Rivera v. Trapp

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 27, 1998
DocketI.C. NO. 702568
StatusPublished

This text of Rivera v. Trapp (Rivera v. Trapp) 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
Rivera v. Trapp, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1998).

Opinion

Upon review of all the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good ground to reconsider the evidence, to receive further evidence, or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner with minor modifications as follows:

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. All Industrial Commission Forms should be made a part of the record.

2. The issues to be determined by this hearing are as follows:

a) Whether defendant George Trapp (or other defendants) are subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Industrial Commission.

b) Whether there was an employee-employer relationship between plaintiff and defendants;

c) What was plaintiff's average weekly wage on 3 January 1997;

d) Whether the plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and if so, what, if any, benefits is he entitled?

e) To what penalties, if any, are defendants subject?

***********
Based upon the competent evidence of record herein, the Full Commission adopts the findings of fact of the Deputy Commissioner with minor modifications and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Defendants George Trapp, David Beauchemin and John Schuck were non-insured on 3 January 1997.

2. On 3 January 1997, plaintiff was an eighteen year old male who came to the United States in 1995 from Honduras and speaks a little English. Plaintiff did not posses an Immigration "Green Card" or Social Security number. Plaintiff's occupation was a roofer and he originally worked in Texas, and then Indiana, prior to coming to North Carolina in the fall of 1996.

3. The plaintiff and his two friends, Sammy Morag and Estephon Morag, came to North Carolina in October, 1996, because of the abundance of construction work available due to the damage caused by two hurricanes.

4. The plaintiff worked for two companies a couple of months each until meeting John Schuck in January, 1997.

5. Defendant John Schuck hired plaintiff and his two friends to work as roofers on two homes damaged by Hurricane Fran.

6. Defendant George Trapp hired John Schuck to fix the roof of a home David Beauchemin had under construction, which had been damaged by Hurricane Fran in September, 1996.

7. David Beauchemin lived in New Jersey and hired George Trapp to design a home on Topsail Beach. Mr. Beauchemin and Mr. Trapp entered into a contract whereby Mr. Trapp would hire contractors to complete the work necessary for construction of the home. Although Mr. Trapp referred to himself as a consultant, his duties and responsibilities are the same as a general contractor. Mr. Trapp hired and negotiated with the subcontractors; he wrote the checks, and in one instance fired a subcontractor whose work was unsatisfactory. Mr. Trapp visited the job site to oversee the work the subcontractors were doing. The contract further required all contractors who worked on the home to have workers' compensation insurance.

8. Mr. Trapp had been working as a house designer or "consultant" for approximately two years at the time of hearing. Mr. Trapp had also acquired his general contractors license approximately two years prior to hearing.

9. Mr. Schuck represented to Mr. Trapp, when hired, that he was licensed and insured. Mr. Schuck drove a truck with a sign that read "Regional Roofing Contractors". Mr. Trapp did not ask Mr. Schuck for a certificate of insurance prior to allowing Mr. Schuck and his crew to work on Mr. Beauchemin's home.

10. Within a couple of days of when Mr. Trapp hired Mr. Schuck, Mr. Trapp found out he was dealing with the individual John Schuck and not Regional Roofing Contractors. Prior to 3 January 1997, Mr. Trapp took Mr. Schuck to an insurance agency to inquire about workers' compensation insurance. Although Mr. Trapp knew Mr. Schuck did not have workers' compensation insurance, he still allowed Mr. Schuck and his crew to continue roofing Mr. Beauchemin's house. Mr. Trapp was aware prior to 3 January 1997 that plaintiff was working for John Schuck as a roofer on Mr. Beauchemin's home.

11. When John Schuck hired plaintiff, he agreed to pay him $12.00 an hour cash for working at least ten (10) hours a day, six (6) days a week. The plaintiff was only hired to roof two houses. There was no agreement between John Schuck and the plaintiff as to employment beyond the roofing of the two homes. Plaintiff's employment with John Schuck was "casual" in that it was unpredictable (plaintiff only worked when weather permitted), sporadic and brief in nature. However, plaintiff's employment as a roofer was in the course of trade, business or occupation of defendant John Schuck in that Mr. Schuck and plaintiff were hired as roofers.

12. After the hurricane, construction workers were paid at wages higher than normally earned. For instance, prior to the storm, the common fee paid to a roofer was $18.00 per square installed. After the storm, the amount reached as high as $150.00 per square. The maximum amount defendant Trapp would pay was $40.00 a square.

13. On 3 January 1997 plaintiff was working for defendant John Schuck roofing defendant Beauchemin's beach home. The home was three stories high. Felt or roof papers were placed on the forklift to lift the roofing materials to the roof over the third floor. Plaintiff rode up on the forklift as well. When the forklift reached the third floor, it fell and the plaintiff fell from the third floor, injuring the left side of his upper chest where the neck joins the shoulder and the back.

14. Although plaintiff had never ridden a forklift up to a roof prior to 3 January 1997, plaintiff had seen it done before. On 3 January 1997 the only way plaintiff could get up on the roof to place the felt was to ride the forklift. At the time the plaintiff fell, he was performing duties for the benefit of and in furtherance of the interests of his employer, defendant John Schuck.

15. As a result of plaintiff's work-related injury on 3 January 1997, plaintiff was transported by ambulance and spent five days in Onslow Memorial Hospital. As a result of plaintiff's fall, plaintiff sustained a fracture of his distal left radius and contusions to his abdomen and chest.

16. Following plaintiff's discharge from Onslow Memorial Hospital, he sought follow-up treatment with Dr. Jeffrey Gross, an orthopaedist in Jacksonville.

17. On 12 June 1997 Dr. Gross assigned a ten percent (10%) permanent partial disability rating to plaintiff's left arm. At that time, plaintiff still had numbness along the dorsum of the index finger, pain along the left flank area extending into the testicle which Dr. Gross indicated as a possible hernia. Plaintiff was referred to Dr. Lenox Williams for the possible hernia.

18. As a result of plaintiff's work-related injury on 3 January 1997, plaintiff has been unable to work or earn any wages since 4 January 1997 and continuing through the date of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. His left arm still gives him problems and he cannot lift anything heavy. Plaintiff's limited ability to understand English, coupled with his exclusive background in construction work, has contributed to his inability to find work since his compensable injury.

19.

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

Related

Boyd v. Mitchell
268 S.E.2d 252 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rivera v. Trapp, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-trapp-ncworkcompcom-1998.