Morris v. Consolidated Diesel

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMay 9, 2007
DocketI.C. NO. 817048.
StatusPublished

This text of Morris v. Consolidated Diesel (Morris v. Consolidated Diesel) 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
Morris v. Consolidated Diesel, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Houser and the briefs and arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the opinion of award, except for minor modifications. Accordingly, the Full Commission AFFIRMS with minor modifications the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Houser.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as a matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at and subsequent to the hearing and in a Pre-Trial Agreement as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly denominated in the above caption.
*Page 2

2. On the date of the injury, December 22, 1997, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

3. On December 22, 1997, an employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant.

4. On all relevant dates, Constitution State Service Company was the third-party administrator on the risk.

5. Plaintiff is claiming to have sustained injuries to his head, neck, legs, right wrist and back.

6. Plaintiff's average weekly wage at the time of his injury was such that he is entitled to the maximum compensation rate for 1997 of $512.00.

8. The issues to be determined are as follows:

a. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent partial disability compensation;

b. Whether plaintiff is entitled to be reimbursed for expenses related to medical treatment; and,

c. Whether plaintiff is entitled to future medical treatment as a result of the injuries sustained on December 22, 1997.

* * * * * * * * * * *
EVIDENCE
1. The parties stipulated into evidence the following exhibits:

a. Stipulated Exhibit #1 — Pre-Trial Agreement

b. Stipulated Exhibit #2 — Packet of Medical Records

2. The following individual testified at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

a. Phillip D. Morris

*Page 3

3. The following depositions were received into evidence following the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

a. Steven Mitchell Freedman, M.D.

b. Kurt Voos, M.D.

c. Robert Satterfield, M.D.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon all the competent evidence of record and the reasonable inferences arising therefrom, the Full Commission enters the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. As of the date of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was fifty years old.

2. Plaintiff worked for defendant as a Shipment Technician. His duties included operating a yard tractor that was used to tow forty-eight and fifty-three foot trailers.

3. On December 22, 1997, while operating his yard tractor, plaintiff was struck by a Waste Industry Dumpster Truck. The impact caused plaintiff to hit the right front of his head on the inside top of the metal cab of his yard tractor. Defendant has accepted the compensability of this incident.

4. Plaintiff testified at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner that, immediately following his admittedly compensable injury by accident of December 22, 1997, he began experiencing constant and severe headaches and neck pain and sought medical treatment at Nash Healthcare Emergency Room. Plaintiff received multiple stitches for a scalp laceration.

5. Plaintiff's medical records reveal that plaintiff was initially treated by Dr. Hal B. Woodall and that the results of plaintiff's subsequent neurological examinations were normal. *Page 4 Dr. Pamela J. Whitney, a neurologist, found nothing remarkable during an examination of plaintiff in February 1998 pursuant to plaintiff's reports of continuing headaches, and diagnosed plaintiff as having post-traumatic vascular headaches.

6. Dr. Michael Kushner, also a neurologist, examined plaintiff beginning in March 1998 pursuant to plaintiff's continuing complaints of ongoing neck pain, and diagnosed some irregularities with the C-7 nerve roots. Dr. Kushner referred plaintiff to Dr. Ira M. Hardy, II, a neurosurgeon, for consideration as to whether a decompression surgical procedure was warranted.

7. Plaintiff presented to Dr. Hardy in April and May 1998. Dr. Hardy concluded that surgery was not required and that plaintiff should proceed with conservative treatment. Dr. Hardy opined that plaintiff's neck pain and headaches were the result of a muscular and ligament strain.

8. After returning briefly to the care of Dr. Kushner, plaintiff then pursued pain management treatment with Dr. Daljit S. Buttar for his headaches and neck pain from August 1998 through January 2000. Dr. Buttar conducted nerve studies that revealed that plaintiff was not a surgical candidate, and accordingly treated plaintiff with pain medication, including epidural steroid injections and trigger point injections. At the time of plaintiff's last treatment with Dr. Buttar on January 17, 2000, plaintiff reported persisting headache symptoms and neck and shoulder discomfort, but indicated that his current medications were being helpful.

9. Plaintiff testified at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner that, as of the hearing date, his headaches had subsided, but that his neck pain had gotten worse and that he was also suffering from left shoulder and arm pain with numbness and lack of feeling in his arm and fingers. However, plaintiff's symptoms have not prevented him from working. *Page 5

10. By agreement of the parties, on February 11, 2003, plaintiff underwent an independent medical examination by Dr. S. Mitchell Freedman, a neurologist, for a determination as to whether plaintiff had any permanent partial disability rating as a result of his December 22, 1997, injury by accident. According to Dr. Freedman's records concerning the examination, plaintiff reported that his pain was no longer disabling and had substantially resolved some time ago.

11. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff testified that he had reported experiencing constant neck pain to Dr. Freedman. Plaintiff further testified that, during the *Page 6 examination, Dr. Freedman had performed no physical examination of plaintiff and that the evaluation lasted only five to ten minutes. At his deposition, Dr. Freedman testified that the type of appointment he had with plaintiff typically lasts forty-five minutes to an hour, during which time the patient is examined and consulted. Dr. Freedman expressly stated during his testimony that plaintiff's representations regarding the extent and time length of the evaluation were incorrect.

12. Based upon the totality of the evidence of record, the Full Commission finds the testimony of Dr. Freedman concerning the February 11, 2003, examination to be more credible than the testimony of plaintiff. The Full Commission therefore gives greater weight to testimony of Dr. Freedman regarding the circumstances of the February 11, 2003, independent medical examination than it gives to the testimony of plaintiff.

13. Dr.

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

Related

Parsons v. Pantry, Inc.
485 S.E.2d 867 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Morris v. Consolidated Diesel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-consolidated-diesel-ncworkcompcom-2007.