Timmons v. N.C. Dept. of Transportation

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 29, 1997
DocketI.C. No. 807396
StatusPublished

This text of Timmons v. N.C. Dept. of Transportation (Timmons v. N.C. Dept. of Transportation) 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
Timmons v. N.C. Dept. of Transportation, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1997).

Opinion

The undersigned have reviewed the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals filed August 6, 1996 and amends the Opinion and Award filed on May 26, 1995. The original Opinion and Award filed May 26, 1995 shall remain in effect in its entirety except as to the modifications below.

******************

The Full Commission finds as facts and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing as:

STIPULATIONS

1. A North Carolina Industrial Commission Form 21 Settlement Agreement dated August 6, 1980 appears in the Commission file.

2. On July 30, 1980, the parties were bound by and subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

3. On said date(s) the employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.

4. As of said date(s) the defendant was a duly qualified self-insurer under the provisions of the North Carolina Workers Compensation Act.

5. That plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment with the defendant-employer on July 30, 1980.

6. On said date plaintiff was earning an average weekly wage of $135.20.

7. The parties further stipulate the following documentation into evidence:

a. Stipulated Exhibit 1 consisting of approximately 27 pages including a Form 19 dated July 9, 1980 and a Form 21 dated August 6, 1980 offered into evidence by plaintiff.

b. Stipulated Exhibit 2 consisting of approximately 12 pages offered into evidence by plaintiff.

c. Stipulated Exhibit 3 consisting of approximately 10 pages offered into evidence by the defendant.

At the hearing on November 15, 1993, the parties introduced the following exhibits:

1. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, marked P1, consisting of a check stub reference to compensation paid plaintiff by the defendant to which the defendant objects.

2. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, marked P2, consisting of a blueprint of house plans to be retained by plaintiff for safe keeping.

3. Defendant's Exhibit 1, marked Dl, consisting of an estimate of construction costs by Donald Chandler with respect to a dwelling house with handicapped accommodations.

4. Defendant's Exhibit 2, marked D2, consisting of an estimate of construction cost by Donald Chandler for renovation of a dwelling house with handicapped accommodations.

5. Defendant's Exhibit 4,, marked D4, consisting of an estimate by Timothy George for construction of a dwelling house with handicapped accommodations.

6. Defendant's Exhibit 5, marked D5, consisting of a stipulated document reflecting payments made by the defendant to or on behalf of plaintiff.

7. Plaintiff's Exhibit 3' marked P3, consisting of a letter dated May 1, 1992 to which the defendant objects.

At the hearing of this matter on November 15, 1993, the plaintiff moved that the medical and rehabilitation depositions be taken at the defendant's expense, which motion is allowed.

Subsequent to the hearing on November 15, 1993, the parties entered the following documentation into the record:

1. Deposition of Emily M. McKinney dated December 2, 1993.

2. Deposition of Cynthia L. Wilhelm, Ph.D. dated December 2, 1993.

Subsequent to the hearing on November 15, 1993, plaintiff moved that the defendant be assessed the cost of the life style plan prepared by Dr. Cynthia L. Wilhelm, which Motion is allowed.

Based upon the competent evidence of record the Full Commission makes the following additional findings of fact:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This cause was set upon the Commission's trial calendar by the defendant filing of a Form 33 dated June 29, 1992 for a determination of such handicapped housing and life care plan to which plaintiff may be entitled under Sections 97-25 and 26 of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act together with a Motion to terminate total disability compensation benefits being paid to plaintiff pursuant to a Form 21 entered into by the parties dated August 6, 1980, to which plaintiff responded by filing a Form 33R dated July 13, 192 requesting that the defendant continue to pay total disability compensation benefits, provide handicapped housing accommodations and a life care plan.

2. Subsequent to the adducing of evidence by Deputy Commissioner Ford on November 15, 1993, the parties have provided the Commission with further expert testimony by deposition concerning the plaintiff's physical condition, living accommodations, life style, and future expectations concerning medical and physical needs.

3. Most of the basic facts in this case are not disputed but agreed upon, among which are the following:

a. Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury July 30, 1980.

b. As a result of the injury, plaintiff lost use of both his lower extremities and became a paraplegic.

c. The defendant had paid plaintiff total disability compensation benefits from July 30, 1980 to the present at the rate of $90.14 per week and paid all medical expenses relating to plaintiff's injuries resulting from the accident on July 30, 1980.

d. In addition, the defendant has provided plaintiff with automotive equipment adapting plaintiff's automobile to accommodate his disabilities, provided plaintiff with a wheelchair, braces and a walker, and prior to 1982 construction of an addition to his parents home designed to accommodate the plaintiff in rehabilitating himself and his physical abilities.

e. Subsequent to his injury on July 30, 1980, the plaintiff returned to part-time work for the defendant which became full-time work on October 28, 1989, at which job he is presently earning $17,768.00.

g. In addition to the forgoing earnings from his employment with the defendant, plaintiff earns an additional modest income from conducting exercise classes at a local health spa.

h. From 1982 until 1989, plaintiff lived in a handicapped accessible housing apartment at a modest rent of $53.00 after which his rent was increased to $300.00 per month at which time plaintiff moved back to his parents home where he resided until January of 1991, since which date he has been living in an apartment which is not adapted to accommodate his disabilities.

4. Since his injury on July 30, 1980, plaintiff with the help of his parents and the defendant providing the benefits afforded by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act, has steadily and painstakingly rehabilitated himself to the point that he was able to return to full-time work in 1989 and has maintained his physical health by constant care and exercise, lifting weights about three times per week, so that he is not in constant need of medical attention and lives a lifestyle of independence and self-reliance. Those who have dealt with the plaintiff in assisting him with his development since his accident in 1980 speak well of his attitude, his dedication to rehabilitating himself and the hopeful prospects for his future development.

5. Plaintiff's perseverance and diligence in rehabilitating himself with the help as stated above are to be rewarded and encouraged by the continuance of such help and assistance and not to be discouraged and suppressed by the withdrawal of the help and benefits provided by the Compensation Act. Although this statement borders on editorializing, it is a fact which is supported by the evidence submitted by the expert witnesses in this case.

6.

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

Related

Derebery v. Pitt County Fire Marshall
347 S.E.2d 814 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Timmons v. N.C. Dept. of Transportation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timmons-v-nc-dept-of-transportation-ncworkcompcom-1997.