Ward v. Sumter utilities/quanta Services

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedAugust 6, 2009
DocketI.C. NO. 351146.
StatusPublished

This text of Ward v. Sumter utilities/quanta Services (Ward v. Sumter utilities/quanta Services) 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
Ward v. Sumter utilities/quanta Services, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2009).

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 representatives, the Full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence affirms with modifications the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
ISSUES
1. When did Plaintiff reach maximum medical improvement?

2. Whether Defendants are entitled to a credit for temporary total disability compensation paid, and if so, in what amount? *Page 2

***********
The Full Commission finds as facts and concludes as matters of law the following, which the parties entered into at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission, and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury as a result of electrocution occurring on May 7, 2003.

2. Defendants filed a Form 60 dated July 28, 2003. Plaintiff's average weekly wage at the time of this accident was $581.46. Plaintiff's Form 18M, Application for Additional Medical Compensation, was approved by the Industrial Commission on March 13, 2007. Plaintiff was released to trial work with restrictions on December 6, 2005, pursuant to order of Dr. Gloria Liu.

3. Plaintiff's trial return to work from February 5, 2005 to February 24, 2005 was unsuccessful. Defendants executed a Form 62 on March 21, 2005 acknowledging reinstatement of compensation for temporary total disability. Plaintiff was released to return to work without restriction on July 10, 2007 pursuant to the order of Dr. Michael Lee.

4. Plaintiff did commence employment with Carolinas Medical Response, Inc. on July 12, 2007, at a starting hourly rate of $9.25. Plaintiff received a permanent partial impairment rating to his right lower extremity and whole person from Dr. Jeffrey K. Kobs, Raleigh Orthopedic Clinic, on or about December 1, 2004.

5. Plaintiff received permanent partial impairment ratings to the right and left arms and right and left legs from Dr. Michael D. Peck, UNC Hospitals, on August 31, 2006.

6. A series of twenty-seven photographs were taken under the direction of Dr. Peck *Page 3 on or about August 31, 2006, evidencing body and facial disfigurements sustained by Plaintiff.

7. Plaintiff underwent surgical removal of his appendix in June, 2003.

8. Plaintiff underwent a left carpal tunnel release on August 28, 2003.

9. Plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery on his right knee on April 28, 2004.

10. Plaintiff underwent a below-the-knee amputation of his right leg on July 15, 2004.

11. Plaintiff underwent revision of the tracheotomy scar on his neck on November 14, 2005.

***********
EXHIBITS
The following documents were accepted into evidence as stipulated Exhibits:

a. Exhibit 1: Executed Pre-Trial Agreement;

b. Exhibit 2: Industrial Commission Forms;

c. Exhibit 3: Plaintiff's medical records;

d. Exhibit 4: Nurse case manager's report dated March 21, 2006;

e. Exhibit 5: Plaintiffs summary of his scarring; and

f. Exhibit 6: Photographs taken per Dr. Peck

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is twenty-seven years old at the time of this decision, with a date of birth of February 6, 1982.

2. On May 7, 2003, Plaintiff was working with Defendant-Employer as a lineman, *Page 4 when he sustained two electrical shocks that went through his body and exited in several locations. Plaintiff sustained electrical burns to approximately forty-three percent of his body, with about one-third of the burned areas being third-degree burns and the remainder being second-degree burns.

3. Plaintiff was admitted to the burn unit at UNC Hospitals on May 7, 2003, where he was treated for the burns to his ears, arms, trunk, buttocks, legs and feet. Plaintiff remained hospitalized for over two months and underwent extensive skin graft operations, two decompression surgeries and multiple other medical procedures, including a tracheotomy.

4. Plaintiff was discharged from UNC Hospitals on July 17, 2003 and returned home to Whiteville, North Carolina, where he resided with his parents. During the weeks that followed, Plaintiff's mother, Melinda Ward, helped Plaintiff with his wound care and taught him how to do it himself. Prior to Plaintiff's discharge, the staff at UNC Hospitals had instructed her in the proper care for Plaintiff's wounds, but no physician prescribed attendant care, nor did Plaintiff or anyone else contact Defendant-Carrier or the Industrial Commission to seek authorization for attendant care services. Ms. Ward initially missed two weeks of work to stay home with Plaintiff. Approximately three or four weeks after his release from the hospital, Plaintiff was proficient in his own wound care.

5. In August 2003, Plaintiff underwent a carpal tunnel release to his left wrist, which was causally related to the May 7, 2003 accident.

6. In April 2004, Plaintiff underwent a right knee arthroscopy, causally related to the May 7, 2003 accident.

7. As the result of a failure of the exit wounds on his right foot to heal, and the development of osteomyelitis, Plaintiff underwent a below-the-knee amputation of his right leg *Page 5 on July 15, 2004. Following the amputation, there has been an ongoing effort to fit Plaintiff with prostheses, complicated periodically by sustained shrinkage of the right leg stump and skin breakdown. Plaintiff has also engaged in extensive physical therapy for rehabilitation of his right leg function with the prosthesis.

8. Plaintiff underwent a functional capacity evaluation on November 11, 2004. The evaluator concluded that Plaintiff could not safely return to his pre-injury job and that he would benefit from further therapy to improve his right leg strength, balance, function and gait. Specifically, with regard to Plaintiff's right knee function, the evaluator noted that Plaintiff "demonstrated normal range of motion of right knee but was limited in flexion with use of [the] prosthesis."

9. On December 1, 2004, nearly nineteen months after the accident, Plaintiff saw Dr. Kobs for an independent medical examination. Dr. Kobs concluded that Plaintiff was at maximum medical improvement with a PPI rating of seventy percent to his right leg, or twenty-eight percent to his whole person. Dr. Kobs testified that his December 1, 2004 evaluation was limited to the orthopedic status of Plaintiff s right leg only and did not take into account the conditions of Plaintiff's left leg, right arm, left wrist and extensive burns on numerous body planes.

10. Plaintiff attempted a trial return to work with Defendant-Employer beginning on February 5, 2005. As of February 24, 2005, Plaintiff withdrew from work because the demands of the job were causing irritation, pain and skin breakdowns, which made him unable to do his job in a safe and efficient manner.

11.

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

Related

Collins v. Speedway Motor Sports Corp.
598 S.E.2d 185 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ward v. Sumter utilities/quanta Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-sumter-utilitiesquanta-services-ncworkcompcom-2009.