Ruiz v. Belk Masonry Co., Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 13, 2000
DocketI.C. NO. 746301
StatusPublished

This text of Ruiz v. Belk Masonry Co., Inc. (Ruiz v. Belk Masonry Co., Inc.) 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
Ruiz v. Belk Masonry Co., Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2000).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Glenn as well as 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 with the modification of the award of attendant care to plaintiff.

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

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

2. The employer-employee relationship existed between the defendant-employer and the plaintiff-employee at all relevant times.

3. Companion Property and Casualty Company provided workers compensation insurance for defendant-employer at all relevant times.

4. Plaintiffs average weekly wage at all relevant times was $300.00, yielding a compensation rate of $200.00.

5. Plaintiff sustained an injury by accident on October 7, 1997 when he fell approximately 70 feet onto a concrete floor in the course and scope of his employment with defendant-employer.

6. Plaintiff has been paid temporary total disability benefits from October 8, 1997 through the present and continuing.

7. Plaintiff was an illegal alien at the time of his injury by accident.

8. The issues to be determined by the Commission are as follows:

a) Whether plaintiff is barred from receiving workers compensation benefits as a result of his status as an illegal alien?

b) Whether plaintiff is entitled to receive any workers compensation benefits, and, if so, what benefits?

***********
The Full Commission adopts the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was a thirty-eight year old man at the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. He received the equivalent of a sixth grade education in Mexico, his native home. Plaintiff does not speak, read, or write English.

2. On October 7, 1997, plaintiff fell approximately 70 feet onto a concrete floor while in the course and scope of his employment with defendant-employer. Plaintiff was unconscious at the scene and was transported to Carolinas Medical Center where he was diagnosed with a severe traumatic brain injury with hemorrhage and sheer injury. He also sustained multiple rib fractures, a kidney contusion, and a pneumothorax.

3. Plaintiff remained at Carolinas Medical Center until November 7, 1997, at which time he was transferred to Charlotte Institute of Rehabilitation under the care of Dr. James T. McDeavitt. Plaintiff stayed at the Charlotte Institute of Rehabilitation until December 3, 1997, when he was transitioned from the inpatient program to the outpatient program and remained under the care of Dr. McDeavitt.

4. When Dr. McDeavitt discharged plaintiff on or about December 3, 1997, he indicated that plaintiff should have 24-hour supervision, and should not drink alcohol, drive, or cook.

5. Dr. Lynda G. Johnson, a neuropsychologist, completed a neuropsychological evaluation. Dr. Johnsons findings indicated plaintiff had sustained a severe traumatic brain injury and he has had good recovery. She found plaintiff exhibiting significant cognitive deficits in attention skills, selected executive skills, memory, and performance skills. She indicated plaintiff had a relative strength in the area of verbal intellectual abilities and that his performance in that area suggested cognitive deficits and indicated a significant decline from his pre-injury level of functioning. Plaintiffs math skills were also significantly below average.

6. Plaintiff was seen and evaluated by Dr. Thomas Gualtieri of North Carolina Neuropsychiatry. Dr. Gualtieri found plaintiff to have weakness and decreased coordination in the left side, including left facial weakness, and he agreed with Dr. McDeavitts findings.

7. Plaintiff was also seen and evaluated by Dr. David N. DuPuy, an orthopedist. Dr. DuPuy agreed with plaintiffs other treating physicians as to his diagnosis and treatment.

8. Following his release, plaintiff was cared for by his brother, Jose Ruiz. Jose Ruiz came to North Carolina after plaintiffs injury. He came only because plaintiff has nobody else to care for him. Jose Ruiz has a family of his own and wants to return to his family in Mexico but cannot because plaintiff needs his assistance.

9. Mr. Jose Ruiz indicated that plaintiff cannot take care of himself. Mr. Ruiz has to cook, clean, wash, shop, and pay bills, among other things, for plaintiff. He turns on plaintiffs shower and has to assist plaintiff into the shower. Plaintiff can bathe himself while he sits on a stool. Mr. Ruiz indicated that plaintiff cannot cook because he will leave the stove on or forget about the food on the stove. Plaintiff needs assistance walking because he is not stable on his feet and may fall at any time.

10. Mr. Jose Ruiz indicated that he is not able to hold a full time job because it is unsafe to leave plaintiff at home for a long period and he therefore works four or five hours per day, five days a week, and otherwise he is always with plaintiff.

11. Dr. McDeavitt has indicated that plaintiff is able to stay at home by himself. Dr. McDeavitt formed this opinion because plaintiff and Jose Ruiz have told him that plaintiff is left home by himself for limited periods out of necessity and so far nothing has happened. Jose Ruiz does not feel that it is safe to leave plaintiff alone, but feels he has no choice but to leave plaintiff alone while at work. Jose Ruiz, plaintiff, and Jose Ruizs family have to be supported and Jose Ruiz must work to provide this support.

12. Plaintiff is in need of attendant care and defendants have not provided it.

13. Patrick Clifford, a certified senior disability analyst holding a Master of Science degree with emphasis on vocational rehabilitation and disability evaluation, performed a vocational assessment of plaintiff and it was his opinion that plaintiff would not be successful in any attempt to locate any employment because of his physical limitations, cognitive deficits, lack of transferable skills, and education.

14. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner in this matter it was apparent that plaintiff did not have any use of his left hand and arm, and very little use of his left leg. Plaintiff has to drag his left leg behind him as he walks. Plaintiff has limited use of the entire left side of his body.

15. Following the accident it was also noted that plaintiff would easily lose his temper. This was something that he did not do prior to his injury.

16. Paula Medina, a registered nurse with a Masters Degree in health administration who also is a certified life planner, drafted a life care plan for plaintiff at the request of Patrick Clifford. As a part of this plan, she indicated that plaintiff would need attendant care for the remainder of his life. Jose Ruiz has been providing care to plaintiff but will be unable to continue if he is not paid.

17. Paula Medina testified that, if purchased through an agency, the level of attendant care plaintiff requires would cost $13.00 to $15.00 an hour.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ruiz v. Belk Masonry Co., Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-v-belk-masonry-co-inc-ncworkcompcom-2000.