Miller v. City of Raleigh

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 16, 2009
DocketI.C. NO. 952116.
StatusPublished

This text of Miller v. City of Raleigh (Miller v. City of Raleigh) 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
Miller v. City of Raleigh, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Taylor 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, and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission adopts the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Taylor with minor modifications.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission 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: *Page 2

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Commission, and this is the Court of proper jurisdiction for this action.

2. All parties have been correctly designated, and there are no questions as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

3. On May 1, 1999, the parties were subject to, and bound by, the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

4. The employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant on May 1, 1999.

5. The City of Raleigh is self-insured for workers' compensation and group health coverage for retirees. The North Carolina League of Municipalities is the Third-Party Administrator.

6. All Industrial Commission forms, orders, and filings will be submitted as a Stipulated Exhibit.

7. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $563.56.

8. Plaintiff's date of injury is May 1, 1999.

9. The records identified in Exhibit G are admitted into evidence as records maintained in the regular course of activity of the physician or institution identified.

10. Defendant has paid plaintiff weekly benefits pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-29 from July 20, 1999, to the present, at the rate of $375.73 per week.

11. The parties stipulated the following into evidence:

• The parties' Pretrial Agreement with attached medical records was marked Stipulated Exhibit 1;

*Page 3

• The Industrial Commission forms, filings, and orders were marked Stipulated Exhibit 2;

• Surveillance reports, video and DVD were marked Stipulated Exhibits 3, 4 and 5;

• The deposition of Sue Miller taken on July 31, 2007 was marked Stipulated Exhibit 6;

• The City of Raleigh payment history was marked Stipulated Exhibit 7; and

• The North Carolina League of Municipalities payment history was marked Stipulated Exhibit 8.

14. The following exhibits were admitted into evidence:

• Defendant's Exhibit 1 — Signature of Alda Miller written by Sue Miller;

• Defendant's Exhibit 2 — 2004 Bear Den W2s;

• Defendant's Exhibit 3 — Form 90 Report of Earnings;

• Defendant's Exhibit 4 — Form 90 Report of Earnings;

• Defendant's Exhibit 5 — 2004 Payroll Records; and

• Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 — April 2006 Boatwright Report.

15. Following the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner the post-hearing depositions of Dr. Joel D. Krakauer, Dr. Grace W. Rose, Dr. James Boatright, Ms. Anthea Hollifield, Mr. Robert Willis, Ms. Tabitha Thompson, Ms. Alda Triplett, Ms. Barbara J. McMahon, Ms. Louanne Hawn, and Ms. Mildred Dellinger were admitted into the record of evidence.

* * * * * * * * * * *Page 4
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was born April 8, 1957 and was 57 years old at the time of the evidentiary hearing. She is a high school graduate with two years of college and is married to Alda Miller.

2. Plaintiff began work with defendant in the early 1990s. Her duties as a Program Services Assistant involved coordinating approximately 2000 volunteers, writing grants, preparing a budget, and extensive use of a computer. This work required a great deal of keying. In 1999, she developed bilateral pain, numbness, and weakness in her upper extremities. Defendant accepted her upper extremity conditions as occupational diseases on a Form 21 Agreement for Compensation for Disability, dated October 1, 1999, and began paying plaintiff weekly temporary total disability benefits which have continued through the date of the evidentiary hearing.

3. Following her injury, plaintiff came under the care of Dr. Joel Krakauer, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed bilateral epicondylitis with ulnar neuritis of the left elbow. During the course of his treatment of plaintiff, Dr. Krakauer performed a left cubital tunnel release on September 20, 1999, a right lateral epicondylar release on January 24, 2000, and a left lateral epicondylar release on June 26, 2000.

4. On December 12, 2000, plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement. She was assigned a four percent permanent partial impairment to the right arm and a 22 percent permanent partial impairment to the left arm. Plaintiff was released from Dr. Krakauer's care and instructed to return on an as needed basis. *Page 5

5. Plaintiff did not return to Dr. Krakauer until June 17, 2002 when she complained of ongoing problems with her hand and elbow. Dr. Krakauer prescribed Darvocet and requested plaintiff return on an as needed basis.

6. Defendant did not have a job within plaintiff's restrictions. Plaintiff underwent extensive vocational rehabilitation directed by defendant, including a trial of voice activated software designed to decrease the amount she would need to use her hands and arms. However, this trial was unsuccessful. Further vocational help was not provided, and plaintiff remained out of work.

7. In 2004, plaintiff and her husband moved to Spruce Pine. Plaintiff's husband, Alda Miller, began working at the Bear Den campground in Spruce Pine beginning in Spring 2004. In Fall 2004, Alda Miller was made a manager of the Bear Den campground and was paid on a salary.

8. Plaintiff performed various activities at the Bear Den campground. The types of activities performed are not in dispute. Plaintiff performed work in the office, including some work on a computer, and answering the phone. Plaintiff also performed some cleaning of the Bear Den store, hung decorations for various events, participated in the interview of new employees, and went shopping for the store.

9. Plaintiff characterized these activities as volunteer activities that she performed without compensation to help her husband who was the manager of the Bear Den campground. She explained that she performed these activities without payment because the only other alternative would be to remain alone in the double-wide trailer in which she lived. Plaintiff explained that given the alternative, she preferred to spend her time with other people. *Page 6

10. Plaintiff was not on the schedule at Bear Den. The hours she volunteered varied substantially based on how her arms were feeling. She could not work on a regular schedule because of flare-ups in her condition.

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

Related

Kisiah v. W.R. Kisiah Plumbing, Inc.
476 S.E.2d 434 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Nicholson v. American Safety Utility Corp.
488 S.E.2d 240 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1997)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Franklin v. Broyhill Furniture Industries
472 S.E.2d 382 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Saums v. Raleigh Community Hospital
487 S.E.2d 746 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1997)
Johnson v. Lowe's Companies
546 S.E.2d 616 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Miller v. City of Raleigh, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-city-of-raleigh-ncworkcompcom-2009.