Hutchins v. Stonehenge Dev. Design Co.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 15, 2001
DocketI.C. NO. 564496
StatusPublished

This text of Hutchins v. Stonehenge Dev. Design Co. (Hutchins v. Stonehenge Dev. Design 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
Hutchins v. Stonehenge Dev. Design Co., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2001).

Opinion

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties in a Form 21 agreement approved by the Industrial Commission on 25 April 1996, as:

STIPULATIONS
1. On the date of the injury giving rise to this claim, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. Plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment to his back, head, and internal organs on 2 August 1995.

3. The parties agreed that disability resulting from the injury by accident on 2 August 1995 began on 3 August 1995, and that defendant-employer would compensate plaintiff as of that date and continuing pursuant to a Form 21 agreement approved by the Commission on 25 April 1996.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage on 2 August 1995 was $304.80. This wage yields a compensation rate of $203.20.

***********
Admitted into evidence were all documents admitted at the hearing before Deputy Commissioner Pfeiffer, as follows: Plaintiff's exhibits one through twelve, which consist of plaintiff's pay stubs, payroll records, a Form 22 wage chart, various business records of defendant-employer relating to its incorporation and assets, and the Form 19 filed by defendant-employer in this case. The following forms shall also be part of the record in this case: Forms 18, 21, 22, and 33.

The record further contains the following: The transcript of the evidence presented at the hearing before Deputy Commissioner Pheiffer (admitted at the hearing before the Full Commission as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, with specific written objections from defendant noted); 484 pages of exhibits presented at the 10 January 2000 evidentiary hearing before the Full Commission; the following exhibits presented at the 23 May 2000 evidentiary hearing before the Full Commission: Plaintiff's exhibits 7, 8, and 9 and the Attorney General's exhibits 1, 2, and 3; medical records submitted by plaintiff and Farm Bureau records submitted by the Attorney General's office, post-hearing.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On 16 November 1992, R. Lee Development Corporation was incorporated through the North Carolina Office of the Secretary of State, with Albert L. Fielders and Rick J. Lee named as directors. On 15 December 1992, the corporation changed its name to Stonehenge Development and Design Company (defendant corporation herein). Stonehenge Development and Design Company constructed 40 to 50 residential homes until it ceased business in early 1997.

2. The principal officers of defendant corporation were defendant Rick Lee, President, and Albert L. Fielders, Vice President/Secretary.

3. Defendant Lee was the sole shareholder of defendant corporation. There is no credible evidence that stock was issued or any dividends paid.

4. At the time of plaintiff's injury on 2 August 1995, defendant corporation had three or more employees.

5. At all times relevant to this claim, defendant Lee was employed as a commercial airline pilot for U.S. Airways, Inc. Nevertheless, except for day to day construction decisions and payment of subcontractors and suppliers, which were delegated to Fielders, defendant Lee had decision-making authority with respect to policy, finances, and business practice.

6. Due to cash flow problems, defendant Lee made a conscious decision not to pay workers' compensation premiums and to allow defendant corporation's workers' compensation policy to lapse on 25 February 1994. The Commission does not accept as credible defendant Lee's testimony that, before plaintiff's August 1995 injury, he did not know that the company did not have a workers' compensation policy in force. Lee specifically directed Fielders not to pay the workers' compensation premium, and Fielders believed that he had no viable choice but to follow that order.

7. Before his injury, plaintiff performed tasks at defendant Lee's personal residence. These tasks were performed for defendant Lee personally and not for the corporation. Plaintiff was paid from corporate funds for these tasks. In addition, defendant Lee used corporate funds to pay for personal education courses. These payments constitute improper commingling of corporate and personal funds.

8. Although there likely were informal discussions among Lee and Fielders regarding business issues from time to time, there were no formal directors and shareholders meetings and no minutes prepared of those meetings. On one occasion in August 1995 Lee prepared minutes for three years of purported directors/shareholders meetings. The preparation of those minutes was a sham effort to prove compliance with corporate formality.

9. Following his compensable injury, plaintiff received weekly total disability compensation benefits from 3 August 1995 through approximately 7 August 1996. Defendant Lee made the decision to discontinue plaintiff's compensation benefits. Defendant Lee refused to pay plaintiff's medical bills. Defendant Lee nevertheless made the decision to pay himself $12,000 in December 1995 from corporate funds.

10. Stonehenge Homes, Inc., was incorporated on 9 November 1995. R. Lee Development Company was incorporated on 22 March 1996. There is insufficient evidence that assets were conveyed from defendant corporation to either of the subsequent corporations, wrongful or otherwise. There is insufficient evidence that these corporations "acted interchangeably."

11. There is insufficient evidence that defendant corporation was undercapitalized. Defendant corporation ceased doing business in January or February 1997 and declared insolvency. There is no evidence of corporate dissolution.

12. At the first Full Commission de novo hearing, defendant Lee did not advise the Commission that he had destroyed many business records in 1997, despite the fact that the Commission ordered him to produce various records. The Commission does not accept as credible defendant Lee's testimony that he destroyed checking account and other records because of lack of storage space. These records were likely destroyed because they were incriminating on the issue of Lee's disregard for the corporate form and thereby his personal liability.

13. The location of defendant corporation's office at defendant Lee's personal resident is not a fact relevant to defendant Lee's personal liability. The fact that Lee was the sole owner of the corporation does not tend to show that Lee should be held personally liable for plaintiff's damages.

14. Defendant Lee's and Al Fielders' post-injury discussions with attorneys representing the corporation are not relevant or material to the issue of whether the corporate veil should be pierced; rather, defendant Lee and Fielders appropriately had discussions with their attorneys concerning all legal issues, including potential personal liability.

15. At all times relevant to this claim, defendant Lee had the ability and authority to bring defendant corporation into compliance with G.S. § 97-93.

16. Defendant Lee had control over the finances, policy and business practice of defendant corporation, including the decision whether to maintain workers' compensation insurance.

17. Defendant Lee used his control over defendant corporation to perpetrate the violation of the corporation's statutory duty to maintain workers' compensation insurance, in contravention of plaintiff's legal rights.

18.

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

Related

Glenn v. Wagner
329 S.E.2d 326 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1985)
Postell v. B&D Construction Co.
411 S.E.2d 413 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hutchins v. Stonehenge Dev. Design Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchins-v-stonehenge-dev-design-co-ncworkcompcom-2001.