officer found plaintiff outside his home sitting underneath a shed or cart. Detective Carter talked with plaintiff for about ten minutes in which plaintiff appeared coherent. Detective Carter did not see plaintiff stand or walk on that day in August of 2001.

5. On August 18, 2001, plaintiff was admitted to Catawba Memorial Hospital. Plaintiff's chief complaints were testicular swelling and weakness. Upon examination, Dr. William Price, the attending physician, noted plaintiff had severe swelling in his legs and abdomen. Dr. Price admitted plaintiff to the hospital with severe congestive heart failure. Plaintiff was treated aggressively with diuretics.

6. During his stay at Catawba Memorial Hospital, plaintiff was transferred to the psychiatric unit on August 29, 2001 due to his confused and delusional behavior. Plaintiff was transferred back to the medical unit on September 6, 2001, where he lost seventy-four pounds of fluid.

7. Plaintiff was discharged from Catawba Memorial Hospital on November 2, 2001, with a discharge diagnosis of ischemic cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and left leg deep venous thrombosis. Plaintiff was discharged to the Brian Center, an extended care facility where he was to receive physical therapy and placed on a strict diet.

8. Dr. Parker stated that it is important for someone with congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease, and diabetes to be treated through a program of diet, exercise, medications and regular follow-up visits with their family physician. In Dr. Parker's opinion, a patient's failure to do these things could result in devastating effects on their health.

9. Dr. Parker testified plaintiff had not seen a physician on a regular basis since his military service in the Vietnam Conflict. During his service, the plaintiff was a Prisoner of War for 38 months. After Dr. Parker diagnosed plaintiff with diabetes, plaintiff was treated with a restricted diet as well as Glucotrol. After the bypass surgery on June 5, 1996, plaintiff went through a cardiac rehabilitation program to which Dr. Parker monitored and received reports. Plaintiff's Monthly Progress Report on June 18, 1996, less than two weeks after his bypass surgery, stated that plaintiff was attending rehab sessions a little more than half the time, was not following his prescribed diet, and was intolerant to exercise.

10. A note from the licensed practical nurse at plaintiff's cardiac rehabilitation program stated plaintiff "has a complication every session, usually pain in chest." Plaintiff had completely discontinued rehab by August 26, 1996.

11. Dr. John DePerczel performed arthroscopic surgery on plaintiff's right knee on November 4, 1998. Dr. DePerczel also performed decompression at the two lowest levels of plaintiff's back on May 18, 1999. While the surgeries were successful, plaintiff still complained of pain in his back, his knee, and persistent weakness in his legs. Dr. DePerczel testified that there is no direct correlation between plaintiff's leg weakness and plaintiff's episodes of falling.

12. Plaintiff was referred to Dr. Deloy Oberlin by Dr. DePerczel. He treated plaintiff for pain in his hip and leg from February of 2000 until June of 2001. The last time Dr. Oberlin saw plaintiff was June 18, 2001, when plaintiff reported he had fallen and laid in the sun for five (5) hours. Dr. Oberlin had no opinion as to what caused plaintiff's fall of June 18, 2001.

13. Dr. Oberlin described plaintiff as a difficult historian who was dramatic in his complaints. Dr. Oberlin initially diagnosed and treated plaintiff for post-laminectomy syndrome based upon plaintiff's characterization of his pain. Dr. Oberlin declined to offer any causal link between the post-laminectomy syndrome and plaintiff's weakness. Dr. Oberlin testified there were numerous factors that played a role in plaintiff's pain and weakness including his back surgery, cardiomyopathy, a history of heavy smoking, inactivity, and depression.

14. Dr. Oberlin has no opinion concerning what caused plaintiff to fall on June 18, 2001. Dr. Oberlin stated that if an individual with back problems falls, "they generally get back up and go up the hill unless they break something and can't get up or they sustain paralysis that prevents them from ambulation in general."

15. Dr. William Price was the attending physician for plaintiff's care at Catawba County Hospital from August 18, 2001, through November 2, 2001. Dr. William Price does a lot of work with patients with congestive heart failure. Dr. Price first saw plaintiff on August 18, 2001. Plaintiff was grossly swollen, he had distension of veins in his neck and forehead, he had a grossly enlarged abdomen and liver, and his legs were swollen. According to Dr. Price, these symptoms were indicative that plaintiff had congestive heart failure. Further, plaintiff's ejection fraction was 10% while a normal ejection fraction is 60%. Plaintiff was admitted into the hospital with congestive heart failure.

16. During the first couple days of plaintiff's hospitalization, plaintiff lost fifty (50) pounds of fluid.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hunter v. Upstate Constr. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-upstate-constr-co-ncworkcompcom-2005.