Inman v. Wilson Tree Company

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 18, 1997
DocketI.C. No. 084359
StatusPublished

This text of Inman v. Wilson Tree Company (Inman v. Wilson Tree Company) 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
Inman v. Wilson Tree Company, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1997).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner William C. Bost. The appealing party has not shown good ground to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives. Upon reconsideration of the evidence the Full Commission modifies and affirms the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner as follows:

*****************

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing and in the Form 21 Agreement for Payment of Compensation as:

STIPULATIONS

1. That the Employer-Employee relationship existed between the Plaintiff-Employee and the Defendant-Employer in that the Plaintiff Employee was employed by the Defendant-Employer on September 10, 1990.

2. That on September 10, 1990 while Plaintiff-Employee was employed by the Defendant Employer, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, and the Defendant-Employer, Wilson Tree Company, was insured by National Union Fire Insurance Company (Alexsis).

3. That the parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

4. That the parties have been correctly designated and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

5. That on September 10, 1990, Plaintiff-Employee suffered an injury by accident within the course and scope of his employment when he was pulled under a chipper and suffered a severe fracture of the right femur head and dislocation of the right hip.

6. That the parties entered into a Form 21 Agreement which was approved by the Industrial Commission on November 8, 1990 pursuant to which the Plaintiff was paid compensation at the rate of $243.47 per week.

7. That the Defendant submitted a Form 24 application to Stop Payment on June 16, 1992 alleging that the Plaintiff failed to cooperate with rehabilitation efforts. This application was denied by the Commission on June 18, 1992.

8. That the Defendants filed a second Form 24 application dated March 2, 1993, which was approved by the Industrial Commission on March 22, 1993.

9. Prior to the Commission approval of the Form 24 application dated March 2, 1993, the Defendants requested a hearing (with a Form 33) on the issue of the Plaintiff's failure to cooperate with rehabilitation efforts. The Plaintiff filed a Form 33R response alleging full cooperation by the Plaintiff, said response was dated March 11, 1993. No hearing on this issue was scheduled by the Commission prior to the approval dated March 22, 1993.

10. That the Plaintiff did not further appeal from the approved Form 24, but Plaintiff later filed a Form 33 Request for a Hearing on June 17, 1994. The Defendant filed its Form 33R response on July 18, 1994.

The Full Commission adopts in part and modifies in part the findings of fact by the Deputy Commissioner and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Plaintiff, James Inman, was born on September 3, 1958. At the time of his injury, the Plaintiff was 32 years of age and was married, with two minor children. At the time of the hearing the Plaintiff was 37 years of age. Plaintiff dropped out of school in the eighth grade and has received neither a high school diploma, GED, nor any other formal education or technical training.

2. The date of injury in this matter is September 10, 1990, at which time the Plaintiff was employed by Wilson Tree Company, Inc; a corporation which no longer exists. On the date of injury, the Plaintiff had been employed for approximately ten (10) months, and was working as a climber and tree-trimmer, climbing trees, using a chain saw, and trimming branches on trees. The Plaintiff's duties involved heavy physical exertion and both upper and lower body dexterity and strength.

3. At the time of his injuries, the Plaintiff's average weekly wage, including overtime and all allowances, was $365.20, making his compensation rate $243.47 per week.

4. The Plaintiff has never engaged in, nor been trained for, sedentary employment or any employment that did not involve heavy manual labor.

5. The Plaintiff cannot perform the work that he was previously employed to do for the Employer in this matter, and there is no position with the Employer (no longer in business) that is available for the Plaintiff to do.

6. In Plaintiff's testimony at the hearing of this matter, he stated that he requires daily assistance with dressing himself, bathing, and taking care of his personal needs. The Plaintiff testified that he cannot read or write, that he suffers constant pain in his hip and back, that he has difficulty walking and balancing, and that he cannot sit nor stand for extended lengths of time. The Plaintiff testified that he cannot perform housework or assist his family around the house with any manual tasks, and that the extent of his ability to perform labor is to ride a riding lawn mower for three to four minutes and to "piddle" with the lawnmower engines that he owns. The Plaintiff testified that he spends most of the average day watching TV and/or resting and the Plaintiff specifically testified that he fully cooperated with all of the vocational efforts to the best of his ability.

7. The Plaintiff testified that on January 18, 1993, he voluntarily attended Haywood Vocational Opportunities, at the carrier's request, to attempt to be evaluated and/or retrained to perform sedentary labor. The Plaintiff testified that after less than one-half day of work at Haywood Vocational Opportunities, he was in so much pain that he could not continue working and that he thereafter left, even though he was allowed to alternate between sitting and standing. The Plaintiff testified that he fully cooperated with all of the vocational efforts to the best of his physical ability.

8. The Plaintiff's testimony concerning his injury, course of treatment, cooperation with rehabilitation, current condition, and employability as set forth above, is fully credible.

9. On March 2, 1993, the Defendants filed a Form 24 application to terminate compensation based on the Plaintiff's failure to comply with rehabilitation efforts. The application was approved by the Industrial Commission on March 22, 1993.

10. Plaintiff was initially treated at the Highlands-Cashiers Hospital Emergency Room for injuries to his right hip and left knee, and was prescribed Demerol and Phenergan.

11. The Plaintiff was thereafter transferred to Angel Community Hospital Emergency Room in Franklin, North Carolina, where he was continued on Demerol and Valium. The Plaintiff was diagnosed as suffering from dislocation of the right hip (with possible fracture of the femoral head inferiorly) and laceration of the left knee. The Plaintiff was thereafter transferred to Haywood County Hospital in Clyde, North Carolina.

12. Upon admission to Haywood County Hospital, the Plaintiff was evaluated and x-rayed with a CT scan which indicated that a fragment of the right femur head was displaced.

13. On September 17, 1990 the Plaintiff was operated on by Dr. W.B. Owen, an orthopaedic surgeon, who performed an arthrotomy to the right hip, removal of fracture fragment to the right hip joint and posterior capsule repair. The Plaintiff was counseled on the risk of avascular necrosis to the hip joint and was discharged from the hospital on September 20, 1990 to convalesce.

14. On March 22, 1991 Dr. Owen stated in his record, with reference to the Plaintiff that, "He will have permanent disability."

15. On June 14, 1991, subsequent to performing an MRI, Dr.

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)
Whitley v. Columbia Lumber Mfg. Co.
348 S.E.2d 336 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Inman v. Wilson Tree Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inman-v-wilson-tree-company-ncworkcompcom-1997.