Parada v. Custom Maintenance, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedOctober 4, 2005
DocketI.C. NO. 022973
StatusPublished

This text of Parada v. Custom Maintenance, Inc. (Parada v. Custom Maintenance, Inc.) 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
Parada v. Custom Maintenance, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned reviewed the prior Opinion and Award, based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Houser. The appealing party has 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 reverses the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Houser and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
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:

STIPULATIONS
1. On all relevant dates, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. On all relevant dates, defendant-employer regularly employed three or more employees and an employee-employer relationship existed between plaintiff-employee and defendant-employer.

3. On all relevant dates, the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and the parties.

4. All parties are correctly designated and there is no question as to misjoinder or non-joinder of parties.

5. On all relevant dates, Harbor Specialty Insurance Company was the carrier on the risk.

6. On all relevant dates, plaintiff's average weekly wage is $280.00, yielding a compensation rate of $186.68.

7. At the hearing, the parties submitted the following exhibits

a. Plaintiff's medical records;

b. Industrial Commission forms, and;

c. Vocational rehabilitation reports.

8. Defendants admit that plaintiff sustained a work-place injury on 27 February 2000.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. As of the date of the hearing before the deputy commissioner, plaintiff was twenty-eight (28) years of age. Plaintiff is an undocumented worker, and does not read or write English and speaks broken English. Plaintiff has a limited education and is unable to add or subtract.

2. On February 27, 2000, plaintiff was working as a janitor for defendant-employer. On that date, plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury by accident when he fell down steel and cement stairs onto a cement floor. As a result of this incident, plaintiff sustained injuries to his back and hip.

3. Following the accident, plaintiff first sought medical treatment with Urgent Medical and Family Care Center. Medical records from this initial examination indicate that plaintiff reported having fallen down stairs, twisting his back. Diagnostic tests indicated possible spondylolysthesis at the L5 level as well as cystic changes. Plaintiff was diagnosed as having sustained a contusion on his low back and hip. With this initial diagnosis, plaintiff was assigned work restrictions and treated conservatively.

4. On March 28, 2000, plaintiff was referred to Dr. John Krege of Piedmont Orthopedic, who ordered a bone scan. According to Dr. Krege, both the bone scan and radiographs were normal. Dr. Krege noted that plaintiff was continuing to experience pain and that previously assigned light duty work restrictions were not being followed by defendant-employer. Dr. Krege medically excused plaintiff from work for two weeks, and referred him to physical therapy.

5. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Krege on April 28, 2000, and reported experiencing pain on the whole axil spine, from his neck down to the back. By May 12, 2000, plaintiff reported to Dr. Krege that he experienced pain in his neck when turning left and right, as well as pain in the lower cervical area. Cervical x-rays revealed a straightening of the normal cervical lordosis (lordosis is the normal curvature of the spine.)

6. Plaintiff returned again to Dr. Krege on June 1, 2000 and reported neck, rib, and chest pain. An MRI revealed degenerative changes at the C4-C5 level and a broad based disc bulge at the C3-C4 level. In his medical records, Dr. Krege indicates that he could not find a definitive cause for plaintiff's reports of pain. On June 21, 2000, plaintiff received a steroid injection ordered by Dr. Krege and was prescribed massage therapy. Following the injection, on July 19, 2000, Dr. Krege noted that plaintiff was moving well and exhibiting no signs of pain.

7. On September 14, 2000, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Frank Rowan, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Rowan diagnosed plaintiff as having a chronic cervical/thoracic strain and released him to return to sedentary work or to continue with work conditioning. Additionally, Dr. Rowan assigned plaintiff a 0% permanent partial impairment rating. In his medical records from that date, Dr. Rowan notes that he was "at a loss to explain his [plaintiff's] complaints."

8. Plaintiff subsequently underwent a Functional Capacity Evaluation, the results of which were interpreted by Dr. Rowan to reveal that plaintiff was capable of working in a sedentary capacity for an eight-hour day. Additionally, in his records from October 14, 2000, Dr. Rowan notes that plaintiff did not demonstrate any symptom exaggeration behavior. Although Dr. Rowan did assign a seven percent (7%) impairment rating to the whole body, this rating was not based upon North Carolina Industrial Commission guidelines.

9. On October 26, 2000, plaintiff was again examined by Dr. Krege who recommended that he seek treatment from a gastroenterologist for his abdominal problems and referred him for an MRI of the lumbar spine. As of October 26, 2000, plaintiff reported continuing to experience pain in his lower back and stiffness in his neck. The MRI revealed facet disease with ankylosis at the L4 and L5 levels. On November 14, 2000, Dr. Krege recommended that plaintiff undergo blood tests to definitively determine whether he had ankylosing spondylitis, and specifically noted that if he did, it was unrelated to the work incident of February 27, 2000. Ankylosing spondylitis is a progressive fusion of the spine starting at the pelvis that moves up the spine. After confirming the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis, Dr. Krege found that plaintiff was at maximum medical improvement with regard to his work injury if no additional trauma was found by a general surgeon. Additionally, Dr. Krege opined that plaintiff had sustained no permanent partial impairment rating as the result of his February 27, 2000 injury.

10. In response to Dr. Krege's request for a supplementary opinion regarding the possibility of additional trauma, defendants attempted to send plaintiff to a general surgeon, but he refused.

11. On January 5, 2001, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Edward Harrington, a Chiropractor. Based upon his examination, Dr. Harrington noted that plaintiff had decreased movement abilities that were accompanied by pain. Dr. Harrington further noted that plaintiff was only able to move his head from left to right approximately five degrees before experiencing pain. Dr. Harrington recommended that plaintiff undergo treatment of his cervical and thoracic spine, but this treatment was not approved by defendants.

12. On his own, plaintiff then sought treatment from Dr. Scott J. Spillmann, a physiatrist. Dr. Spillmann initially examined plaintiff on February 11, 2002, and opined that plaintiff was not at maximum medical improvement. Additionally, Dr. Spillmann referred plaintiff to a gastroenterologist and a rheumatologist for further evaluations.

13. On April 25, 2002, plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Paul G.

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

Related

Gayton v. Gage Carolina Metals Inc.
560 S.E.2d 870 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Parada v. Custom Maintenance, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parada-v-custom-maintenance-inc-ncworkcompcom-2005.