Morrison v. One on One Tree Expert

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMay 14, 2009
DocketI.C. NOS. 790119 PH-1901.
StatusPublished

This text of Morrison v. One on One Tree Expert (Morrison v. One on One Tree Expert) 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
Morrison v. One on One Tree Expert, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2009).

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, upon reconsideration of the evidence, affirms the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner, with modifications, and enters the following Opinion and Award. *Page 2

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which the parties entered into in their Pre-trial Agreement and at the hearing as:

STIPULATIONS
The parties stipulated to the following documents being admitted into evidence as stipulated exhibits:

1. Stipulated Exhibit One (1) — Plaintiff's medical records and medical bills;

2. Stipulated Exhibit Two (2) — North Carolina Industrial Commission forms and filings;

3. State's Exhibit One (1) — Defendants' payroll records from June 2007 through October 2007.

***********
ORDER
During the penalty hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, One on One Tree Expert, Wayne Allen, Individually, and/or Wayne Allen d/b/a One on One Tree Expert (hereinafter, Defendant or Defendant Allen) produced to the North Carolina Industrial Commission Fraud Unit "cardboard cards" depicting Defendants' payroll records from June 2007 through October 2007. The Deputy Commissioner admitted these "cardboard cards" into evidence without objection as State's Exhibit One (1). Counsel for Plaintiff made a request on the record to obtain copies of State's Exhibit One (1), and counsel for the North Carolina Industrial Commission, who moved State's Exhibit One (1) into evidence, indicated that she would provide him with copies. However, it does not appear that counsel for Plaintiff ever received a copy of State's Exhibit One (1), since the transcript of the hearing does not include it and counsel for Plaintiff *Page 3 renewed his request to obtain copies of this exhibit prior to the Full Commission review and also requested in his brief to the Full Commission that these documents be included in the record. After a diligent search, the North Carolina Industrial Commission has been unable as of this time to locate State's Exhibit One (1), or to obtain a copy from either of the parties. Since the majority of the payroll records that would be covered by State's Exhibit One (1) would show payroll records for time periods after the date of Plaintiff's injury, the Full Commission has sufficient evidence to determine the issues raised in I.C. 790119. These records would be more germane to the penalty phase of the proceeding under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-94(b), which can be severed.

It is therefore ordered that PH-1901 is hereby severed from I.C. 790119. The penalty hearing in PH-1901 under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-94(b) is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner level for further consideration.

***********
ISSUES
The issues to be determined are:

1. Whether Defendants are subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act?

2. Whether Plaintiff's right knee and right leg conditions are the result of a compensable injury by accident, and if so, to what compensation, if any, is he entitled?

***********
Based upon the competent and credible evidence of record, as well as any reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following: *Page 4

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is a resident of Salisbury, North Carolina, and is 31 years old, with a date of birth of September 2, 1977. Plaintiff completed the 9th grade, but recently obtained his general equivalency diploma (GED). Plaintiff began working for Defendant on a periodic basis in 1996. When Plaintiff worked for Defendant, it would be on a continuous, full-time basis for at least 40 hours per week, and at other times, he would work elsewhere. Plaintiff's job duties with Defendant included tree removal, trimming, and debris cleanup.

2. On June 14, 2007, Plaintiff was working for Defendant in a crew consisting of 4 people, which included Plaintiff, Defendant Wayne Monroe Allen, Mr. Jimmy Shane Turner, and Bobby, Defendant Allen's son. The last name of Bobby is unknown, but the record indicates that his last name may not have been "Allen." For approximately 8 to 12 months prior to June 14, 2007, 3 individuals, not including Defendant Allen, worked for Defendant "usually all the time, and then sometimes he [Defendant Allen] would help us . . .," according to Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff recalled that from the time he began working for Defendant in 1996 through 2007, "most of the time it was always three" people with whom he worked.

3. The individuals with whom Plaintiff worked in the months preceding June 14, 2007 included Mr. Ronnie Nichols; however, Mr. Turner did not work for Defendant at the same time that Mr. Nichols worked for Defendant. In addition to Mr. Nichols and Mr. Turner, Plaintiff also recalled working with Bobby. Occasionally, Defendant Allen's wife, Mrs. Dorothy Allen, would drive a truck to a job or chip some brush, but she only worked once in a while. The three individuals that Plaintiff recalled as working on a crew during this time period "usually all the time," other than Defendant Allen, were: either Mr. Nichols or Mr. Turner, Bobby, and Plaintiff. Defendant Allen would advise all of these crew members when and where to begin and *Page 5 end the work day, provide them tools and equipment with which to work, pay them by the hour, and would otherwise supervise and control their work. The Full Commission finds as fact that Plaintiff's testimony concerning the number of and the names of the crew members with whom he worked while employed by Defendant is credible.

4. Both Defendant Allen and Mrs. Allen admitted that Bobby worked with Defendant. Mrs. Allen testified that although Bobby did "go out, and he was a climber" with Defendant Allen, she and her husband home-schooled him, so he was not "out there every single day." Defendant Allen testified that Bobby was not an employee, but he admitted that he did issue Bobby paychecks.

5. The Full Commission finds, based upon the greater weight of the evidence, that on June 14, 2007, as well as the months preceding this date, Defendant employed 3 or more employees on a consistent, daily basis, including Plaintiff, Bobby, and either Mr. Turner or Mr. Nichols. The Full Commission further finds as fact that on June 14, 2007, Plaintiff, Bobby, and Mr. Turner were employees and not subcontractors of Defendant Allen.

6. Prior to June 14, 2007, Plaintiff had been working for Defendant full-time for almost a year earning $12.00 per hour. On average, Plaintiff worked 40 hours per week. Plaintiff received paychecks usually signed by Mrs. Allen, but occasionally signed by Defendant Allen. Defendant never withheld taxes from Plaintiff's paychecks. The Full Commission finds, based upon the greater weight of the evidence, that Plaintiff's average weekly wage at all times relevant to these proceedings was $480.00, yielding a compensation rate of $320.00.

7. On June 14, 2007, Plaintiff, Defendant Allen, Mr.

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

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-30
North Carolina § 97-30
§ 97-90
North Carolina § 97-90
§ 97-93
North Carolina § 97-93
§ 97-94
North Carolina § 97-94(b)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Morrison v. One on One Tree Expert, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-one-on-one-tree-expert-ncworkcompcom-2009.