Quiller v. N.C. Department of Correction

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedDecember 14, 2009
DocketI.C. No. TA-20553 A.G. NO. 07-2281.
StatusPublished

This text of Quiller v. N.C. Department of Correction (Quiller v. N.C. Department of Correction) 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
Quiller v. N.C. Department of Correction, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Decision and Order based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Harris and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. Accordingly, the Full Commission REVERSES the Decision and Order of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
The following documents were proffered as evidence as:

EXHIBITS
1. Stipulated Exhibit 1: Executed Pre-Trial Agreement

2. Stipulated Exhibit 2: DVD of surveillance camera footage *Page 2

3. Stipulated Exhibit 3: 11 still photograph outtakes from surveillance camera footage

4. Stipulated Exhibit 4: Plaintiff's medical records

5. Stipulated Exhibit 5: Incident investigation reports and witness statements

6. Stipulated Exhibit 6: Mental Health Services referral forms

7. Stipulated Exhibit 7: Photographs of various views from cells

8. Stipulated Exhibit 8: Grievance documents
9. Stipulated Exhibit 9: Report of Accident to Inmate

***********
The Full Commission finds as facts and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner in the executed Pre-Trial Agreement as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the court, and the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

2. The incident that provides the basis for this action occurred on April 3, 2007 at Foothills Correctional Institution in Morganton, North Carolina.

3. On April 3, 2007, Correctional Officer Sergeant Marc Dunn, Correctional Officer Robert White and Nurse Sheila McCoy were employees of the North Carolina Department of Correction, and all actions taken by any of them pertinent to this action were in the course of said employment.

4. On April 3, 2007, Plaintiff was an inmate of Defendant, housed at Foothills Correctional Institution in Morganton, North Carolina. *Page 3

5. On April 3, 2007, Jonathan Clark was an inmate of Defendant, housed at Foothills Correctional Institution in Morganton, North Carolina.

***********
ISSUE
Plaintiff filed an Affidavit alleging that, through Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff was injured when officers failed to assist him and he fell down stairs while handcuffed with his hands behind his back.

***********
Based upon all the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission engenders the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On the date of the incident in this claim, Plaintiff was housed in close custody in F Unit at the Foothills Correctional Institution.

2. On the date of the incident, Plaintiff was charged with engaging in gang-related activities and was to be placed in administrative segregation pending a disciplinary hearing on the charges.

3. That morning, Officer White went to Plaintiff's cell to take him to segregation.

4. When Officer White came to get him, Plaintiff knew about the gang-related charges against him. Sgt. Dunn had already told Plaintiff that, if he were to be found guilty of those charges, he would be identified as an STG ("Security Threat Group") inmate. Sgt. Dunn had further told Plaintiff that STG status would involve a substantial period of intensive control, which is essentially solitary confinement. The prospect of being designated an STG inmate and *Page 4 being put in intensive control gave Plaintiff substantial motivation to try to thwart the disciplinary process.

5. Plaintiff was irate about the charges against him and at first refused to comply with Officer White. However, Plaintiff agreed to comply after the unit manager spoke with him and told him there would be a full investigation.

6. After the unit manager left, Plaintiff did as Officer White directed and gathered his personal property into a bed sheet, which he then used as an improvised sack. Plaintiff then submitted to being handcuffed behind his back and left the cell, dragging the sack of his personal property behind him as directed.

7. Plaintiff's cell was on the second floor of the dormitory. To reach the segregation cell, which was on the first floor, Plaintiff had to walk down a hallway, which is about three feet wide and 50 feet long, to reach the stairs to the first floor. To access the stairs, he had to turn right, off of the hallway, onto a platform that is about three feet by three feet, from which the stairs lead down.

8. The stairs down to the first floor appear to have a normal incline and contain about 15 steps.

9. At about 9:37 a.m., Plaintiff made his way down the hallway, dragging his sack behind him, with his hands cuffed behind his back. He did not have any other restraints on, such as leg chains. He was followed closely by Officer White.

10. When Plaintiff neared the platform at the top of the steps, he paused in the hallway for about five seconds while Sgt. Dunn ascended the steps. Then, with Officer White and Sgt. Dunn behind him, Plaintiff entered the platform at the top of the stairway, still dragging his sack behind him. *Page 5

11. Without a pause at the top of the stairway, Plaintiff, in one motion, released his grip on the sack behind him and dived off of the platform down the stairway. Within two seconds after standing at the top of the stairway, without any hitch in his path down, Plaintiff was on the concrete floor at the bottom of the stairway in a heap.

12. Based upon a thorough review of the stipulated surveillance footage, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff intentionally threw himself down the stairs. Plaintiff did not take the first step down the stairs. Rather, he launched himself from the top. The Full Commission further finds that, even with his hands cuffed behind his back, if Plaintiff had accidentally fallen, he could have and would have made some effort at self-preservation as he went down the stairs, and he would not have reached the bottom within two seconds.

13. Plaintiff initiated his dive down the stairway so quickly upon entering the platform, neither Officer White nor Sgt. Dunn had the opportunity to get a hold of Plaintiff to assist him down the stairs.

14. Plaintiff was taken to a hospital and diagnosed with a concussion. He also claims ongoing pain in his neck, low back, shoulders, wrists and knees related to the incident.

15. Plaintiff was sent for psychological evaluation on the date of the incident, with a follow-up two days later.

16. As Sgt. Dunn testified, Plaintiff's sustaining an injury could have resulted in him not being recommended for intensive control in the STG disciplinary process.

17. Plaintiff was eventually referred to the STG program and successfully completed it. He was also charged with self-injurious behavior arising out of the April 3, 2007 incident, but that investigation lapsed.

*********** *Page 6
The foregoing Stipulations and Findings of Fact engender the following additional:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.

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

Related

§ 143-291
North Carolina § 143-291

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Quiller v. N.C. Department of Correction, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quiller-v-nc-department-of-correction-ncworkcompcom-2009.