Newcomb v. Greensboro Pipe Co.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 10, 2008
DocketI.C. NOS. 349606 601725.
StatusPublished

This text of Newcomb v. Greensboro Pipe Co. (Newcomb v. Greensboro Pipe Co.) 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
Newcomb v. Greensboro Pipe Co., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Glenn and the briefs and arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, and upon reconsideration, the Full Commission affirms with some modifications the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

* * * * * * * * * * * *Page 2
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matter of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of this case. All the parties are bound by and subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. All parties have been correctly designated and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of the parties.

2. An employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-Greensboro Pipe Co. (hereinafter "Greensboro Pipe") on June 5, 2003, the first date of accident.

3. On June 5, 2003, plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury by accident to his back arising out of and in the course of his employment with Greensboro Pipe.

4. For the injury by accident on June 5, 2003, plaintiff's average weekly wage was $520.94, yielding a compensation rate of $347.29.

5. An employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-Mabe Trucking Co. (hereinafter "Mabe Trucking") on January 23, 2006, the date of the second injury by accident.

6. On January 23, 2006, plaintiff slipped and fell. This admittedly compensable injury arose out of and in the course of plaintiff's employment with Mabe Trucking.

7. National Benefits America was the carrier or third party administrator for Mabe Trucking on January 23, 2006. Subsequent to the Deputy Commissioner's hearing, counsel for Mabe Trucking advised that National Benefits America had gone out of business and that the carrier was The Phoenix Fund, Inc., In Rehabilitation. Synergy Coverage Solutions is now the third party administrator. *Page 3

8. As of January 23, 2006, plaintiff's average weekly wage was $584.62, yielding a compensation rate of $389.77 per week.

9. The pre-trial agreement, dated January 12, 2007, is incorporated by reference. In addition, the parties stipulated into evidence documents which consisted of forms filed with the Industrial Commission related to I.C. 349606; forms filed with the Industrial Commission related to I.C. 601725; plaintiff's discovery responses; plaintiff's resume; mediator's bill; and medical records. Those exhibits consist of 410 pages, which were identified as Stipulated Exhibit 1.

10. Greensboro Pipe and Selective Insurance Company agree that they underpaid certain temporary total disability benefits in that they used the wrong compensation rate, and that an administrative adjustment will be made for that underpayment. In addition, Greensboro Pipe and Selective Insurance Company agree that they owe plaintiff temporary total disability benefits for the following periods of time for which they have made no previous payments: May 21, 2004 to June 3, 2004; June 16, 2004 to July 25, 2004; and April 26, 2005 to June 12, 2005. Greensboro Pipe Co. and Selective Insurance Company further agree that plaintiff suffered certain permanent partial disability as a result of the accident on June 5, 2003, and that they have not paid plaintiff any permanent partial disability benefits to date.

11. Following the accident on January 23, 2006, plaintiff returned to work for Mabe Trucking on the following dates during 2006: January 26, 27, 30 and 31; February 1, 2 (one-half day), 3, 20 (one-half day) and 21, 2006.

12. The issues before the Full Commission are whether plaintiff's present condition is a result of his first or second injury by accident; and which defendant is responsible for any additional compensation plaintiff may be entitled to receive under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. *Page 4

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon the competent evidence of record herein, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was 37 years old at the time of the Deputy Commissioner's hearing. He is a high school graduate and most of his work experience has been as a truck driver, dispatcher, or load coordinator.

2. Plaintiff was employed by Greensboro Pipe as a truck driver on June 5, 2003. His duties included driving, loading and unloading trucks.

3. On June 5, 2003, plaintiff was moving a piece of pipe that was about 18 feet in length and weighed over 300 pounds when he felt immediate low back pain and dropped to his knees. As a result of his injury, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Jeffrey C. Beane on June 10, 2003. Dr. Beane diagnosed a lumbar strain and possible recurrent disc herniation. Dr. Beane ordered a lumbar MRI, which demonstrated a large, broad based disc herniation at L5-S1, as well as an annular tear at L4-5. As a result of the accident on June 5, 2003, Dr. Beane performed surgery on plaintiff on August 29, 2003, which included a microdiskectomy at L5-S1 on the right. On November 24, 2003, Dr. Beane placed plaintiff at maximum medical improvement and assessed him with a 15% permanent partial impairment rating to the back.

4. Following the surgery on August 29, 2003, plaintiff continued to have chronic low back pain. The intensity of the pain rose and fell, but it never went away. At times, the low back pain was so intense that it prevented plaintiff from working. He was out of work for almost eight weeks between May and July 2004 and almost seven weeks between April and June 2005 due to chronic back pain. *Page 5

5. During 2004 and 2005, plaintiff continued to see Dr. Beane and his partner, Dr. Richard D. Ramos. Plaintiff's pain became so bad that he received epidural steroid injections from Dr. Ramos during mid-2004 and again in mid-2005. After the injections, plaintiff's pain improved for a period of time. Dr. Ramos performed injections on two occasions during July 2005, and following those injections, plaintiff felt much better; however, the severe pain returned within a few weeks.

6. On June 3, 2004, plaintiff saw Dr. Beane for continued back pain, left leg pain, and right buttock and right leg pain that went into the right heel. Dr. Beane noted that plaintiff had spondylosis and epidural fibrosis at L5-S1 and that he had a non-compressive disc protrusion with effacement in the lateral recess and moderate central canal stenosis at L4-5.

7. On July 26, 2004, plaintiff began working for Mabe Trucking as a load coordinator, which was a desk job and required no heavy lifting.

8. On March 17, 2005, plaintiff saw Dr. Beane for chronic right lower extremity radicular pain, numbness and tingling, which he described as disabling. Dr. Beane kept plaintiff out of work from April 26, 2005 until June 12, 2005, during which time plaintiff was not able to perform even his desk job. The Commission finds that that time out of work was a proximate result of the accident with Greensboro Pipe on June 5, 2003.

9. A lumbar myelogram and CT scan on June 5, 2005 demonstrated a herniation at L4-5 on the left and a protrusion at L5-S1 on the left with a 6 mm. retrolisthesis at that level. Plaintiff met with Dr.

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

Related

Royce v. Rushco Food Stores, Inc.
533 S.E.2d 284 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.
290 S.E.2d 682 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Newcomb v. Greensboro Pipe Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newcomb-v-greensboro-pipe-co-ncworkcompcom-2008.