Scism v. Tri-Star Motorsports

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 25, 1997
DocketI.C. No. 350825
StatusPublished

This text of Scism v. Tri-Star Motorsports (Scism v. Tri-Star Motorsports) 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
Scism v. Tri-Star Motorsports, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1997).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner.

The appealing parties have shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. However, upon reconsideration of the evidence, the undersigned reach the same facts and conclusions as those reached by the Deputy Commissioner with some minor technical modifications. Neither party here requested the Full Commission to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives. The Full Commission, in their discretion, have determined that there are no good grounds in this case to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, as sufficient convincing evidence exists in the record to support their findings of fact, conclusions of law, and ultimate award.

Accordingly, the Full Commission find as fact and conclude as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties as

STIPULATIONS

1. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

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

3. The carrier on the risk was Travelers Insurance Company.

4. Plaintiff suffered a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment with defendant-employer on June 28, 1993.

5. The parties signed a Form 21 which was approved by the Industrial Commission on November 16, 1993.

6. After the initial hearing, the parties stipulated to the following medical records:

a. Dr. Dorn (1 p.)

b. Raintree Clinic — Dr. Crummie (6 pp.)

c. Two letters from Dr. Crummie (3 pp.)

d. Records of Dr. Chapman — Miller Clinic (6 pp.)

e. Records of Dr. Dorn (12 pp.)

f. Records from Pardee Memorial Hospital (1 p.)

g. Records of Tamara Hite — ConServCo (39 pp.)

h. Rehab Center (28 pp.)

i. Functional Capacity Examination — Gaston Memorial Hospital (10 pp.)

j. Records from Cleveland Memorial Hospital (3 pp.)

k. Record from Charlotte Radiology (1 p.)

l. Record from Industrial Commission files (4 pp.)

m. Record from Heritage Insurance (1 p.)

7. The issues in this case concern:

a. Did plaintiff's decision to discontinue work with Bullek constitute a justifiable refusal to accept suitable employment?

b. Is plaintiff eligible for continuing medical treatment including treatment for his acute psychological problems?

c. Is plaintiff entitled to temporary total disability compensation or other benefits?

* * * * * * * * * * *

The Full Commission adopt as their own all findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner, with minor technical modifications, as follows:

Based upon the competent and convincing evidence adduced at the hearing, the undersigned make the following additional

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff is a male, born August 22, 1954, and at the time of the initial hearing was forty-one years old. Plaintiff has been married to his second spouse for seven years. He has an adult son from his first marriage. Plaintiff is a high school graduate who has six years of mechanical training with the Marine Corps. Plaintiff also had employment taking cars to exhibitions, painting outboard motor housings and running his own body repair shop. Plaintiff took carpentry courses at a community college for a year and also had extensive work experience as a carpenter.

2. Plaintiff went to work as a painter and body repair man for Tri-Star Motorsports on April 27, 1993.

3. On June 28, 1993, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident to his lower back and groin when removing a 150 pound dolly from a wall hanger. The dolly weighed 150 pounds, and when he pulled it off the wall, the weight of it forced him backward into an awkward position. His legs were forced apart and he felt a strain in his groin and later began developing lower back pain. Plaintiff felt immediate pain in his left groin and had a numb feeling in his back and waist. However, he continued to work until midnight.

4. Plaintiff presented to the emergency room the following day. He was examined by a physician there and was kept out of work for four days and given Anaprox. This treatment took place at Pardee Memorial Hospital's Emergency Room in Hendersonville. The two pages of records from Margaret R. Pardee Memorial Hospital contain a note indicating that plaintiff could return to work on July 3, 1993. There is also information signed by plaintiff indicating the follow-up physician assigned is Dr. Berger. The note specifically states that plaintiff was complaining of low back pain when he presented to the emergency room. The procedures plaintiff was to follow for his lower back pain were as follows: rest in bed; lie on a firm mattress; take over-the-counter medications as prescribed; and keep his knees bent utilizing a pillow or rolled blankets under them.

5. On July 12, 1993, plaintiff presented to Dr. Dorn reporting anxiety, pain in both groins, in the testicle area, and lower back. Dr. Dorn prescribed Naprosyn, Buspar instead of the Xanax plaintiff requested for his anxiety, and a chairback brace. Plaintiff had x-rays taken as well as an MRI. Both were negative. Dr. Dorn kept plaintiff out of work for four weeks, telling him to use a heating pad. Dr. Dorn's diagnosis was a groin strain and lumbosacral strain. The doctor prescribed Darvocet for pain and physical therapy at Cleveland Memorial Hospital three to four times a week. Plaintiff complied.

6. Plaintiff had a functional capacity evaluation several months after his injury. He was given a ten pound weight limit at that time.

7. Plaintiff was initially out of work from June 28 or 29, 1996 and returned to work with no restrictions on July 5, 1993. Plaintiff was terminated on July 9, 1993 for poor performance. On July 12, 1993, plaintiff was taken out of work by Dr. Dorn. On July 29, 1993, plaintiff was released to return to work with limitations of lifting no more than twenty pounds.

8. Plaintiff was referred to Dr. Chapman, whom he saw on March 23, 1994. Plaintiff was assigned a 10% permanent partial impairment rating to his back on March 23, 1994. Dr. Chapman prescribed physical therapy at the Rehab Center, eight hours a day, five days a week, for a one month period. On July 6, 1994, plaintiff commenced the program. After plaintiff completed the program on August 23, 1994, Dr. Chapman found plaintiff at maximum medical improvement for his myofascial pain and gave plaintiff a 5% permanent partial disability rating. Plaintiff had a thirty-five pound weight restriction.

9. Tamara Hite, with ConServCo, was assigned to plaintiff as a vocational rehabilitation counselor. Plaintiff underwent another functional capacity evaluation, the result of which indicated he was capable of doing light DOT classified work and lifting within the thirty-five pound restriction. Plaintiff generally complied with all the requests of his vocational rehabilitation counselor and worked diligently for ten months in order to secure employment. He was unsuccessful during all this time. He continued to receive temporary total disability compensation.

10. On August 29, 1994, Ms. Hite spoke with Scott Hayes of Bullek Corporation and found that there was a job available which involved setting up display tables and getting sales leads for that company. Mr. Hayes assured Ms.

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

Related

Brewington v. Rigsbee Auto Parts
316 S.E.2d 336 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Scism v. Tri-Star Motorsports, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scism-v-tri-star-motorsports-ncworkcompcom-1997.