Sprinkles v. Dinnertainment, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 2, 2008
DocketI.C. Nos. 542926 PH-1538.
StatusPublished

This text of Sprinkles v. Dinnertainment, Inc. (Sprinkles v. Dinnertainment, 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
Sprinkles v. Dinnertainment, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Hall and the briefs and arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, and upon reconsideration, the Full Commission affirms in part and modifies in part the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

* * * * * * * * * * *
RULINGS ON EVIDENTIARY MATTERS *Page 2
At the hearing before the Full Commission, defendants indicated that they sent proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage to Assistant Attorney General Curtner on April 27, 2007. The Commission hereby receives into evidence the letter and attachments regarding defendant-employer's coverage from November 8, 2002 until March 23, 2005.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matter of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. Defendants stipulated at the Deputy Commissioner's hearing that they did not have workers' compensation insurance.

2. The following were marked and received into evidence at the Deputy Commissioner's hearing as:

a. Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 — Program from summer musical.

b. Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 — I.C. forms and consent order.

c. Defendants' Exhibit No. 1 — Letter from Ms. McDonald.

d. Defendants' Exhibit No. 2 — Letter and check to plaintiff.

e. Defendants' Exhibit No. 3 — Copy of check.

f. Defendants' Exhibit No. 4 — Email from Chuck Drury.

g. Defendants' Exhibit No. 5 — Criminal complaint/affidavit against W. McDonald.

h. Defendants' Exhibit No. 6 — Criminal complaint/affidavit against J. McDonald.

i. Defendants' Exhibit No. 7 — High Point Regional admission record.

*Page 3

j. Defendants' Exhibit No. 8 — High Point Regional emergency department record.

k. Defendants' Exhibit No. 9 — Copy of check dated 6/24/2005.

l. Defendants' Exhibit No. 10 — July 7, 2005 letter to Alton Cox from Ms. McDonald.

m. Defendants' Exhibit No. 11 — July 8, 2005 letter to Alton Cox from Ms. McDonald with copy of payroll stub and check.

n. Defendants' Exhibit No. 12 — Photograph.

o. Defendants' Exhibit No. 13 — Photograph.

p. Defendants' Exhibit No. 14 — Photograph.

q. Defendants' Exhibit No. 15 — ESC records.

r. Defendants' Exhibit No. 16 — Misdemeanor criminal summons.

s. State's Exhibit No. 1 — ESC records.

t. State's Exhibit No. 2 — Secretary of State records.

3. The issues before the Full Commission are what the employment relationship was between plaintiff and defendant-employer on June 27, 2005, whether plaintiff's June 27, 2005 injury arose out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer, whether defendants are entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1, and whether penalties and sanctions should be assessed against defendants. *Page 4

* * * * * * * * * * *
Based upon the competent evidence of record herein, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was 32 years old on the date of the Deputy Commissioner's hearing. Plaintiff worked for defendant-employer as a general manager, director, and performer.

2. Wayne McDonald is president, a director and shareholder and Wendy McDonald is secretary and treasurer of Dinnertainment, Inc.

3. Plaintiff earned $892.31 a week, yielding a compensation rate of $594.90 a week. Defendants did not produce a Form 22 as required by the Act.

4. Employment Security Commission records show that defendant-employer had three or more employees from the third quarter of 2002, which began on August 1, 2002, through the second quarter of 2005, which ended on June 30, 2005. Additionally, Ms. McDonald testified that defendant-employer ceased operations at the end of the second quarter of 2005. Thus, the Commission finds that defendant-employer had three or more employees and was subject to the Act from August 1, 2002 through June 30, 2005.

5. Wendy McDonald alleges that plaintiff quit working for defendant-employer on June 24, 2005 during a phone conversation. Plaintiff testified that he called Ms. McDonald because he was very upset when he received only half of his salary in his paycheck, but that he did not quit his job. Plaintiff returned to work on the weekend and began preparing the stage on Sunday. He did remove some personal items from his office that day.

6. Alton Cox also worked for defendant-employer and testified that he was in his office on June 27, 2005 talking on the phone with Ms. McDonald. He stated that plaintiff was in *Page 5 plaintiff's office working on the next production. The Commission finds that plaintiff did not resign and was not terminated prior to June 27, 2005.

7. On June 27, 2005, Wayne McDonald and his son Jason McDonald confronted plaintiff in plaintiff's office about a report that items had been removed from defendant-employer's premise. Plaintiff was attacked in his office by Jason McDonald, a former co-worker, while Wayne McDonald stood nearby.

8. On June 27, 2005, plaintiff suffered an injury by accident when he was attacked and suffered injuries to his head and back. Plaintiff initially went to the High Point Regional Hospital emergency room, but because they did not have neurosurgical coverage in place at that time, he was transferred to Forsyth Medical Center.

9. Dr. William Bell treated plaintiff on June 27, 2005 at the Forsyth Medical Center emergency room and had a follow-up appointment with plaintiff on July 12, 2005. A CT scan showed a traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. Dr. Bell gave plaintiff Lorcet Plus for pain, Flexeril for a muscle relaxant, and a note to stay out of work for two weeks.

10. Defendants have not paid for any of plaintiff's medical bills or lost wages. Plaintiff was written out of work for two weeks and provided no competent evidence that he was disabled from work thereafter. The Commission finds that plaintiff's treatment at his initial visit to High Point Regional Hospital emergency room, the visit to Forsyth Medical Center, and the treatment he received from Dr. Bell at Neurosurgical Associates of the Carolinas were reasonably related to plaintiff's compensable injury by accident. No medical bills were received into evidence.

11. Documentation shows that defendant-employer had workers' compensation insurance with The Hartford from November 8, 2002 until March 23, 2005, when insurance was *Page 6 canceled for non-payment of premiums. However, the evidence of record does not show that defendant-employer had workers' compensation coverage from March 23, 2005 through June 30, 2005, defendant-employer's last day of business. Therefore, the Commission finds that defendant-employer was subject to the Act and did not have workers' compensation insurance for a period of 99 days.

12.

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

Related

Demery v. Perdue Farms, Inc.
545 S.E.2d 485 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.
290 S.E.2d 682 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)
Sparks v. Mountain Breeze Restaurant & Fish House, Inc.
286 S.E.2d 575 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sprinkles v. Dinnertainment, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sprinkles-v-dinnertainment-inc-ncworkcompcom-2008.