Williams v. Lloyd

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 10, 2008
DocketI.C. NOS. 652563 PH-1785.
StatusPublished

This text of Williams v. Lloyd (Williams v. Lloyd) 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
Williams v. Lloyd, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Hall and the briefs and arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, and *Page 2 upon reconsideration, the Full Commission affirms in part and modifies in part the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matter of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS
1. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Wake County, North Carolina.

2. Plaintiff was working as an employee of James Lloyd d/b/a Forest Hills Service Center in Durham, North Carolina on May 30, 2006.

3. On May 30, 2006, James Lloyd d/b/a Forest Hills Service Center in Durham, North Carolina was a business subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

4. For purposes of this claim, plaintiff and defendants agree that plaintiff's average weekly wage on May 30, 2006 was $334.26, yielding a compensation rate of $222.95.

5. On May 30, 2006, plaintiff was injured by an accident which arose out of and was sustained in the course of his employment with Forest Hills Service Center, to wit: the first phalange of his left second finger was partially amputated when it became caught in an automobile engine's timing belt.

6. Plaintiff and defendants agree that the May 30, 2006 injury was compensable under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

7. On May 30, 2006, James Lloyd d/b/a Forest Hills Service Center did not have workers' compensation insurance in effect as required by the North Carolina General Statutes, although Mr. Lloyd contends that he believed in good faith that he did.

8. There is a dispute between James Lloyd d/b/a Forest Hills Service Center and *Page 3 Westport Insurance Company regarding whether or not there was coverage in effect at the time of plaintiff's accident or whether Westport and its insured wrongfully failed to provide such coverage.

9. Plaintiff was unable to work from his May 30, 2006 injury until June 13, 2006. Plaintiff returned to work on June 13, 2006 and worked a normal schedule until June 20, 2006, when his injured finger ruptured due to an infection and required amputation shortly thereafter. Plaintiff did not return to work at Forest Hills Service Center.

10. Plaintiff was released to light duty work on July 20, 2006, but the parties disagree whether light duty work was available for plaintiff.

11. Plaintiff is entitled to some amount of temporary total disability benefits.

12. Plaintiff could not attend scheduled physical therapy because defendants did not pay for it. Plaintiff was unable to continue treatment until he went on his own to Dr. Terry Messer at Wake Orthopaedics on December 6, 2006, where he was found to be at maximum medical improvement and was released to return to work.

13. As a result of the May 30, 2006 accident, plaintiff sustained an injury to his left second finger and was assigned a permanent partial disability rating of 60% by Dr. Messer, resulting in a total amount of $5,350.80 for permanent partial disability. At the time of the Deputy Commissioner's hearing, this amount had not been paid to plaintiff.

14. As a result of his injury, plaintiff incurred medical bills for treatment that was reasonably necessary to effect a cure and provide relief for his injury from the following health care providers, which at the time of the Deputy Commissioner's hearing remained unpaid and owed by defendants:

a. Durham Emergency Phys.: $615.00

*Page 4

b. Durham Anesthesia Assoc.: $1,456.00

c. Durham Radiology Assoc.: $42.00

d. Durham Regional Hospital: $20,762.29

e. Duke Hospital: $411.00

f. Duke PDC: $651.00

g. Chapel Hill Orthopedics: $3,198.00

h. Raleigh Orthopaedics: $1,313.00

i. Wake Orthopaedics: $229.00

j. Lab Corp: $76.00

15. The following were admitted as Stipulated Exhibits at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner:

a. Stipulated Exhibit No. 1 — Duke Hospital records and bills.

b. Stipulated Exhibit No. 2 — Duke Private Diagnostic bill.

c. Stipulated Exhibit No. 3 — Durham Regional Hospital records and bills.

d. Stipulated Exhibit No. 4 — Durham Anesthesia bill.

e. Stipulated Exhibit No. 5 — Durham Radiology Assoc. bill.

f. Stipulated Exhibit No. 6 — Raleigh Orthopaedics' records and bills.

g. Stipulated Exhibit No. 7 — Wake Orthopaedics' records and bills.

h. Stipulated Exhibit No. 8 — Chapel Hill Orthopaedics' records and bills.

i. Stipulated Exhibit No. 9 — Lab Corp bill.

j. Stipulated Exhibit No. 10 — Durham Emergency Physicians bill.

k. Stipulated Exhibit No. 11 — Plaintiff's federal income tax documentation.

l. Stipulated Exhibit No. 12 — ESC Records.

*Page 5

m. Stipulated Exhibit No. 13 — NCIC Coverage screen.

16. This issues before the Full Commission are what benefits plaintiff is entitled to receive and what penalties are appropriate to be assessed against defendants.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. As a result of his admittedly compensable May 30, 2006 injury by accident, plaintiff was unable to work from May 31, 2006 to June 12, 2006. Plaintiff returned to work on June 13, 2006 and continued working until June 20, 2006, when his injured finger ruptured due to an infection and required amputation shortly thereafter.

2. Dr. Andrew Jones of Chapel Hill Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine cleared plaintiff for light duty on July 20, 2006; however, plaintiff never returned to work for defendant-employer after June 20, 2006.

3. Plaintiff did not provide defendant-employer with his release to return-to-work notes and did not keep defendant-employer informed regarding his work status until he tried to return to work in December 2006.

4. Defendant-employer James Lloyd thought plaintiff abandoned his job when he took his tools from the work place, so Mr. Lloyd hired another mechanic to take plaintiff's place on September 14, 2006.

5. Vickie Couch worked for defendant-employer and testified that light duty work was available to plaintiff. However, defendant-employer did not offer any evidence of an actual *Page 6 job offer made to plaintiff or what kind of light duty work was available and whether it was full-time work.

6. Plaintiff's health care treatment was cut off due to defendants' failure to pay for it and plaintiff's inability to pay for it due to lack of income, which resulted in a longer period of time that plaintiff was out of work. Plaintiff was not found to be at maximum medical improvement and did not feel comfortable returning to work with his injury until he was able to see Dr. Terry Messer of Raleigh Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Specialists on December 6, 2006.

7. As a result of the May 30, 2006 accident, Dr.

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

Related

§ 97-18
North Carolina § 97-18(i)
§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-31
North Carolina § 97-31(3)
§ 97-93
North Carolina § 97-93
§ 97-94
North Carolina § 97-94(d)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. Lloyd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-lloyd-ncworkcompcom-2008.