Jones v. Duke Univ.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 16, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 044357.
StatusPublished

This text of Jones v. Duke Univ. (Jones v. Duke Univ.) 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
Jones v. Duke Univ., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and arguments of the parties. 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, except for minor modifications.

***********
The Full Commission finds as a fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

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

3. The parties stipulate and agree to the following undisputed facts:

A. On April 14, 1990, decedent sustained a compensable back injury;

B. On August 17, 2001, Deputy Commissioner George R. Hall, III entered an Order regarding care, treatment, and vocational rehabilitation services for deceased/decedent;

C. On March 1, 2002, defendant filed a Motion to Terminate or Suspend Payment of Compensation for deceased/decedent;

D. An Order dated May 1, 2002, Deputy Commissioner George R. Hall, III issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion, but ordered decedent to comply with all medical treatment and vocational rehabilitation efforts;

E. Since the May 1, 2002 Order of the Commission, decedent has had medical evaluations done by Leslie R. Phillips, Psychologist, Dr. John Giusto, Physiatrist, and Dr. Robert Rollins, Psychiatrist;

F. Decedent continued to see Dr. Barbara Sheline, her primary care physician in the Duke network. Decedent had been under Dr. Sheline's care and treatment since the time of her injury;

G. Decedent requested that defendant pay her primary care medical bills and prescriptions prescribed by her primary care physician through Workers' Compensation;

H. Defendant denied said payments saying they are not compensable;

I. Decedent petitioned defendant to provide her with a gym membership in order to condition and strengthen her back muscles. Defendant denied this request;

J. Decedent petitioned that defendant provide her with psychiatric treatment through Workers' Compensation, which has been denied.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Decedent was 57 years old at the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner and was a Registered Nurse with a Master's Degree in Public Administration. In April 1990, decedent sustained a compensable injury to her back that exacerbated a pre-existing back condition, which subsequently resolved resulting in a 4% permanent partial impairment rating to her back from Dr. Michael Gwinn and Dr. Linda Frazier and a 15% permanent partial impairment rating to her back from Dr. Lestini.

2. Due to the exacerbation of her pre-existing back condition, decedent could not return to her pre-injury nursing position, but did return to a research position with defendant that ended due to a lack of funding. Issues regarding decedent's entitlement to temporary total disability compensation arose and were resolved through litigation in which decedent prevailed. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, decedent was out of work and receiving temporary total disability compensation.

3. Several physicians, first under the direction of Dr. Linda Frazier of Duke University Employee Occupational Health and Wellness (EOHW), lately under the direction of Dr. George Jackson also of EOHW, have treated decedent for her April 1990 injury. Dr. Jackson testified that "Ms. Wade has received extensive treatment and at this point I do not believe that with regard to the injury of 1990 she needs further treatment."

4. All of decedent's authorized treating physicians are of the opinion that she had reached maximum medical improvement from her April 1990 compensable injury and is capable of doing sedentary work.

5. Based on the physician's opinions, defendant assigned a Vocational Rehabilitation professional to assist decedent with return to work efforts. The Rehabilitation Professional was frustrated in his efforts and, as a result, defendant moved the Commission to compel deceased/decedent's compliance with rehabilitative efforts. Defendant's Motion was granted in an Order issued by Deputy Commissioner Pamela T. Young on May 11, 2001.

6. Decedent then filed a Motion requesting a change of treating physician and the removal of the assigned medical rehabilitation professional. The parties appeared before Deputy Commissioner George R. Hall, III on August 9, 2001 and without a formal hearing, defendant agreed to a change in physician to another physician of defendant's choosing while decedent agreed to cooperate with vocational rehabilitation efforts. The agreement was memorialized in an Order filed August 17, 2001.

7. Pursuant to the agreement, defendant assigned Ted Sawyer, Vocational Rehabilitation Professional to assist decedent with vocational rehabilitation efforts. After decedent failed to keep three appointments she scheduled with Mr. Sawyer to discuss the assignment, defendant filed a Form 24 Application to Terminate or Suspend Payment of Compensation with the Commission.

8. Subsequent to filing the Form 24 Application, Ms. Ashley Harrelson, was assigned to assist decedent with job seeking efforts. Decedent refused to fully cooperate with Ms. Harrelson in that she refused to follow through on agreed upon assignments, including signing the Industrial Commission Form 25C, providing job seeking activity logs and completing job applications as directed.

9. Decedent had reached maximum medical improvement from her April 1990 compensable injury and required no further medical treatment.

10. Decedent's recent back problems for which her personal health care physician, Dr. Barbara Sheline, treated her were multi-factorial and not related to her April 1990 injury.

11. Dr. Phillips, psychologist, testified that decedent had depressive symptoms, but it was unclear the extent to which those related to the actual injury since there was a preexisting history of depression and decedent was already on antidepressant medications at the time of her work-related injury. Dr. Phillips also testified that she had seen decedent for an assessment regarding her admission into the TRIPP program and Dr. Phillips "did not see her as a candidate for comprehensive treatment at this time due in part to her unwillingness to withdraw from opioid analgesics, also in combination with the fact that she presented with a pretty high level of physical functioning and that she had in fact completed two previous comprehensive pain rehabilitation treatment programs."

12. Dr. Rollins, in his psychiatric evaluation report of September 8, 2002, opines that, "as a result of childhood experiences, Mrs. Wade has difficulty with relationships. She perceives that others ask too much and exert control. Mrs. Wade denies depression or mental health treatment prior to the work injury of April 14, 1990. Dr. Frazier reports depression and mental health treatment prior to April 14, 1990. Records of treatment were not available." Dr. Rollins report went on to say that, "current medications, in my opinion, are contributing to anger, disinhibition, depression, and inactivity.

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

Related

Wilhite v. Liberty Veneer Co.
278 S.E.2d 234 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1981)
Wilhite v. Liberty Veneer Co.
267 S.E.2d 566 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jones v. Duke Univ., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-duke-univ-ncworkcompcom-2005.