Rudolph v. Newber's Refrigeration

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMay 6, 2010
DocketI.C. NO. 896051.
StatusPublished

This text of Rudolph v. Newber's Refrigeration (Rudolph v. Newber's Refrigeration) 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
Rudolph v. Newber's Refrigeration, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

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

***********
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:

PRE-HEARING STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission, and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter; *Page 2

2. All parties are subject to and bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act;

3. All parties have been properly designated and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties;

4. An employment relationship existed between the employee and employer on April 4, 2008;

5. The Carrier on the risk for Defendant-Employer in this claim is Southern Pilot Insurance;

6. Although Defendants filed a Form 61 on April 24, 2008 denying the compensability of this claim, Defendants notified the Deputy Commissioner at the hearing that liability for the incident itself was not being contested.

POST-HEARING STIPULATIONS
1. The parties shall submit payroll records from Defendant-Employer for Plaintiff for the dates of April 4, 2008 through May 9, 2008 for consideration by the Commission;

2. Plaintiff did not unjustifiably refuse an offer of suitable employment by Defendant-Employer;

3. The issue of whether Plaintiff is entitled to receive temporary total disability benefits under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-29 from the date of his injury, April 4, 2008, through June 12, 2008 is at issue and is to be determined by the Commission;

4. Plaintiff earned $7.00 per hour working forty hours per week for C C Hardware from June 12, 2008 through July 12, 2008;

5. Plaintiff thereafter earned $8.00 per hour working forty hours per week for C C Hardware from July 13, 2008 through October 1, 2008; *Page 3

6. While he was still working for C C Hardware, Plaintiff began delivering pizzas for Pepperoni Grill beginning August 8, 2008, earning $6.50 per hour for an average of seven hours per week. It is unclear when Plaintiff stopped working for Pepperoni Grill;

7. Plaintiff looked for work during this period of time and he ultimately found work with Mansfield Heating and Air in a lighter duty residential heating and air capacity and began working there on October 2, 2008;

8. Plaintiff contends that he earned $12.00 per hour working forty hours per week and Defendants contend that he earned $12.50 per hour working forty hours per week for Mansfield Heating and Air from October 2, 2008 through the date of the hearing;

9. Plaintiff is entitled to benefits under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-30 for this time worked in lesser paying employment since June 12, 2008 in an amount to be determined by the Commission based upon the determination of Plaintiff's average weekly wage;

10. Plaintiff has not yet reached maximum medical improvement from his compensable injuries, so this receipt of benefits shall not constitute an election of remedies pursuant to Vernon v.Mabe;

11. Plaintiff's most munificent remedy under the Workers' Compensation Act is yet to be determined and is not ripe for determination at this time because he has not yet reached maximum medical improvement from his compensable injuries;

12. Plaintiff's average weekly wage and compensation rate remain at issue and are to be determined by the Commission;

13. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is at least $696.15 and his compensation rate is at least $464.10, pursuant to the Form 22 provided by Defendants, but the issue of whether Plaintiff's average weekly wage and compensation rate should be higher according to the *Page 4 testimony at hearing as to any per diem remains at issue;

14. The issue of whether Plaintiff is entitled to a ten percent penalty under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-12(3) remains at issue and is to be determined by the Commission;

15. Plaintiff is entitled to payment for the attendant care that he received but the amount of attendant care to which he is entitled and is to be paid remains at issue and is to be determined by the Commission;

16. Defendants shall cause all medical payments for treatment received by Plaintiff for his compensable injury to be paid, including the items submitted by Plaintiff on his Form 25P; and

17. Defendants shall continue to pay for Plaintiff's medical treatment for his compensable injury, including, but not limited to treatment with Dr. Hultman, for so long as such treatment is reasonably required to effect a cure, lessen Plaintiff's pain or lessen his period of disability.

***********
EXHIBITS
The following exhibits were received by the Commission as evidence and marked stipulated exhibit 1:

1. Pre-Trial Agreement

2. All NCIC Forms from the April 4, 2008 injury

3. Index/Summary of Medical Records and the medical records included therein from the April 4, 2008 injury

4. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Discovery dated August 14, 2008

5. Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery dated August 18, 2008

*Page 5

6. EPA Regulations, Section 608

7. Photographs of Plaintiff's hands

8. Payroll records from Employer-Defendant for Plaintiff

Plaintiff's exhibit 1 and Defendants' exhibit 1 attendant care costs were also admitted into the record.

***********
ISSUES
The issues for resolution are as follows:

1. What is Plaintiff's average weekly wage?

2. What are the compensable consequences of Plaintiff's injury?

3. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a ten percent penalty under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-12(3) for Defendant-Employer's willful violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 87, Article 2 and associated safety regulations requiring licensure for the type of work Plaintiff was instructed by Defendant-Employer to perform on the date of his injury?

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On the date of the hearing before Deputy Commissioner DeLuca, Plaintiff was twenty-four years of age, having a birthday of April 26, 1984. Plaintiff graduated from high school in 2002 and took classes for two years at Harford Community College but did not earn a degree.

2. Plaintiff began working for Defendant-Employer as a mechanic's helper in *Page 6 May 2006.

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

Related

Smith v. First Choice Services
580 S.E.2d 743 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
Greene v. Conlon Construction Co.
646 S.E.2d 652 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
Knight v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
562 S.E.2d 434 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
Vernon v. Steven L. Mabe Builders
444 S.E.2d 191 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1994)
Harris v. North American Products
481 S.E.2d 321 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rudolph v. Newber's Refrigeration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudolph-v-newbers-refrigeration-ncworkcompcom-2010.