Lindsey v. Abf Freight Sys.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMay 20, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 328431.
StatusPublished

This text of Lindsey v. Abf Freight Sys. (Lindsey v. Abf Freight Sys.) 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
Lindsey v. Abf Freight Sys., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
This matter was reviewed by the Full Commission based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Phillips, along with the briefs and arguments on appeal. Accordingly, the Full Commission AFFIRMS IN PART AND MODIFIES IN PART the Deputy Commissioner's holding and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
The undersigned 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. On March 6, 2002, the date of the admitted injury by accident giving rise hereto, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act wherein plaintiff was performing his duties as a truck driver when he was putting a set of trailers together and his foot slipped and he fell injuring his back.

2. On said occasion, the employee-employer relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant-employer with the employer being self-insured.

3. On said occasion, plaintiff's average weekly wage was $1450.65, yielding a maximum workers' compensation rate of $654.00 per week.

4. All Industrial Commission forms, orders and decisions are entered into evidence as stipulated Exhibit 2 by stipulation of the parties, including but not limited to the following:

a. Form 19 dated 3-6-02.

b. Form 18 dated 5-6-02.

c. Form 60 dated 5-14-03.

d. Form 33 dated 7-3-03.

e. Form 33R, undated.

5. The medical records and the medical records index was received into evidence and stipulated as Exhibit 1, including medical records from the following:

1. Jerry A. Kotulla, M.D.

2. Duff A. Rardin, M.D.

3. Asheville Cardiology Associates

4. J. Robert Anderson, M.D.

5. Robert Jolley, M.D.

6. Laura B. Fleck, M.D.

7. Mountain Neurological Center/Dr. Jolley, Dr. Sims, Dr. Leetz

8. Sisters of Mercy Urgent Care

9. Jay C. Jansen, M.D.

10. Mission's. Joseph's Hospital

6. The parties also stipulated a prescription list as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 that is hereby received into evidence.

***********
Based upon all the evidence adduced from the record, the Full Commission makes the following additional:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is a 51-year-old individual who had an eleventh grade education at the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. On March 6, 2002 plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment duties as a truck driver when he was putting a set of trailers together and his foot slipped and he fell, injuring his back.

2. At the time of the injury the plaintiff was earning an average weekly wage of $1,450.65, which yields the maximum compensation rate of $654.00 per week. Pursuant to a Form 60 entered into by the parties on May 14, 2003, plaintiff continues to draw ongoing temporary total disability benefits.

3. On the date of injury the plaintiff had been employed by the defendant-employer for approximately 10 years as an over-the-road truck driver, which required him to drive 4-5 days per week away from home for approximately 10 hours per day. During such trips away from home, he would sleep in bunkrooms provided by the employer or in motels. When plaintiff returned home, he would be off the road 8-36 hours before being re-dispatched on a new trip. Prior to working for defendant plaintiff worked 19 years for Blue Ridge Trucking.

4. On March 27, 2002 plaintiff was seen by neurosurgeon Dr. Larry Schulhof. Plaintiff reported that he had fallen during the course of his employment. Dr. Schulhof recommended that plaintiff undergo a decompressive lumbar laminectomy with inner body fusion at L5-S1.

5. At the request of defendant, plaintiff underwent a second opinion by Dr. Mark Moody of Spine Carolina who reported additional physical therapy would not be beneficial and concurred with the decompressive fusion and instrumentation as recommended by Dr. Schulhof.

6. On June 10, 2002 plaintiff underwent an L5-S1 lumbar laminectomy, diskectomy, and inner body fusion with instrumentation by Dr. Schulhof. After surgery, on June 16, 2002, plaintiff had severe aching pain in his posterior thigh radiating into his calf bilaterally, which was different than his preoperative symptoms. He continued post-surgical physical therapy that included walking, aquatic therapy, and therapeutic exercises at the recommendation of Dr. Schulhof. Thereafter, plaintiff continued to suffer from continued pain and burning in both legs in spite of ongoing physical therapy.

7. On August 19, 2002, plaintiff complained to his therapist that he continued to have pain, was having difficulty sleeping, was constantly irritable, and was frustrated with the progress in his therapy activities. Plaintiff continued physical therapy without significant success or alleviation of his continuing low back and leg symptoms. By September 16, 2002, his physical therapist noted plaintiff was unable to sleep for more than approximately 2 hours per day, was having difficulty performing many daily functional activities, was reported to have nervous energy all the time, and was requesting to speak with a psychiatrist.

8. On September 20, 2002, plaintiff and defendant's rehabilitation nurse met with the occupational therapist at which time it was reported that plaintiff had continued burning sensations in both lower extremities, reported sleeplessness at night, anxiety, and feeling agitated more frequently. The occupational therapist reported all parties agreed it was appropriate that "the plaintiff be initiated into a psychiatric consult if this is authorized by the workers' compensation adjuster." Authorization was requested for the psychiatric consultation, but the defendant rejected it.

9. On October 16, 2002, plaintiff was noted to have improved due to initiation of a prescription of Neurontin. Upon follow-up office visit, Dr. Schulhof released plaintiff to return to work on light-duty as of October 17, 2002. Plaintiff was reported initially apprehensive about returning to work, however, upon being advised he would be entitled to temporary partial disability benefits, Dr. Schulhof reported "he was more than amiable to considering doing light-duty work to get him back into the flow of work duty." Plaintiff testified he needed only 3 years of additional service to obtain full retirement benefits of $2,500.00 per month, with medical insurance to the age of 65. Without the additional 3 years of service his retirement would be significantly reduced to $700.00 per month.

10. Plaintiff attempted to return to work on light-duty with accommodations provided by his employer but was unsuccessful. On October 30, 2002, plaintiff was again taken out of work by Dr. Schulhof due to an increase in his pain level.

11. As recommended by his physical therapist in September, plaintiff was evaluated by psychiatrist Dr. Robert Jolly on November 5, 2002. In addition to reporting his initial injury and the surgical intervention and the return of continued back and bilateral leg problems, Dr. Jolly also reported plaintiff "expresses extreme frustration with his pain disability and his sense of being treated cavalierly by the workers' compensation carrier, who he feels may have contributed to his lack of recovery by the delay in his treatment." Dr.

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
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-88
North Carolina § 97-88
§ 97-88.1
North Carolina § 97-88.1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lindsey v. Abf Freight Sys., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindsey-v-abf-freight-sys-ncworkcompcom-2005.