Sprinkle v. Lilly Industries, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedApril 25, 2002
DocketI.C. NO. 021154
StatusPublished

This text of Sprinkle v. Lilly Industries, Inc. (Sprinkle v. Lilly 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
Sprinkle v. Lilly Industries, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Opinion

***********
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the award, except for minor modifications, the Full Commission AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Opinion and Award 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. At all relevant times herein the parties were subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. At all relevant times herein an employer-employee relationship existed between defendant-employer and plaintiff-employee.

3. The carrier on the risk for defendant-employer is Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

4. On March 24, 1998 plaintiff's average weekly wage was $816.78. Plaintiff's wages are sufficient to yield the maximum weekly compensation rate for 1998 of $532.00.

5. Plaintiff alleges that on March 24, 1998 he sustained severe disabling injuries as a result of an automobile accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Defendants deny that the plaintiff's injuries were sustained in the course and scope of his employment.

6. In the event plaintiff is awarded disability compensation benefits, defendants are entitled to a deduction for the 26-week period March 25, 1998 through September 22, 1998 under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-42.

7. Assuming plaintiff does not have to repay or reimburse defendant or Principle Financial Group any long-term disability benefits in the event of a favorable award to him of worker's compensation disability benefits, then defendants would be entitled to a reduction of $389.33 per month from October 1998 through September 1999, a reduction of $412.69 per month from October 1999 to September 2000 and a reduction of $437.45 per month from October 2000 through at least January 2001 pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-42.

8. Industrial Commission forms and filings were stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 1.

9. Plaintiff's medical records, Volumes I-VI, were stipulated into evidence as Stipulated Exhibit 2.

10. The issues before the Commission are: (i) whether on March 24, 1998 plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer, and (ii) if so, what compensation, if any, is due plaintiff.

***********
The Full Commission adopts the findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner with some modifications and finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff was forty-five years old. Plaintiff and his family had lived in Thomasville, North Carolina since 1984. Plaintiff graduated from East Davidson High School in 1973.

2. Plaintiff has a continuous work history since 1973 of working at various jobs in the furniture industry in Davidson and Guilford Counties, North Carolina.

3. In 1992, plaintiff went to work for defendant-employer's predecessor, Guardsman Products Co., Inc. of High Point, N.C., which hired plaintiff in North Carolina to work in the laboratory of their High Point manufacturing plant, located about fifteen miles from plaintiff's home in Thomasville. Guardsman Products manufactured wood finishing products for use by the furniture manufacturing industry, and defendant-employer continues this business under its name.

4. After a short time, but still in 1992, Guardsman assigned plaintiff to travel from North Carolina to service its customer Vaughn Furniture at the latter's furniture manufacturing plant located in Galax, Virginia. Plaintiff was an on-site service representative for Guardsman Products; his job was to make sure Vaughn employees properly used Guardsman Products' furniture finishing products. Plaintiff's supervisor at Vaughn was Marty Hiatt, a Guardsman employee.

5. Plaintiff normally and usually worked for Guardsman at Vaughn's Galax plant from 7:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and from 7:00 a.m. through 11:00 a.m. on Friday. Plaintiff drove his own automobile from his home in Thomasville, North Carolina to Galax, Virginia each Monday morning, and returned to his home in Thomasville on Fridays. During the period from 1992 into 1994, Guardsman paid for plaintiff's travel expenses from Thomasville to Galax, a ninety mile trip one way, for plaintiff's nightly lodging during the workweek at the Galax Travel Lodge, and for plaintiff's meals in Galax.

6. On different occasions in 1992 through 1994, Guardsman sent plaintiff for short periods to service its customer Goldsboro Furniture in Goldsboro, North Carolina, and to service Vaughn's Johnson City, Tennessee plant. Guardsman paid for plaintiff's travel expenses, meals and lodging for these trips as well.

7. In 1994, Guardsman assigned plaintiff to service its customer Lexington Furniture Company at its plants in Lexington, North Carolina. Plaintiff worked as a wood finisher representative. He drove his own automobile from his Thomasville home to work at the Lexington plant and back, a round trip of thirty miles. Plaintiff usually worked Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. Plaintiff paid for his own travel and meal expenses during the period from 1994 into early 1997, when he was assigned to work at Lexington Furniture. Plaintiff's supervisor at Lexington was Rick Madden, a Guardsman employee.

8. In 1996, defendant-employer purchased Guardsman. In 1996, plaintiff earned about $34,500.00 a year working for defendant-employer.

9. In early 1997, plaintiff told his supervisor, Rick Madden, he was unhappy at Lexington Furniture and wanted to see if there were some opportunity for him to advance with defendant-employer at another location. A short time later, Mr. Madden informed plaintiff that Marty Hiatt, his former supervisor at Vaughn in Galax, said there was an opening in Galax at another one of defendant-employer's customers there, Webb Furniture. Plaintiff told Mr. Madden and Mr. Hiatt he would return to Galax if defendant-employer would agree to pay him more money. Mr. Hiatt told plaintiff defendant-employer would "make it worth his while" and would provide him with a place to stay in Galax.

10. In or about February 1997, plaintiff began working as a sales and service representative for defendant-employer at Webb's manufacturing plant in Galax. Due to the requirements of his work for defendant-employer in Galax, and in light of the long distance from his home, plaintiff usually could not return home each night, thus requiring that he stay overnight in Galax.

11. Plaintiff's supervisor at Webb, Johnny Green, lives in Pilot Mountain, North Carolina which is close enough to Galax to allow him to return home to Pilot Mountain from work each night. Plaintiff's other supervisor at Webb, Marty Hiatt, lives in Mount Airy, North Carolina, which is also close enough to Galax to allow him to return home to Mount Airy from work each night.

12. During his second assignment to Galax, plaintiff stayed during the workweek in lodging provided by defendant-employer rather than in a motel.

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

Related

Ross v. Young Supply Co.
322 S.E.2d 648 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)
Jennings v. Backyard Burgers of Asheville
472 S.E.2d 205 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sprinkle v. Lilly Industries, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sprinkle-v-lilly-industries-inc-ncworkcompcom-2002.