Putman v. Alexander

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedDecember 5, 2007
DocketI.C. NOS. 540906 PH-1669.
StatusPublished

This text of Putman v. Alexander (Putman v. Alexander) 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
Putman v. Alexander, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Hall and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties or their representatives. The Full Commission adopts the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Hall with minor modifications.

* * * * * * * * * * * *Page 2
Based upon all the competent evidence from the record, the Full Commission finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All parties have been correctly designated, and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

2. At the time of the hearing before the deputy commissioner, plaintiff was a 22 year-old high school graduate. Plaintiff's prior work history includes carpentry work and laying block, brick, and rock. Plaintiff began working as a carpenter for defendant Randy Alexander a few months prior to his June 16, 2005 injury.

3. At the time of plaintiff's injury, plaintiff was employed by defendant Randy Alexander, a subcontractor for defendant Majestic Mountain Construction, Inc., which was owned by Marsha Patterson-Jones, constructing custom villas or townhomes in Glenville, North Carolina. Ms. Patterson-Jones was the general contractor that pulled the permits for the job on which plaintiff was injured.

4. Ben Jones, Ms. Patterson-Jones' husband, was the site manager for the property on which defendant Majestic Mountain was developing and plaintiff was working. Mr. Jones hired the subcontractors, told them what to do, checked to make sure the work was being done properly, and reported back to his wife on what materials needed to be ordered. Mr. Jones is not a licensed contractor. Majestic Mountain Construction, Inc. provided the materials for the job.

5. Ben Jones indicated that all the subcontractors were required to have workers' compensation insurance and that Randy Alexander was going to provide proof of coverage. Mr. Alexander never provided proof of coverage. Mike Jones, a subcontractor that had his own crew *Page 3 and also did carpentry work on the same jobsite as Mr. Alexander, did have workers' compensation according to Ben Jones, as did some of the other subcontractors.

6. Mr. Alexander gave Mr. Jones invoices with the number of hours for his employees. Mr. Alexander made money on his crew by charging the general contractor more per hour for his crew than the hourly amount he actually paid his crew. Mr. Jones said that he did not recall seeing invoices with hours on them and that he dealt with subcontractors on contract prices based on a certain amount of money per measurements such as per square or linear feet.

7. William Patterson testified that he was the majority owner of the property where the accident subject of this case occurred. Mr. Patterson said that Majestic Mountain Construction, Inc., which was owned by his daughter, did not get paid on a regular basis, but got paid on the sale of the units. Mr. Patterson said that his daughter was part owner of the property, although no documents were produced to support that assertion, and he also testified that his daughter did not appear on the real estate deed. Mr. Patterson testified that he needed a general contractor to pull permits on the construction job and was able to get Majestic Mountain Construction, Inc. to operate in that capacity with an agreement that the general contractor would not get paid until the units sold.

8. On June 16, 2005, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant Randy Alexander. Mr. Alexander did not have workers' compensation insurance and did not provide proof of insurance to the general contractor.

9. On June 16, 2005, Randy Alexander, Darrell Thompson, Tim Tanner, and plaintiff were working on a second-story deck that collapsed and broke away from the town *Page 4 home, causing plaintiff to fall approximately 15 to 16 feet onto a lower deck, then fall to the ground approximately 10 feet below the lower deck, and then down an embankment.

10. Plaintiff was transported to Harris Regional Hospital in Sylva, North Carolina by ambulance and was noted to have severe pain to the lower back and a strange feeling in his legs. Plaintiff was ultimately diagnosed with a possible burst fracture of the L-2 disc and was transferred to Mission Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina on the same date. Plaintiff was examined and noted to have an L-1 burst fracture with spinal cord injury, myelopathy, and an 80% canal compromise.

11. On June 17, 2005, plaintiff underwent emergency anterior/posterior L-1 corpectomy and fusion from T-12 to L-2 by Dr. Jonathan Sherman of Mountain Neurological Center. Plaintiff developed fever, dysnea, and hypoxemia during his hospital stay, which was suspected to be a pulmonary contusion, but was treated with antibiotics as hospital-acquired pneumonia. There was an additional notation of a grade 1 to grade 2 liver laceration that was stable. Plaintiff was discharged from Mission Hospital on June 25, 2005.

12. Upon discharge from Mission Hospital, plaintiff was admitted to Thoms Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospital where he made good progress in a therapeutic program. Plaintiff was discharged from Thoms on June 30, 2005 with notations that he was independent with eating, grooming, and upper body dressing, was at minimum assistance with bathing and toileting, and was at moderate assistance with lower body dressing. Plaintiff did require minimum assistance with thoracolumbosacral orthosis, though it was felt his mother would be able to assist him. It was also noted that plaintiff was independent with transfers, including toilet transfers and was at a modified independent level with shower transfers using grab bars. Plaintiff was independent without any assistive device to walk up to 2000 feet on level surfaces and 1000 feet on un-level *Page 5 surfaces. Upon discharge, plaintiff was told to follow up with Dr. Sherman as scheduled and to wear his thoracolumbosacral orthosis when out of bed. Grab bars were also recommended for tub and toilet use for added safety at home, and a hip kit was also ordered due to back precautions and plaintiff's need to wear a back brace.

13. On July 12, 2005, Dr. Jonathan Sherman at Mountain Neurological Center in Asheville, North Carolina saw plaintiff and indicated that plaintiff's strength, reflexes, and sensation were within normal limits in the bilateral lower extremities, but diminished sensation over the abdominal wall in a nondermatomal pattern. X-rays showed good position of the bone graft, screws, and rods. Dr. Sherman expected plaintiff to make slow, steady progress over the next several months and recommended a follow-up in two months.

14. On August 11, 2005, plaintiff saw his family physician, Dr. Mark W. Heffington, for a painful knot in the area of the left lower anterolateral ribcage. Exquisite tenderness was noted over plaintiff's left lowermost rib. Dr. Heffington recommended padding plaintiff's back brace to help relieve pressure that plaintiff felt the brace was causing.

15. At plaintiff's follow-up appointment on September 16, 2005, Dr. Sherman indicated that although plaintiff continued to have some pain in the left hip region, plaintiff's sensation was remarkably improved, and he had regained normal motor function, as well as normal bowel and bladder function. Dr. Sherman recommended a return visit in nine months with a thin-cut CT scan.

16.

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

Related

§ 97-19
North Carolina § 97-19
§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-93
North Carolina § 97-93
§ 97-94
North Carolina § 97-94(b)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Putman v. Alexander, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putman-v-alexander-ncworkcompcom-2007.