Locklear v. Dial

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 21, 2011
DocketI.C. NOS. W06275 PH-2309.
StatusPublished

This text of Locklear v. Dial (Locklear v. Dial) 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
Locklear v. Dial, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence, or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission affirms with modifications the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Phillips.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The following documentary evidence was received before the Deputy Commissioner as:

EXHIBITS *Page 2
1. Stip. Ex. #1: Medical Records.

2. Stip. Ex. #2: IC Forms.

3. Stip. Ex. #3: Discovery Responses, Correspondence, Motions and Orders.

4. Stip. Ex. #4: Plaintiff's Recorded Statement, Cancelled Check, Check dated 2/6/09, Death Certificate of Plaintiff.

5. Stip. Ex. #5: NCIC Database Coverage Screen.

6. Plaintiff's Ex. #1: Check #2603 ($630.00), Check #3600($700.00).

7. State's Ex. #1: Letter addressed to Mr. James Harris regarding his status to Appalachian Underwriters.

* * * * * * * * * * *
ISSUES
1. Whether an employment relationship existed between James Locklear and Defendant Harlis Dial under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act?

2. Whether James Locklear was injured in the course and scope of employment, and if so, to what benefits is his widow entitled?

3. Whether Travelers Indemnity Company properly canceled its workers' compensation insurance policy with Defendant-Employer?

4. Whether any penalties should be assessed for Defendant-Employer's alleged failure to provide workers' compensation insurance as required by the Act?

5. What is the correct average weekly wage?

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as a matter of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as: *Page 3

STIPULATIONS
1. The carrier allegedly liable on the risk is correctly named above; and the named employer may be found to be self-insured.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, James Locklear (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff") was 57 years old. Plaintiff was married to Kathleen Locklear (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff's widow") and resided in Lumberton, North Carolina. Plaintiff was employed with Defendant-Employer, Harlis Dial d/b/a Dial's Drywall, working 40 hours per week as a hanger and framer. Defendant-Employer paid Plaintiff in cash at the rate of $13.00 per hour, or $520.00 per week.

2. Defendant-Employer's employees, including Plaintiff, met at his home at 5:00 a.m. every day to ride together in the company van to the job site. Defendant-Employer had twelve employees working on a medical building in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina at the time of Plaintiff's accident.

3. Defendant-Employer provided his employees with chop saws, lathes, scaffolding and other expensive and large tools necessary to complete the jobs. He instructed the employees as to which portions of the buildings to work on and supervised the details of their work.

4. On January 26, 2009, the employer-employee relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant-Employer. *Page 4

5. On January 26, 2009, Plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Defendant-Employer when he fell from a scaffold and fractured his right heel.

6. Following the accident, Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to Grand Strand Medical Center, where he was diagnosed with a fracture to his right heel. Plaintiff was admitted for treatment and subsequently discharged on January 28, 2009 after being referred to an orthopedist.

7. Plaintiff followed up at Fayetteville Orthopaedics, where he was seen by Dr. James R. Santangelo, who recommended that he undergo an open reduction internal fixation to repair the heel.

8. Despite surgery, Plaintiff was unable to return to work due to continued complaints of pain. When Dr. Santangelo saw Plaintiff on March 9, 2009, he recommended that he undergo a fusion.

9. Plaintiff was also evaluated by Southeastern Urgent Care Pembroke on April 27, 2009, May 25, 2009, and June 3, 2009, for complaints of right heel and left hip pain.

10. On July 15, 2009, Dr. Santangelo referred Plaintiff to the University of North Carolina Hospital.

11. On October 7, 2009, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Shepard Hurwitz, a board certified Orthopedist, who agreed that he would benefit from further surgery. Dr. Hurwitz was of the opinion, and the Full Commission so finds, that the fall Plaintiff sustained on January 26, 2009 caused the injuries to his right foot and ankle. *Page 5

12. On February 2, 2010, Plaintiff underwent further surgery for his foot. Dr. Hurwitz was of the opinion that Plaintiff would be out of work for four and a half to six months following the surgery, and that he would likely have permanent work restrictions.

13. Defendant-Employer has operated his business out of his home in Rowland, North Carolina for the past 15 to 18 years. He has purchased insurance through Mr. James Harris for the past several years and has always sent premium payments to Mr. Harris. Through the services of Appalachian Underwriters, Mr. Harris obtained a workers' compensation insurance policy for Defendant-Employer with Travelers. Coverage under the policy began on August 21, 2008 and was to remain in effect for one year.

14. The total premium for the aforementioned policy was $7,941.00. Per the terms of Defendant-Employer's payment plan with Travelers, 25% of the total premium owed was due as a down payment. The remainder would be paid in nine equal, monthly installments of $667.78. Defendant-Employer was supposed to remit payment each month by mail directly to Travelers. However, in accordance with his prior practice, Defendant-Employer continued to make payment directly to Mr. Harris. Defendant-Employer paid part of the premium up front and then made monthly payments of $600.00 to $700.00 per month to Mr. Harris. Defendant-Employer always made the payment within four to five days of the due date and was never a month behind. However, after sending Travelers the down payment Defendant-Employer made in September 2008, Mr. Harris did not send Defendant-Employer's monthly premium payments to Travelers.

15. The address Travelers had for Defendant-Employer was 3795 Highway 710S, Rowland, NC, 28383, which was the address listed on his insurance application. Defendant-Employer's correct address was actually 3295 Highway 710S in Rowland.

16. On December 1, 2008, Travelers sent a Notice of Cancellation to Defendant-Employer *Page 6 via certified mail because it had not received the monthly premium payments. However, the address on the cancellation notice was incorrect. Therefore, Defendant-Employer never received the Notice of Cancellation and it was returned to Travelers as undeliverable. Defendant-Employer did not know as of January 26, 2009 that his workers' compensation insurance had been canceled.

17. Defendant-Employer reported Plaintiff's injury to Mr.

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

Related

Arrington v. Texfi Industries
473 S.E.2d 403 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
State v. Bates
473 S.E.2d 269 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1996)
Peoples v. Cone Mills Corp.
342 S.E.2d 798 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Hayes v. . Elon College
29 S.E.2d 137 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Hayes v. Board of Trustees of Elon College
224 N.C. 11 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Locklear v. Dial, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/locklear-v-dial-ncworkcompcom-2011.