Tompkins v. Rocky Mount Preparatory School

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJune 10, 2008
DocketI.C. NO. 542857.
StatusPublished

This text of Tompkins v. Rocky Mount Preparatory School (Tompkins v. Rocky Mount Preparatory School) 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
Tompkins v. Rocky Mount Preparatory School, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

***********
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their *Page 2 representatives, the Full Commission, upon reconsideration of the evidence, modifies the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner, and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL MEDICAL
RECORDS INTO EVIDENCE AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE
Plaintiff filed a Motion, contemporaneous with her Brief to the Full Commission, seeking to admit into evidence the following: (1) medical records from Rocky Mount Family Medical Center dated March 15, 2006 through October 6, 2006, and attached to Plaintiff's Motion as Schedule "C," which are dates of treatment occurring prior to the October 25, 2006 hearing and the January 10, 2007 deposition of Mark S. Abel, M.D. (Plaintiff's primary treating physician at Rocky Mount Family Medical Center), but which were "inadvertently overlooked," and thus, not produced to Defendants; (2) medical records from Rocky Mount Family Medical Center dated December 10, 2007, and attached to Plaintiff's Motion as Schedule "A," which is after the October 25, 2006 hearing and the January 10, 2007 deposition of Mark S. Abel, M.D., and which were not produced to Defendants; and (3) a letter dated April 9, 2007, written by Mark S. Abel, M.D., recommending that the Plaintiff receive Social Security Disability benefits, and attached to Plaintiff's Motion as Schedule "B," which is after the October 25, 2006 hearing and the January 10, 2007 deposition of Mark S. Abel, M.D., and which was not produced to Defendants. In support of her Motion, Plaintiff states, among other things, that none of the medical records which she now proposes to admit into evidence are inconsistent with Dr. Abel's testimony, and that Defendants are not prejudiced by the admission of such records. Plaintiff further contends that these additional medical records "include nothing novel beyond that which is contained in his [Dr. Abel's] deposition and the medical records previously introduced." *Page 3

Defendants filed a Motion to Strike, in response to Plaintiff's Motion, stating as grounds in support thereof, that the admission of these additional medical records would be in violation of Rule 605 and Rule 607 of the Industrial Commission Rules, and would have a prejudicial effect on Defendants, since they did not have the benefit of using them in the presentation of their case. Defendants further argue that production of these additional medical records "would be to reward a clear violation of the Industrial Commission Rules regarding timely disclosure of medical information. . . ." Defendants ask that the Full Commission strike the medical records attached to Plaintiff's Motion.

After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the Full Commission finds that Plaintiff's Motion should be ALLOWED in part, and DENIED in part. As such, Defendants Motion to Strike should be ALLOWED in part, and DENIED in part, as follows:

1. The medical records from Rocky Mount Family Medical Center dated March 15, 2006 through October 6, 2006, and attached to Plaintiff's Motion as Schedule "C," which are dates of treatment occurring prior to the October 25, 2006 hearing and the January 10, 2007 deposition of Mark S. Abel, M.D., are hereby admitted into evidence, since Defendants had an opportunity to examine Dr. Abel regarding any treatment rendered, as well as any medical records generated as a result of treatment rendered, through the date of Dr. Abel's deposition;

2. The medical records from Rocky Mount Family Medical Center dated December 10, 2007, and attached to Plaintiff's Motion as Schedule "A," which is after the October 25, 2006 hearing and the January 10, 2007 deposition of Mark S. Abel, M.D., are hereby stricken from the record, *Page 4 since Defendants had no opportunity to examine Dr. Abel regarding any treatment rendered, as well as any medical records generated as a result of treatment rendered, following the date of Dr. Abel's deposition;

3. The letter dated April 9, 2007, written by Mark S. Abel, M.D., recommending that the Plaintiff receive Social Security Disability benefits, and attached to Plaintiff's Motion as Schedule "B," which is after the October 25, 2006 hearing and the January 10, 2007 deposition of Mark S. Abel, M.D., is hereby stricken from the record.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were agreed upon by the parties in the Pre-Trial Agreement as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission, and the North Carolina Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and this claim. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. All parties have been correctly designated, and there is no question as to the mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties.

3. On May 26, 2005, an employee-employer relationship existed between Plaintiff and Rocky Mount Preparatory School (hereinafter referred to as "Employer-Defendant").

4. On May 26, 2005, Plaintiff's average weekly wage was $346.15, yielding a compensation rate of $230.78.

5. The parties stipulated to the following documents: a Pre-Trial Agreement; medical records of Plaintiff (specifically, medical records from Rosario Guarino, M.D.; Nelson T. Macedo, *Page 5 M.D.; Rocky Mount Family Medical Center, from October 14, 1996 through March 15, 2006; Armstrong and Associates; NovaCare Rehabilitation; and William F. Lestini, M.D.); Industrial Commission Forms; discovery responses; and voicemail logs.

6. During the hearing, Defendants admitted into evidence a classroom desk and chair identified as Defendants' Exhibit D-1. Following the hearing, on January 18, 2007, the parties stipulated to the weight and dimensions of the desk and the chair. The desk weighs 17.6 pounds. The desktop is approximately two (2) feet by one and one-half (1 ½) feet. The height of the desk is approximately two (2) feet. The height of the chair is approximately 27 inches, and the chair has a 14-inch by 14-inch seat. The chair weighs 13.8 pounds.

***********
Based upon all of the competent and credible evidence from the record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Having been born on September 20, 1957, Plaintiff was 49 years old on the date of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. Plaintiff is five (5) feet two (2) inches tall, and weighs approximately 250 pounds.

2. Since 1992, Plaintiff worked as a teacher's assistant at several public school systems in North Carolina. Plaintiff has a high school diploma, but she does not have a college degree.

3. Employer-Defendant is a publicly funded, Title I Charter School in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. *Page 6

4. Employer-Defendant employed Plaintiff as a teacher's assistant/substitute teacher from 2000 through 2005. The 2004-2005 school year was the only year that Plaintiff worked for Employer-Defendant in a full-time capacity.

5.

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

Related

Britt v. Gator Wood, Inc.
648 S.E.2d 917 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Little v. Penn Ventilator Co.
345 S.E.2d 204 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Goforth v. K-Mart Corp.
605 S.E.2d 709 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
Chambers v. Transit Management
636 S.E.2d 553 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tompkins v. Rocky Mount Preparatory School, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tompkins-v-rocky-mount-preparatory-school-ncworkcompcom-2008.