Polk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Auth.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedAugust 25, 2000
DocketI.C. NO. 711846
StatusPublished

This text of Polk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Auth. (Polk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Auth.) 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
Polk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Auth., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2000).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. The parties have shown good ground to reconsider the evidence. The Full Commission reverses the Deputy Commissioners Opinion and Award and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
The Full Commission finds as facts and concludes as matters of law the following which were entered into by the parties as

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are subject to the North Carolina Workers Compensation Act.

2. The employee-employer relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer on the date in question.

3. Managed Health Resources is the administrator of workers compensation insurance for the self-insured defendant-employer.

4. Plaintiff sustained an injury by accident by way of a specific traumatic incident to her back, which arose out of her employment with defendant-employer on or about 2 May 1997.

5. Plaintiffs average weekly wage was $304.40. Plaintiffs compensation rate is $202.94.

***********
The Full Commission rejects the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner and finds as follows

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On 2 May 1997, plaintiff was employed by defendant-employer as a cafeteria worker when she slipped and fell, injuring her back.

2. Defendant accepted the claim as compensable pursuant to a Form 21 agreement and paid temporary total disability benefits from 3 May 1997 through 11 June 1997.

3. Defendant referred plaintiff to Dr. Robert Giedraitis, a physiatrist at Miller Orthopedic Clinic, for treatment of low back pain and radicular numbness in her left leg. Dr. Giedraitis obtained a CT scan, which indicated a compression lesion and small herniated disk at L5-S1 compressing the S1 nerve root. The CT scan also indicated chronic degenerative changes at L4-L5.

4. Based on the opinion of Dr. Giedraitis, plaintiffs low back and left leg pain and numbness were causally related to the 2 May 1997 fall at work.

5. On 11 June 1997, Dr. Giedraitis recommended an epidural steroid injection at L5-S1, which she had on 25 June 1997. Dr. Giedraitis released plaintiff to return to work on 11 June 1997 with restrictions of no lifting over twenty-five pounds, no prolonged bending, stooping, excessive pushing or pulling.

6. Plaintiff was scheduled to return to light duty employment with defendant-employer on 12 June 1997. The job required plaintiff to sort medical records, which came in two to five inch stacks. The maximum lifting required was ten pounds. Plaintiff had the discretion to sit or stand as needed. Plaintiff reported to work on 12 June 1997 and received orientation for approximately thirty to forty-five minutes, after which she actually performed the job for fifteen to twenty minutes. At that time plaintiff was in too much pain to continue working. Therefore, plaintiff reported her pain to Elaine Dunlap, the medical records department supervisor, and explained that she needed to go home. Ms. Dunlap authorized plaintiff to go home, but told her to contact her doctor and Eleanor Thompson, defendants workers compensation adjuster. Meanwhile, Ms. Thompson filed a Form 28T indicating plaintiff was returning to work on a trial basis and plaintiffs benefits were terminated even though plaintiff had actually worked less than an hour and was incapable of working due to her pain.

7. Plaintiff called defendant on 16 June and 17 June 1997 indicating that she would not be able to work those days. In fact plaintiff called several times on 16 June 1997 indicating she was in severe pain. When plaintiff did not report to work thereafter or call defendant to indicate she would not be at work, she was terminated for failure to call or report to work for two days. After her termination, plaintiff received unemployment benefits in September and October 1997.

8. Plaintiff was unable to return to Dr. Giedraitis until 17 July 1997, at which time she requested that he release her without restrictions so that it would be easier for her to obtain employment. At this time her epidural injection had improved her pain. Dr. Giedraitiss impression was that plaintiffs lumbar radicular pain had resolved and he released her with no restrictions. He opined that she had no residual permanent impairment.

9. On 24 July 1997, plaintiff called Dr. Giedraitis office reporting that she had pulled something in her back. She was given a prescription, but could not get an appointment for another month.

10. Because plaintiff was unable to see Dr. Giedraitis, she saw her family physician, on 11 August 1997, without authorization from defendant or from the Commission. Dr. Martin Scobey, who is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology, saw plaintiff who complained of low back pain and tingling in the left hip and leg. Dr. Scobey prescribed an anti-inflammatory and muscle relaxant and referred her back to Dr. Giedraitis. Dr. Scobey testified in his deposition that he was unable to give an opinion regarding the cause of plaintiffs August 1997 back pain.

11. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Giedraitis on 25 August 1997 reporting that she had pulled something in her back and was having occasional numbness in her left leg. She denied any new weakness or back pain. He advised plaintiff that it might take nine to twelve months for the numbness to remit. He recommended no new treatment, but advised plaintiff to call if she had any new weakness, bowel or bladder problems or increasing levels of pain. Plaintiff never returned to Dr. Giedraitis.

12. However, on 24 September 1997, plaintiff returned to Dr. Scobeys office for low back pain and indicated that her medication was not helping. She saw a physicians assistant and reported a worsening of her low back pain. Plaintiff was given a new medication and told to call if the pain worsened.

13. On 29 September 1997, plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff began treating with Dr. Dean OHare, a chiropractor, with complaints of headaches, neck pain and low back pain. Plaintiff reported to Dr. OHare that she had previously sustained a low back injury, but that she suffered an increase in low back pain after the motor vehicle accident. Dr. OHare rendered chiropractic treatment until 30 October 1997, at which time he released her with no neck pain or headaches, but significant low back pain. Dr. Hare was of the opinion that the auto accident did not cause her low back pain. Dr. OHare then referred plaintiff to another unauthorized physician, Dr. William A. Primos. Dr. Primos then referred plaintiff to Dr. Raymond Sweet.

14. Without authorization or knowledge of defendant or the Commission, plaintiff presented at Dr. Sweets office on 31 October 1997, at which time she completed a Patient Information Sheet. Plaintiff initially checked that her injury was a workers compensation injury. However, she then whited out this response and checked that it was not a workers compensation injury. When Dr. Sweet first examined plaintiff on 4 November 1997, plaintiff was complaining of left leg pain which she reported having since June of 1997, which was related to her workers compensation injury. Dr. Sweet examined her and the reports of the CT scans and recommended back surgery. As testified by Dr. Sweet, this was not emergency surgery, and plaintiff took more than a week to decide to proceed. At this point, someone from Dr. Sweets office called Eleanor Thompson, defendants workers compensation adjuster, to ask for authorization to perform the surgery. Defendant was unaware that plaintiff had received any medical treatment since her last visit with Dr.

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

Related

Horne v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Processors
459 S.E.2d 797 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1995)
Franklin v. Broyhill Furniture Industries
472 S.E.2d 382 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Seagraves v. Austin Co. of Greensboro
472 S.E.2d 397 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Polk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Auth., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polk-v-charlotte-mecklenburg-hospital-auth-ncworkcompcom-2000.