Shah v. Howard Johnson

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 23, 1999
DocketI.C. No. 607231.
StatusPublished

This text of Shah v. Howard Johnson (Shah v. Howard Johnson) 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
Shah v. Howard Johnson, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1999).

Opinions

The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. However, upon much detailed reconsideration of the evidence, the undersigned reach the same facts as those reached by the Deputy Commissioner, with some modification but modifies the conclusions and holding of the Deputy Commissioner.

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. On December 31, 1995, the employee-plaintiff suffered a compensable injury by accident arising out of an in the course of his employment.

2. On December 31, 1995, the parties hereto were subject to and bound by the provisions in the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

3. On December 31, 1995, the employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

4. On December 31, 1995, the defendant-employer employed three (3) or more employees.

5. On December 31, 1995, Howard Johnson's was self-insured for workers' compensation insurance in North Carolina.

6. Defendant's first set of responses to interrogatories marked as stipulated exhibit 5 was received into evidence.

7. Employment records marked as stipulated exhibit 6 were received into evidence. These records are attached to the deposition of Chet Dakoriya.

8. Defendant's amended set of responses to interrogatories marked as stipulated exhibit 7 was received into evidence.

9. Subsequent to the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, an indexed set of medical records marked as stipulated exhibit 8 was received into evidence.

10. N.C. Industrial Commission Forms 19, 22, 61, and 63 were marked as stipulated exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively and were received into evidence.

***********

Based upon all of the competent evidence from the record herein, the Full Commission adopts the findings of fact by the Deputy Commissioner with minor modifications as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was a thirty-four year old male who had earned a Masters Degree in Commerce Accounting while living in India.

2. Plaintiff was employed as a clerk for Bonanza General Store in Las Vegas, Nevada immediately prior to his employment with the defendant-employer. Plaintiff earned $6.00 an hour while employed with the Bonanza General Store. Plaintiff was contacted by Ash Patel, a manager for the Greensboro hotel owned by defendant-employer, who offered plaintiff a job as a night auditor. Mr. Patel was directed by Chet Dakoriya, President of Howard Johnson's, to hire plaintiff. Mr. Patel and plaintiff agreed that plaintiff would receive $200.00 per week plus free room and board. Mr. Dakoriya did not authorize Mr. Patel to offer lodging as a condition of the employment contract. However, it was understood between Mr. Patel and the plaintiff that plaintiff would receive free food and lodging in lieu of wages. Plaintiff agreed to take a reduction in salary as compared to the salary he was earning with Bonanza General Store because he was to receive free room and board. Mr. Patel had apparent authority to offer plaintiff food and lodging in lieu of wages.

3. The Full Commission reopened this matter for additional evidence on the value of the lodging that was provided to the plaintiff in order to calculate the average weekly wage. The parties were unable to stipulate to or provide additional evidence on the reasonable market value of plaintiff's lodging. Therefore, the Commission finds as fact, based upon the stipulated Form 22 Wage Chart, that the value of the lodging provided to the plaintiff was $100.00 per week.

4. At the time that he sustained the compensable injury by accident on December 31, 1995, plaintiff's average weekly wage was $200.00 a week salary plus $100.00 for food and lodging for a total of $300.00. Plaintiff's salary would have been higher if he had secured his own living arrangements.

5. Plaintiff began employment with the defendant-employer on December 16, 1995 as a desk clerk and night auditor.

6. On December 31, 1995, plaintiff was performing his regular job duties as a desk clerk and night auditor when he was robbed at gunpoint. Plaintiff received multiple gunshot wounds in his back, right arm and left thigh. A co-worker was fatally wounded at the same time.

7. On the morning of January 1, 1996, plaintiff was transported to the emergency room at the Carolina Medical Center where he was treated for his multiple gunshot wounds. As a result of these multiple gunshot wounds, plaintiff was hospitalized for the time period beginning January 1, 1996 to January 14, 1996.

8. As a result of the December 31, 1995, compensable injury by accident, plaintiff sustained the following injuries: a left femur multifragmentary fracture secondary to a gunshot wound, a left superficial femoral artery injury secondary to a gunshot wound, a right paraspinous muscle defect secondary to a gunshot wound and a right forearm superficial wound secondary to a gunshot wound.

9. Upon his release from the hospital, plaintiff went to California to stay with his brother. Medical case manager Jo Ann Johnson traveled with plaintiff in a taxi from the hospital to the airport because plaintiff expressed a fear of being alone and being shot again. As a result of his fear, plaintiff declined an offer by the defendant-employer to stay in a room at the hotel where he was injured. He also declined an offer to stay at a hotel owned and operated by the defendant-employer in Greensboro. This offer of housing at this time by the defendant-employer was not an offer in exchange for plaintiff's labor.

10. On January 18, 1996, plaintiff began a course of medical treatment under the supervision of Dr. Steven A. Smith, an orthopedic surgeon in California.

11. On March 26, 1996, Dr. Smith signed a work release form authorizing plaintiff to return to his night auditor position with the restriction that plaintiff could not stand for extended periods of time.

12. There is a dispute between the president for the defendant-employer, Chet Dakoriya, and plaintiff's immediate supervisor, Ash Patel, over who had and continued to have the authority to hire the plaintiff. Mr. Dakoriya testified that Mr. Patel hired plaintiff without his knowledge. On the other hand, Mr. Patel testified that Mr. Dakoriya hired the plaintiff. Mr. Dakoriya testified that it was "kind of an accident" that Mr. Patel extended the offer to allow the plaintiff to live on the premises as part of the offer of employment prior to plaintiff's injury. Mr. Patel testified that Mr. Dakoriya told him to offer the living arrangements as part of the offer of employment.

13. Sometime in late March 1996, Chet Dakoriya offered to allow the plaintiff to return to the night auditor position that he had held at the time that he was shot. Mr. Dakoriya agreed to make accommodations for the plaintiff. Earlier on February 21, 1996, medical case manager Jo Anne Johnson faxed a job description form to Mr. Dakoriya. Mr. Dakoriya did not complete the form in its entirety so Ms. Johnson went to Charlotte and specifically had Ash Patel assist in completing the form. This job description form was reviewed by Dr. Smith who then released plaintiff to return to work as a night auditor with the restrictions of no prolonged standing or walking. Mr. Dakoriya agreed to accommodate these restrictions. The job offered to plaintiff was an offer of suitable employment that took into consideration plaintiff's physical limitations and was not so modified to be considered make-work.

14. At the time the offer was made by Mr.

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

Related

Bowden v. The Boling Co.
429 S.E.2d 394 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shah v. Howard Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shah-v-howard-johnson-ncworkcompcom-1999.