Shulenberger v. Hbd Industries, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedDecember 20, 2006
DocketI.C. NO. 170550.
StatusPublished

This text of Shulenberger v. Hbd Industries, Inc. (Shulenberger v. Hbd Industries, 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
Shulenberger v. Hbd Industries, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2006).

Opinions

* * * * * * * * * * *
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Deluca and the briefs and arguments of the parties. 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 for 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:

STIPULATIONS
1. On the date of injury, August 6, 2001, the parties were subject to and bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. At all times relevant, an employment relationship existed between plaintiff and the defendant-employer.

3. Sentry Insurance Company is the carrier on the risk.

4. Plaintiff's average weekly wage on the date of injury was $439.50, yielding a compensation rate of $293.00 for the date of disability.

5. The parties stipulated to any and all Industrial Commission forms filed during the pendency of the claim and judicial notice was taken of all such forms.

6. The parties stipulated to any and all medical and/or rehabilitation records generated in the claim.

7. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the parties stipulated into evidence a Pre-Trial Agreement, as well as a set of medical records. Further, during testimony, defendants' Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence without objection.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff suffered an admittedly compensable injury by accident on August 6, 2001. Plaintiff suffered a crushed pelvis and genitourinary injuries and dysfunction when he was pinned between a forklift and a door. As a result of the compensable injury, plaintiff is unable to walk normally, has limited control over his bodily functions, and has intense pain from any sexual arousal. Plaintiff has severe nerve damage which causes him to lose consciousness if he turns his head in certain directions. The evidence presented shows that plaintiff is in constant pain, and for purposes of pain control, a bag was surgically implanted in his back which contains morphine that is constantly distributed into his spine.

2. Defendants immediately began paying total and permanent disability benefits.

3. Since plaintiff's date of injury, he has received medical treatment from various providers and has undergone numerous surgical procedures. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was receiving regular treatment from Dr. Mark Lyerly, a neurosurgeon, Jay Boulter, a licensed marriage and family therapist/counselor, and Dr. Barbara Thomas, a psychiatrist who was overseeing plaintiff's psychiatric medication management. Additionally, since the beginning of this claim, Ms. Groce has been the medical case manager assigned to assist plaintiff and his family.

4. Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital in mid-August 2001. At that time it was determined that plaintiff needed personal care and assistance because of his difficulties ambulating and attending to other activities of daily living. Toni Shulenberger (plaintiff's sister-in-law) was engaged to provide to plaintiff attendant care services for four hours per day, five days per week, at the rate of $10.00 per hour, for a total payment of $200.00 per week. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Toni Shulenberger clarified that she was not a Certified Nursing Assistant and was instead considered to be a Personal Care Aide. She testified that she had worked at least four hours per day for every weekday since the date of accident. She testified that she classified her services in two categories. The first was as personal care to plaintiff, wherein she provided him with standby assistance in bathing, shaving, clipping his toenails, etc. She considered the other part of her services to be "chores," which included his laundry, changing of linens, vacuuming, and keeping his living space clean.

5. At the hearing, Toni Shulenberger also testified that approximately once a week, her four hours of care consisted of cleaning and maintaining plaintiff's separate residence in which he had not lived since the date of the accident. Prior to her testimony, defendant-carrier was not aware that Toni Shulenberger was charging Sentry Insurance Company for those services.

6. Shirley Shulenberger, plaintiff's mother, testified that plaintiff has been living with her since his discharge from the hospital in August 2001. Shirley Shulenberger testified that she assists plaintiff with going to the bathroom, provides him with his medications, cooks, cleans, washes laundry, manages plaintiff's finances, and schedules his medical appointments. As plaintiff has been depressed and suicidal, he requires his mother's constant attention. Plaintiff's mother also testified that she provides him with verbal cues to motivate him to eat, dress, etc. At the time of plaintiff's injury by accident, Shirley Shulenberger was employed full time at Pillowtex, and continued to work full time until July 2003 when Pillowtex closed. Between August 2001 and July 2003, plaintiff was at home alone for a portion of the day, and Toni Shulenberger provided care for plaintiff for four hours per day. Shirley Shulenberger testified that plaintiff now needs constant attention, and requests that defendants pay her for giving 24 hours of care to Plaintiff per day.

7. Defendants in this matter reached an initial agreement with Shirley Shulenberger to pay her a flat fee of $30.00 per trip for transporting plaintiff to local medical appointments and $75.00 per trip for transporting plaintiff to out-of-town medical appointments. Shirley Shulenberger was not required to submit her time or mileage in exchange for these reimbursements. Defendants' Exhibit 1, which is a spreadsheet of expenses charged to Sentry by Shirley Shulenberger, reveals that beginning in August 2002, Shirley Shulenberger began charging Sentry higher rates for certain medical appointments. Shirley Shulenberger increased her rates only occasionally until October 2003, at which time she regularly began charging Sentry increased rates for appointments. She testified that the length of the appointment would determine how much she charged defendants, but she did not clearly explain how many hours generated a $100.00 charge as opposed to a $150.00 charge.

8. In early 2005, the Shulenberger family approached defendants about housing modifications and transportation issues. At that time, defendants began to examine, from a cost perspective, what those issues would entail and, at that point, realized Shirley Shulenberger had unilaterally increased what she was charging defendants for medical visits. It was also at that time that defendants realized that Toni Shulenberger was charging them for caring for plaintiff when plaintiff was hospitalized out-of-town. Toni Shulenberger testified that neither defendants nor Ms. Groce has been notified that she was performing "chores" at a residence other than the residence where plaintiff was living.

9. At the time of the hearing, Darren Todd Shulenberger, plaintiff's brother, also requested to be paid for services he alleges he has provided to the family because of plaintiff's injury.

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

Related

Hatchett v. HITCHCOCK CORPORATION
83 S.E.2d 539 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
London v. Snak Time Catering, Inc.
544 S.E.2d 781 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2000)
London v. Snak Time Catering, Inc.
525 S.E.2d 203 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Ruiz v. Belk Masonry Co., Inc.
559 S.E.2d 249 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
Ruiz v. Belk Masonry Co.
568 S.E.2d 610 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shulenberger v. Hbd Industries, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shulenberger-v-hbd-industries-inc-ncworkcompcom-2006.