McElmurray v. Servicesource Empl. Serv.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 18, 2010
DocketI.C. NO. 648377.
StatusPublished

This text of McElmurray v. Servicesource Empl. Serv. (McElmurray v. Servicesource Empl. Serv.) 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
McElmurray v. Servicesource Empl. Serv., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Hall and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties or their representatives. Having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission adopts the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Hall with minor modifications.

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

STIPULATIONS *Page 2
1. The parties are subject to the N.C. Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employee-employer relationship existed between the named Employee and named Employer.

3. The carrier liable on the risk is correctly named above.

4. The Employee's average weekly wage will be determined from an I.C. Form 22 Wage Chart to be provided by Defendants with supporting wage information.

5. The Employee sustained an injury by accident on or about July 10, 2006, with the exact date to be determined by the Industrial Commission.

6. The injury arose out of and in the course of employment and is compensable.

7. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $407.47, yielding a compensation rate of $271.66.

8. Plaintiff is entitled to payment of temporary partial disability benefits in the amount of $12,804.09 covering the period of July 11, 2006, through July 5, 2008.

9. The parties agreed before the deputy commissioner that all issues have been resolved with the exception of: (1) what additional treatment Plaintiff is entitled for her compensable knee condition; (2) whether Plaintiff's headache condition is related and/or aggravated by her compensable knee condition; (3) whether Plaintiff is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits beyond July 5, 2008. The only issue on defendants' appeal to the Full Commission is the third issue as to plaintiff's entitlement to temporary partial disability after July 5, 2008.

***********
EXHIBITS *Page 3
1. The following Exhibit was admitted into evidence before the Deputy Commissioner:

a. Stipulated Exhibit 1 — I.C. forms and filings, correspondence, discovery documents, and medical records.

2. The following depositions were admitted into evidence before the Deputy Commissioner:

a. Douglas Messina, M.D.

b. Clarence E. Ballenger, M.D.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Plaintiff was 49 years old. Plaintiff completed in the 10th grade, but she worked towards obtaining her GED, program, lacking only one class for completion.

2. Plaintiff is employed by Defendant-Employer and has been employed by Defendant-Employer since 2000. Prior to that time, she was employed with Moore's Cafeteria. Plaintiff's employment with Moore's Cafeteria ended when Defendant-Employer took over their contract. Defendant-Employer is the cafeteria that serves food to the Marines stationed at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

3. When Plaintiff first began working for Moore's Cafeteria, her position was as a mess attendant. These job duties included serving food, washing dishes, and cleaning off tables. She continued in this position once Defendant-Employer obtained the contract. In July 2006, *Page 4 Plaintiff was lead mess attendant for Defendant-Employer, and was working forty to forty-five hours per week at and earning approximately $10 per hour. Her average weekly wage is $407.47, yielding a compensation rate of $271.66.

4. On July 10, 2006, Plaintiff slipped and fell onto her right knee cap. Plaintiff was out of work for two to three weeks following the injury and went back to work for Employer Defendant as a cashier because it is a sitting position. At the time of hearing before the deputy commissioner on July 30, 2008, Plaintiff remained working for Employer Defendant as a cashier, working four hours a day, less hours than she worked prior to injury and at $8.00 per hour, a lower rate of pay.

5. Plaintiff alleged her knee remains in severe pain and drastically limits her mobility. Plaintiff was unsatisfied with the results her doctors' have found and alleged Defendants had only allowed her to see Dr. Messina for her knee injury.

6. Medical records indicate Plaintiff treated on the same day of her slip and fall at Onslow Memorial Hospital, where X-rays were interpreted as normal and Plaintiff was diagnosed with a right knee contusion/abrasion. Plaintiff saw her family physician, Dr. Robert Kell, on July 17, 2006, who sent her to orthopedic specialist Dr. Noel Rodgers of Jacksonville Orthopedic Clinic on July 19, 2006. Dr. Rodgers diagnosed Plaintiff with a large cartilage bruise and told Plaintiff to use her crutches as long as necessary and to apply frequent ice packs until the injury settled down.

7. At the direction of Defendants, Plaintiff treated under the care of Dr. Richard Boswell of Atlantic Orthopedics beginning on August 2, 2006, and continuing through December 20, 2006. An MRI taken on September 6, 2006, was interpreted as unremarkable except for a small amount of fluid in the soft tissues. Dr. Boswell diagnosed a knee contusion *Page 5 and had Plaintiff undergo physical therapy and other conservative treatment options for her alleged pain. Dr. Boswell found no internal derangement in Plaintiff's knee and opined she was not a surgical candidate. Dr. Boswell was uncomfortable prescribing Plaintiff narcotics; so he encouraged her to seek another opinion.

8. Defendants sent Plaintiff for a second opinion with Dr. Douglas Messina on January 11, 2007, and she continued seeing him through June 19, 2008. Similar to Dr. Boswell, Dr. Messina found nothing structurally wrong with Plaintiff's knee diagnostically or clinically. However, Plaintiff elected to undergo an exploratory arthroscopy he offered. The arthroscopy was performed on February 8, 2007, and revealed only synovial inflammation or plica, which was debrided. Plaintiff's recovery was unremarkable and she was kept at sedentary duty because of her pain complaints.

9. A September 18, 2007 FCE indicated Plaintiff could perform within a medium range of work despite Plaintiff's significant self-limiting and inconsistent behavior. On October 4, 2007, Dr. Messina noted Plaintiff's reported pain and alleged limitations were out of proportion to arthroscopic and clinical findings and he agreed with work restrictions pursuant to the FCE. Dr. Messina felt Plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement and assigned a 2% permanent partial impairment rating to the right knee. On June 19, 2008, Dr. Messina noted he was uncertain of the etiology of Plaintiff's alleged pain.

10. On November 26, 2007, Plaintiff sought unauthorized treatment for her knee from her family physician, Dr. Robert Kell. Dr. Kell referred Plaintiff to a neurologist, Dr. Apostolou, to determine if there was nerve damage in the knee. Plaintiff saw unauthorized provider 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)
§ 97-27
North Carolina § 97-27(b)
§ 97-30
North Carolina § 97-30

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McElmurray v. Servicesource Empl. Serv., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcelmurray-v-servicesource-empl-serv-ncworkcompcom-2010.