Uriarte v. Brown's Mill Service

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJune 30, 2011
DocketI.C. NO. W23416.
StatusPublished

This text of Uriarte v. Brown's Mill Service (Uriarte v. Brown's Mill Service) 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
Uriarte v. Brown's Mill Service, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the Opinion and Award.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission, and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. *Page 2

2. All parties have been correctly designated, and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

3. The parties were subject to the Workers' Compensation Act at the time of the compensable injury by accident of March 30, 2009.

4. An employer-employee relationship existed between the parties at the time of the compensable injury by accident of March 30, 2009.

5. The date of the injury which is the subject of this claim is March 30, 2009.

6. The Employer in this case is Brown's Mill Service and the carrier and/or claims administrator liable on the risk is Stonewood Insurance Company.

7. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent/statutes of limitation pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 97-22, 97-23 and 97-24.

8. Plaintiff has been out of work since July 22, 2009 and has been receiving indemnity benefits in the amount of $247.67 per week since that time.

9. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $371.49, which yields a compensation rate of $247.67.

***********
The following exhibits were received and admitted into evidence at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

EXHIBITS
1. Stipulated Exhibits:

1. Pretrial agreement;

2. Medical records;

3. IC forms and filings; and

*Page 3

4. Nurse/case management documents

2. Defense Exhibits:

1. Discovery;
2. Recorded statement;
3. Surveillance DVD;
4. Surveillance DVD;
5. Surveillance DVD;
6. Surveillance DVD; and
7. Surveillance DVD

***********
The following depositions were received and admitted into evidence at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

DEPOSITIONS
The following depositions were received and admitted into evidence.

1. Deposition of Dr. Phillip Perdue, taken on August 26, 2010

2. Deposition of Dr. Williams A. Huff, taken on July 9, 2010

3. Deposition of Dr. Divya Patel, taken on June 10, 2010

4. Deposition of Elizabeth Fuller, RN, taken on June 2, 2010

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is forty-five (45) years old. His work history has primarily been in the field of welding. *Page 4

2. As of March 2009, Plaintiff worked for Employer-Defendant and his job consisted primarily of the following: welding and other manual construction/repair jobs.

3. The compensable accident in this case occurred on March 30, 2009, when Plaintiff fell through the roof of a hog barn on which he was working, falling approximately twelve feet to the concrete floor. Plaintiff testified he primarily felt a stinging pain in his right wrist, as well as some pain in the left chest area, after the fall.

4. Because of the pain in his wrist, Employer bought Plaintiff some pain pills and an ace bandage. Plaintiff went home that day, but he returned to work the next day and continued working in his normal position. The Employer assumed that Plaintiff had just suffered a sprained wrist and that it would get better over time. As a result, the Employer did not report the accident to its workers' compensation carrier, Stonewood Insurance Company.

5. Over the course of the next several weeks, Plaintiff's pain did not improve. Plaintiff asked the Employer to take him to the doctor, and Employer took Plaintiff to Goshen Medical Center in Beulaville.

6. On April 28, 2009, Plaintiff was seen at Goshen Medical Center, and complained only of right wrist and left-sided chest and rib pain. Plaintiff's right wrist x-ray reflected a broken right wrist, scapholunate widening, and a foreign body within the dorsal soft tissues at the lateral aspect of the third metacarpal head. His arm was placed in a splint, and he was referred to orthopedist Dr. W. Alexander Huff for a specialty evaluation.

7. Dr. Huff, of Huff Orthopaedic Group, is a board-certified specialist in orthopedic surgery and treats all types of musculoskeletal injuries. Dr. Huff testified at his deposition that when new patients come in, they are asked to describe all of their symptoms. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Huff on April 29, 2009. There was no medical case manager present at that appointment, nor *Page 5 was anyone from the Employer present. Plaintiff's only complaint was of right wrist pain. The medical record indicates that Plaintiff, "Denies any other acute injuries or ailments at this time."

8. Plaintiff was seen again by Dr. Huff on May 20, 2009, and Plaintiff's son was present, serving as an interpreter. There was no medical case manager present at this appointment either. Plaintiff only complaint at the second appointment was of right wrist pain. He made no mention of any problems with his neck, shoulder, elbows, back, or ankles. Dr. Huff referred Plaintiff to a hand specialist and provided a note that Plaintiff was capable of returning to work with no use of his right hand. Dr. Huff testified that he did not think that Plaintiff was disabled from all work.

9. Plaintiff's last visit with Dr. Huff was on June 10, 2009. This was an unscheduled visit. Plaintiff came in again with his son who served as an interpreter, and again, there was no medical case manager present at this appointment. Plaintiff once again made no other complaints of pain or injuries besides his right wrist. The medical record reflects that Dr. Huff was unable to provide any additional medical treatment at this time, again referred Plaintiff to a hand specialist, and indicated that Plaintiff could return to light duty work with no right hand work.

10. Plaintiff testified at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner that in late May and early June of 2009, he began experiencing symptoms in other parts of his body in addition to his right wrist. Plaintiff testified at the hearing that these complaints included pain in his neck, both shoulders, both arms and elbows, chest, low back, both legs, and both ankles. Plaintiff testified that he told all of his doctors about these other symptoms at the time they arose in May and June of 2009.

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

Related

Parsons v. Pantry, Inc.
485 S.E.2d 867 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)
Collins v. Speedway Motor Sports Corp.
598 S.E.2d 185 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Whitley v. Columbia Lumber Mfg. Co.
348 S.E.2d 336 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Sims v. Charmes/Arby's Roast Beef
542 S.E.2d 277 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Click v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.
255 S.E.2d 192 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Uriarte v. Brown's Mill Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uriarte-v-browns-mill-service-ncworkcompcom-2011.