Watts v. Central Envir. Heating A/C

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedDecember 19, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. 208778
StatusPublished

This text of Watts v. Central Envir. Heating A/C (Watts v. Central Envir. Heating A/C) 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
Watts v. Central Envir. Heating A/C, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
Upon review of all of the competent evidence of record with references to the errors assigned and finding no good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission modifies and AFFIRMS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

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

STIPULATIONS
1. All the parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the 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. An employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer at all relevant times herein.

3. Defendant-employer was insured for workers' compensation purposes by Cincinnati Insurance Co., Inc. at all relevant times herein.

4. Plaintiff average weekly wage is $550.00.

5. The following exhibits were entered into the evidence of record at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

Stipulated Exhibit 1 plaintiff's medical records

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 plaintiff's time card

Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 plaintiff's claim file

Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 articles of incorporation

Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 medical document, dog

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 plaintiff's medical records

Defendant's Exhibit 2 discovery responses

Defendant's Exhibit 3 Form 19

6. The issues before the Commission are whether plaintiff sustained an injury by accident in the course and scope of her employment with defendants on August 29, 2001; and if so, what, if any, benefits are plaintiff entitled to receive under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act; is plaintiff entitled to recover under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 97-90(e), 97-12, or 97-88.2?

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was born June 8, 1951, and she was 51 years old at the time of the hearing before Deputy Commissioner Glenn.

2. Plaintiff was employed by defendants, a seller and installer of heating and air conditioning units in April 2000 as their office manager. Her duties were varied, including accounts receivable, scheduling of installations, customer service and running errands for her supervisor, Kelly Morton. Kelly Morton was the owner and president of the company.

3. On or about April 10, 2001, plaintiff tripped over Mr. Morton's dog, a black labrador, that he brought to the office.

4. As a result of tripping over the dog, plaintiff experienced pain in her left knee. She obtained medical treatment from Dr. Sam Oweida, an orthopedist with Oweida Orthopedic Associates in Charlotte.

5. Plaintiff was scheduled to return to Dr. Oweida in June of 2001, but did not because her knee was much better and she was not having problems.

6. On or about August 29, 2001, plaintiff again fell over Mr. Morton's dog, which was lying across the doorway of Mr. Morton's office. This occurred when plaintiff turned to leave the office after reviewing the day's errands with Mr. Morton.

7. Plaintiff was unable to obtain an appointment to see Dr. Oweida or any other physician in his clinic until September 17, 2001.

8. Plaintiff was treated by Dr. Oweida on September 17, 2001. His medical note for that visit indicates that plaintiff was seen for a new injury that occurred when she tripped over a dog at work.

9. Dr. Oweida injected plaintiff's left knee and noted that he had previously injected the knee for some acute pain that she had developed, but her prior pain had completely resolved and she was asymptomatic until this episode occurred with the dog in August 2001.

10. Plaintiff advised defendants through Mr. Morton that she had fallen over his dog on August 29, 2001, and she asked him if he was going to file a worker's compensation claim for her. He did not.

11. After asking Morton four times if he was going to complete an accident report and Morton not saying or doing anything to cause a report of the accident to be reported, plaintiff called the insurance agency that issued the coverage on behalf of defendants, Cincinnati Insurance, and asked what steps she should take to report the claim.

12. After plaintiff's inquiry, a Form 19 was faxed to her. Plaintiff completed and returned the Form 19. The form was received by Cincinnati Insurance adjuster Dan Mays on or about October 5, 2001.

13. Mr. Mays then forwarded the claim to Teresa McAllister, who was also an adjuster for the defendants.

14. After Ms. McAllister received the claim and conducted her investigation, she accepted the claim as "medical only."

15. When plaintiff's physician later advised Ms. McAllister that arthroscopic surgery would be needed, Ms. McAllister authorized the surgery and related expenses. The surgery was performed on December 27, 2001 by Dr. Oweida at Mercy Hospital South in Charlotte, North Carolina.

16. Ms. McAllister accepted the claim as compensable, advised plaintiff that the claim was accepted and that she would be provided necessary benefits including weekly compensation. Because plaintiff would be out of work for a sufficient period, Ms. McAllister informed plaintiff that she would waive the seven-day waiting period and initiate compensation checks.

17. After plaintiff's surgery, when the compensation checks did not come as Ms. McAllister had promised, plaintiff contacted her to find out what had happened. Ms. McAllister told plaintiff that she now had a question about a preexisting condition of the left knee.

18. When questioned at the hearing by the Deputy Commissioner as to what preexisting condition she had a question about, Ms. McAllister indicated that she believed plaintiff to be suffering from a preexisting condition as noted in the medical record of Dr. Oweida dated April 30, 2001.

19. When the Deputy Commissioner directed Ms. McAllister to Dr. Oweida's note of September 17, 2001, in which the doctor indicated that the prior condition for which he had treated plaintiff's knee "had completely resolved" and was asymptomatic until this episode occurred with the employer's dog, Ms. McAllister stated that she refused to accept the opinion of the treating physician that plaintiff's preexisting condition had resolved prior to August 29, 2001.

20. Ms. McAllister testified that she had no other evidence to contradict or cast doubt upon the treating physician's opinion that plaintiff's preexisting condition had resolved before August 29, 2001, nor does she have any medical training that would enable her to reject the doctor's opinion. Ms. McAllister testified that she had not talked to Dr. Oweida or any other doctor to ascertain whether Dr. Oweida's opinion was correct or not.

21. Despite this lack of contrary evidence, Ms. McAllister further testified that she thereafter denied the claim because she refused to accept the medical opinion of Dr. Oweida.

22. Ms. McAllister's failure to deny the claim after her interview with Mr. Morton, along with her statements to plaintiff regarding potential reinstatement of the claim after the denial was issued, indicate that the denial of the claim was not based in any way upon the statement to the adjuster by Mr. Morton.

23.

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

Related

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)
Watts v. Central Envir. Heating A/C, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-central-envir-heating-ac-ncworkcompcom-2003.