Sherrill v. Carolina Cable Contr.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedFebruary 19, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 737180
StatusPublished

This text of Sherrill v. Carolina Cable Contr. (Sherrill v. Carolina Cable Contr.) 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
Sherrill v. Carolina Cable Contr., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award based on the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the additional evidence, consisting of affidavits and depositions of Charles D. Sherill and James Goodhew. Having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission hereby modifies the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
At the deputy commissioner hearing the parties tendered a Pretrial Agreement wherein they stipulated that:

1. The employee is Charles D. Sherrill and the employer is Carolina Cable Contractors, Inc.

2. At all relevant times, the employer was insured.

3. The carrier is Clarendon National Insurance Companies.

4. The defendant-employer regularly employs three or more employees and is bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

5. An employer-employee relationship existed between the employer and the employee on or about April 21, 1997, the stipulated date of injury.

6. The plaintiff's average weekly wage is $840.00, and his compensation rate is $512.00 per week.

7. The plaintiff-employee has not worked with Carolina Cable Contractors, Inc. since approximately March 15, 1998.

8. The issues to be determined by the Commission are whether the plaintiff has undergone a substantial change of condition pursuant to North Carolina General Statute § 97-47, and if so, what are the compensable consequences.

***********
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Take Additional Evidence and asked the Full Commission to admit the Affidavit of Charles D. Sherill and Affidavit of James Goodhew. Defendants requested to cross-examine these witnesses and their depositions were subsequently tendered. The Full Commission therefore grants plaintiff's motion and accepts the affidavits and depositions of Charles D. Sherill and James Goodhew as evidence in this action. See Cummings v. BCCI Const. Enterprises, 149 N.C. App. 180,560 S.E.2d 369 (2002); Groff v. Foster Forbes Glass, 140 N.C. App. 130,535 S.E.2d 602 (2000).

***********
Based on the credible evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The plaintiff was born September 5, 1941, and he was 59 years of age at the time of the deputy commissioner hearing. He is a high school graduate, and he worked much of his life as a meat cutter.

2. After plaintiff lost his job as a meat cutter, he has worked in the telephone business.

3. On April 21, 1997, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident when he fell off a ladder some 10 to 20 feet high and landed on the ground, sustaining injuries to his head, neck and low back. He was treated and held over night at Ridgecrest Hospital in Clayton, Georgia, and then he came under the care of Dr. Judson Handley. Prior to his injury by accident on April 21, 1997, plaintiff had never had any significant injury to or trouble with his back.

4. Dr. Handley diagnosed plaintiff as having a compression fracture at L1, and he treated plaintiff conservatively until December 10, 1997, when he rated plaintiff as having a 10% impairment of the spine, and he released him to return to work with restrictions as set forth in a functional capacity evaluation dated November 20, 1997. These restrictions included no static sitting or standing for more than two hours, no heavy lifting and no long distance driving.

5. At the time Dr. Handley released plaintiff, his back was doing well, and he was not required to take any pain medication for pain relief.

6. On or about January 19, 1998, plaintiff returned to work with Coleman Cable, but contrary to the restrictions issued by Dr. Handley, plaintiff was required by the defendant-employer to drive to work in Commerce, Georgia, from his home in Franklin, North Carolina, a distance of approximately 85 miles in each direction.

7. On or about March 15, 1998, plaintiff was able to obtain another job in the telephone industry with Nichols Construction Company where he was able to work closer to home, did not have to drive long distances, and where he also made as much or more than he was earning with the defendant-employer.

8. On or about September 23, 1998, plaintiff received his last indemnity check from the defendant compensating him for the 10% permanent partial impairment to his spine. Both on the date he was rated and released by Dr. Handley, December 12, 1997, and when he finally received payment for his permanent impairment on or about September 23, 1998, plaintiff was able to return to his pre-injury work as a telephone lineman, and he was essentially pain free.

9. The plaintiff continued to do well generally until approximately May 1, 1999, when his back pain became significantly worse. Following the change in his level of back pain that occurred on or around May 1, 1999, the plaintiff's back condition has continued to deteriorate. He has been back to see Dr. Judson Handley who has placed him on a number of different medications, including Motrin, Vioxx and Darvocet for pain relief.

10. The plaintiff's sleeping habits have deteriorated, and he now has to get up at night due to increased low back pain.

11. The plaintiff has been an avid fisherman, but because of the increase of his low back pain, he is unable to enjoy fishing, and he has now sold his bass boat.

12. Following his injury by accident on April 21, 1997, plaintiff was walking two miles a day after work to enhance his back condition. However, since his back condition worsened, he has found that walking, instead of helping his back, either aggravates or does not help his back condition.

13. The plaintiff has not had a new injury or trauma to his back since the incident of April 21, 1997.

14. As a result of his worsened back condition, plaintiff missed two weeks from work, in August of 1999 and two weeks from work again in May of 2000. On both occasions, plaintiff was not paid by his current employer, and he has not received any workers' compensation benefits for those periods of time.

15. In addition to the problems with his low back, plaintiff has experienced a recurrence of neck pain and difficulty. Dr. Judson Handley has opined that plaintiff has a pinched nerve that is causing some radiating pain into his right arm.

16. Prior to the injury by accident on April 21, 1997, plaintiff was diagnosed with diabetes. He has been taking oral medication since before the injury by accident, and his diabetes is generally controlled through diet and the oral medication. In addition, plaintiff has had episodes of gout in his big toe and left ankle, but that is well managed by medication.

17. On or about May 11, 2000, after attempting for almost a year to alleviate the deterioration of plaintiff's back condition, Dr. Judson Handley increased plaintiff's restrictions and recommended "permanent restrictions for no heavy lifting, and avoid repetitive bending due to back injury and degenerative disc disease."

18. On or about March 1, 2000, plaintiff started doing verification work with Nichols Construction.

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

Related

Goff v. Foster Forbes Glass Division
535 S.E.2d 602 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Lucas v. Bunn Manufacturing Co.
368 S.E.2d 386 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1988)
Cummins v. BCCI Construction Enterprises
560 S.E.2d 369 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sherrill v. Carolina Cable Contr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherrill-v-carolina-cable-contr-ncworkcompcom-2003.