Richardson v. Maxim healthcare/allegis Group

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 15, 2006
DocketI.C. NO. 265022
StatusPublished

This text of Richardson v. Maxim healthcare/allegis Group (Richardson v. Maxim healthcare/allegis Group) 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
Richardson v. Maxim healthcare/allegis Group, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2006).

Opinions

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Glenn and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the Opinion and Award, except for minor modifications. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Glenn, with modifications.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered by the parties as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employer-employee relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant-employer on May 16, 2001.

3. The defendant-employer was insured by America Protection Insurance at all relevant times herein.

4. The plaintiff has been out of work at various times since May 16, 2001. She last worked in approximately June 2002, and is currently not working.

5. The plaintiff's average weekly wage at the time of the incident in question was $399.01 per week.

6. The issues to be determined from this hearing are as follows:

a) Whether the plaintiff sustained an injury by accident while in the course and scope of her employment with the defendant-employer on May 16, 2001;

b) If so, what benefits, if any, is she entitled to receive under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act;

c) Whether the defendants denied liability for the plaintiff's knee injury without reasonable basis;

d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to sanctions and/or penalties against the defendants; and,

e) Whether the plaintiff timely reported and filed this workers' compensation claim, and whether the defendants were prejudiced by the plaintiff's failure to file a claim in a timely manner and her failure to cooperate in an investigation of this claim.

7. The Pre-Trial Agreement and all stipulations that have been submitted by the parties are hereby incorporated by reference as though they were fully set out herein.

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

FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The plaintiff began working for the defendant-employer in 1996 as a certified nursing assistant (CNA). The defendant-employer is a staffing service that employs medical professionals for the purpose of providing primarily in-home care to patients. Plaintiff's average weekly wages at the time of her injury by accident were $399.01 per week, yielding a compensation rate of $266.01 per week.

2. On May 16, 2001, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident while on her way to pick up food for a paraplegic patient, which was part of her job duties. While traveling on Highway 29 at approximately 55 miles an hour in the right hand lane, her vehicle was struck by another vehicle that came out of the left lane and into the plaintiff's lane. The impact caused the plaintiff's car to spin and then to hit the cement median barrier where her car came to rest. Prior to and during impact, the plaintiff attempted to control her car by tightly gripping the steering wheel and applying brakes. The plaintiff lost control of her car due to the impact of the other vehicle. She hit her head and right knee on something in the car, and immediately experienced swelling in her face and right knee. The plaintiff also sustained injuries to her chest as a result of the accident. She did not lose consciousness.

3. Emergency Medical Services arrived on the scene and recorded complaints of left side head pain. Edema to the left side upper lip was noted. EMS transported the plaintiff to Moses Cone Memorial Hospital, where she was treated for headache, trouble breathing, contusions, swelling in the left lip/chin area, and soreness on the head, face, and chest. The plaintiff was released from Moses Cone Hospital with medications and instructions to follow up with her family physician.

4. The plaintiff called her supervisor, David Popp, to report the accident within thirty minutes of the incident. She requested that he send a staff member to care for her patient. The defendants acknowledge the plaintiff's same-day notification of the accident as indicated on the Form 19 dated August 9, 2002. The defendants did not send another staff member to care for the plaintiff's patient.

5. The Full Commission finds that plaintiff's motor vehicle accident arose out her employment and in the course and scope of her employment. Plaintiff filed a Form 18 with the North Carolina Industrial Commission in June 2002. The defendants filed a Form 19 with the Industrial Commission on August 9, 2002, and denied liability for the plaintiff's claim on September 9, 2002.

6. The plaintiff also filed a claim with Nationwide Insurance, the motor vehicle insurance carrier for her vehicle, because the at-fault driver did not stop and could not be located.

7. The plaintiff sought treatment from her family physician at Eagle Family Medicine on May 17, 2001, the day after the accident. The physical examination revealed tenderness and swelling over the plaintiff's left cheek, and a contusion on the inside of her upper lip. She complained of body soreness, particularly in the shoulders and upper back. The plaintiff received a note placing her out of work from May 17 to June 6, 2001, for medical reasons.

8. The plaintiff began to experience a decrease in the size of her breast implants almost immediately after the accident. She reported her concerns to the physicians at the emergency room, where a visual inspection was performed, and no asymmetry noted.

9. The plaintiff followed up with Dr. David Bowers, a plastic surgeon, on May 31, 2001, regarding her breast implants. She reported a decrease in the size of her implants since the accident. On June 7, 2001, Dr. Bowers performed bilateral breast re-augmentation, removing Plaintiff's original breast implants and replacing them with new implants. Dr. Bowers testified that the right breast implant had a leak at the time it was removed, but the left one did not appear to have ruptured. He replaced both implants with fully filled 475 cc implants. Dr. Bowers billed and was paid by Nationwide Insurance for his work, pursuant to plaintiff's claim with Nationwide. Dr. Bowers restricted the plaintiff from work from June 7, 2001, the date of her surgery, until July 26, 2001.

10. The damage to plaintiff's breast implants were caused or aggravated by the accident. Dr. Bowers testified that the accident caused the leak he found in the plaintiff's right breast implant. He was not certain whether the accident caused the rippling in her left breast implant or whether the rippling was from normal wear and tear. However, Dr. Bowers noted that, even if there was deterioration of the implants pre-accident, the trauma to the plaintiff's chest would "most definitely" have accelerated or aggravated the process. Dr. Bowers replaced both implants, even though only one had ruptured, because the replacements would have to be symmetrical and evenly matched. Replacement of one implant required replacement of both.

11.

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

Related

Holley v. Acts, Inc.
581 S.E.2d 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2003)
Young v. Hickory Business Furniture
538 S.E.2d 912 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Richardson v. Maxim healthcare/allegis Group, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-maxim-healthcareallegis-group-ncworkcompcom-2006.