Morton v. Keith
This text of Morton v. Keith (Morton v. Keith) 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.
Opinion
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Garner and the briefs and oral argument before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good ground to reconsider the evidence. The Full Commission reverses the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award and enters the following Opinion and Award.
2. Following her injury, plaintiff came under the care of Dr. Ernest Botero, a neurosurgeon of Greensboro, who treated her from August 1988 until July 1989, when plaintiff moved to Charlotte.
3. A Form 24 application was approved by the Chief Claims Examiner of the North Carolina Industrial Commission on October 18, 1989. The application allowed defendants to terminate compensation effective September 19, 1989. This application was granted improvidently. Plaintiff remained in disabling pain through 7 March 1991.
4. Plaintiff came under the care of Dr. J. Robinson Hicks, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, who performed surgery on plaintiffs back in February 1991. The surgical procedure was a microdiskectomy, at L5-S1 on the left.
5. Subsequent to the surgery, plaintiff was released to return to work by Dr. Hicks on May 13, 1993. Dr. Hicks stated that plaintiff retained a 35% permanent partial impairment to the back as a result of her injury and subsequent surgery. Dr. Hicks also indicated that plaintiff was likely to require fusion surgery in the future.
6. Plaintiff then moved to Asheville, North Carolina, where Dr. Margaret Burke of Thomas Rehabilitation Hospital saw her. On July 26, 1993, Dr. Burke expressed the opinion that plaintiff reached a point of maximum medical improvement and that she retained 10% permanent partial impairment to the back as a result of her injury and subsequent surgery.
7. Subsequent to July 1993, plaintiff has not received any medical treatment for her back, with the exception of physical therapy and massage therapy that she has obtained on her own. However, defendants are responsible for this treatment in the amount of $2,217.10.
8. As a result of her injury on August 9, 1988 and her subsequent surgery on February 27, 1991, plaintiff has reached a point of maximum medical improvement and she retains a 10% permanent partial impairment to the back. Although there is conflicting medical opinion regarding ratings, the Commission gives more weight to the opinion of Dr. Hicks who gave plaintiff a 10% permanent partial impairment rating to the back.
9. Plaintiff is in need of ongoing physical therapy for her back condition. Such therapy is beneficial to plaintiff's condition and may prevent the need for future fusion surgery.
2. Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for a 10% permanent partial impairment pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act. N.C.G.S. §
3. In addition to the $2,217.10 which plaintiff incurred for physical therapy, plaintiff is entitled to have defendant pay for medical treatment related to the compensable injury, and for such additional treatment as may be reasonably necessary to effect a cure or give relief. N.C.G.S. §
2. Defendants shall pay plaintiff compensation for permanent partial disability in the amount of 30 weeks for a 10% permanent partial impairment to the back. This compensation has accrued and shall be paid directly to plaintiff in a lump sum, subject to counsel fee hereinafter awarded.
3. Defendants shall pay all medical bills incurred for treatment of plaintiff's injury of August 9, 1988, through July 26, 1993. In addition, defendants shall pay $2,217.10 directly to plaintiff as reimbursement for the out-of-pocket expenses she has already incurred.
4. Defendants shall pay for any future medical expenses, including physical therapy, incurred or to be incurred as a result of the 9 August 1988 injury by accident.
5. A reasonable attorney's fee of 25% of the compensation awarded by this Award is hereby approved for plaintiff's counsel. This amount shall be deducted from the sum due plaintiff and shall be paid directly to plaintiff's counsel.
6. Defendants shall pay the costs due the Commission.
S/_____________________________ CHRISTOPHER SCOTT COMMISSIONER
CONCURRING:
S/_____________________________ THOMAS JEFFERSON BOLCH COMMISSIONER
S/_____________________________ DIANNE C. SELLERS COMMISSIONER
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Morton v. Keith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morton-v-keith-ncworkcompcom-2002.