Shupe v. City of Charlotte

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 3, 2009
DocketI.C. NO. 388253.
StatusPublished

This text of Shupe v. City of Charlotte (Shupe v. City of Charlotte) 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
Shupe v. City of Charlotte, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
ISSUES
1. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to temporary total disability compensation from the date she stopped working for Defendant on February 4, 2006.

2. Whether Plaintiff is estopped from seeking total disability compensation at this time due to her prior request for hearing seeking permanent partial disability compensation pursuant toDaughtry v. Cherry Hospital, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, (2009).

3. Whether Plaintiff should be sanctioned pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Upon review of the competent evidence of record, with reference to the errors assigned, and finding good grounds to receive further evidence, or to rehear the parties or their *Page 2 representative, the Full Commission, upon reconsideration of the evidence AFFIRMS IN PART and REVERSES IN PART the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as a fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which the parties entered into in the Pre-trial Agreement and at the hearing as:

STIPULATIONS
1. On all relevant dates, the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. On all relevant dates, an employee-employer relationship existed between Plaintiff-employee and Defendant.

3. On all relevant dates, Defendant was self-insured.

4. On August 7, 2003, Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident in her job as a sworn Police Officer for Defendant.

5. Defendant accepted the claim pursuant to an Industrial Commission Form 60, signed on December 8, 2003.

6. Defendant paid total disability compensation to Plaintiff during the time she was out of work due to her right knee injury until she began her light-duty, administrative job with Defendant.

7. Following her first right knee surgery, Plaintiff returned to work for Defendant in a light-duty, administrative job in the Crime Report Writing Unit as a Police Investigation Tech, a non-sworn police position that Defendant provides to sworn police officers under light-duty restrictions from their treating physician. Plaintiff was paid her pre-injury wages in this position. *Page 3

8. On November 14, 2005, Deputy Commissioner Chrystal Redding Stanback filed an Opinion and Award in this matter. Conclusion of Law (5) provides:

"Although Plaintiff now works full-time for defendant in a light-duty, administrative capacity, she cannot work regular duty as a police officer. At any time, due to the continuing problems Plaintiff is experiencing with her right knee injury, Plaintiff is subject to becoming disabled from her work injury. At such time as Plaintiff becomes disabled from her injury, or unable to earn the same or greater wages as her pre-injury wages, Plaintiff is entitled to compensation at the rate of $672.30 per week, or the requisite temporary partial disability compensation rate, for as long as Plaintiff is disabled as a result of her compensable injury. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-29."

9. On August 7, 2003, Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $1,008.40, yielding a weekly compensation rate of $672.30.

10. Before Dr. Jerry Barron was authorized to perform her second knee surgery, Plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer in her pancreas and liver. Plaintiff received treatment in the form of medication and radiation from oncologist Dr. David Eagle. Due to the treatment for her cancer, Dr. Barron was unable to perform the arthroscopic knee surgery until Dr. Eagle stated that it was safe for her to have the surgery. Dr. Eagle explained in his deposition that Plaintiff would have to stop taking her medication for cancer treatment for at least two weeks if she had the knee surgery, which would affect her white blood count and increase the risk that her tumors would grow and that she would develop other infections.

11. On July 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Request for Hearing to determine the issue of her permanent partial disability rating. In light of the medical testimony following a hearing, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the request for hearing. On March 18, 2008, Deputy Commissioner Phillip A. Baddour, III issued an Order that allowed Plaintiff to withdraw her request for hearing. *Page 4

12. Plaintiff stopped working as a Police Investigation Tech on February 4, 2006 due to her illness from her cancer. She has not been able to return to that job due to her cancer.

13. Plaintiff has not been able to return to her job as a sworn police officer, initially due to her right knee injury, and later due to her right knee injury and her cancer.

14. The parties have submitted a Packet of Various Stipulated Exhibits, which is admitted into the record, and marked as Stipulated Exhibit (2) and which includes the following

a. Industrial Commission Forms;

b. The Opinion and Award by Deputy Commissioner Chrystal Redding Stanback filed on 14 November 2005;

c. Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests;

d. Plaintiff's Discovery Requests of September 26, 2008, including invoices for expert witness fees, letters and emails between Mr. Goldman and Mr. Acton;

e. A Police Investigation Tech Job Description;

f. A Police Officer Job Description;

g. The Pre-Trial Agreement for the hearing previously set before Deputy Commissioner Phillip A. Baddour, III;

h. Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Request for Hearing dated March 11 2008;

i. Order Allowing Motion to Withdraw Request for Hearing;

j. Documents from Plaintiff's personnel file;

k. Medical records in this case; and

l. Transcripts of the depositions of Dr. Roy Majors from 2005 and 2007, Dr. Jerry Barron from 2005 and 2007, and Dr. David Eagle from 2008.

*Page 5

15. Subsequent to the hearing, the parties entered into a Stipulation to the effect that the uncertified copies of the 2005 depositions of Dr. Majors and Dr. Barron are to be afforded the same weight as the certified originals and may be considered for all purposes that the certified copies would have been.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon the competent and credible evidence of record, as well as any reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The November 14, 2005 Opinion and Award by Deputy Commissioner Chrystal Redding Stanback establishes that Plaintiff was a sworn Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Officer on August 7, 2003. In that capacity, Plaintiff worked as a DARE officer educating children about the dangers of drugs. At a DARE workshop on August 7, 2003, a child jumped on Plaintiff's legs causing an injury to her right knee.

2. Defendant accepted the claim pursuant to an Industrial Commission Form 60 and authorized Dr. Roy Majors to perform right knee surgery, which was undertaken on December 4, 2003. Following this surgery, Plaintiff continued to experience right knee pain, swelling and fluid, and was medically unable to return to regular duty as a police officer.

3.

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

Related

Counts v. Black Decker Corporation
465 S.E.2d 343 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Saums v. Raleigh Community Hospital
487 S.E.2d 746 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1997)
Peoples v. Cone Mills Corp.
342 S.E.2d 798 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Errante v. Cumberland County Solid Waste Management
415 S.E.2d 583 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shupe v. City of Charlotte, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shupe-v-city-of-charlotte-ncworkcompcom-2009.