Woodruff v. Central Piedmont Community College

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedSeptember 15, 2011
DocketI.C. NO. W67351.
StatusPublished

This text of Woodruff v. Central Piedmont Community College (Woodruff v. Central Piedmont Community College) 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
Woodruff v. Central Piedmont Community College, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

***********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Griffin and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties. The Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Griffin and enters the following Opinion and Award:

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

STIPULATIONS *Page 2
1. All parties are properly brought before the Industrial Commission, are subject to and bound by the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, that the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and of the subject matter, and that an employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant-employer.

2. All parties have been correctly designated, that defendant-employer has designated Corvel Corporation as its Third Party Administrator, that defendant-employer is properly on the risk, and there are no questions as to insurance coverage of the parties.

3. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $849.59 and that her weekly compensation rate is $566.42.

4. As a consequence of the work-related injury, plaintiff's treating physician prescribed that she remain out of work beginning June 21, 2010. Plaintiff's physician had not released her to return to any work as of August 2, 2010, the date that defendant initiated temporary total disability compensation.

5. Plaintiff is a 10-month employee. Plaintiff was employed with defendant for part of the year in 2008 where she received $7,168.64 in wages. In the 2008-2009 school year, plaintiff received $42,874.61 in wages. Plaintiff was contracted to work for the 2009-2010 school term. She worked the first semester where she received $30,389.67 in wages, and she was contracted to work for the second semester from August 2, 2010, to December 31, 2010, for $22,368.00 if she had not resigned her position with defendant. Plaintiff's last official working day was October 15, 2010.

***********
The following were submitted to the Deputy Commissioner as:

EXHIBITS *Page 3
1. Stipulated Exhibit Number 1: June 21, 2010 Operative Report by Dr. Glenn Perry

2. Stipulated Exhibit Number 2: Industrial Commission Forms

3. Stipulated Exhibit Number 3: Claim Payment Register

4. Stipulated Exhibit Number 4: October 29, 2009 Salary Letter

5. Stipulated Exhibit Number 5: Summary Paycheck History Report

6. Stipulated Exhibit Number 6: Pre-Trial Agreement

***********
As set forth in the Pre-Trial Agreement and Deputy Commissioner Griffin's March 14, 2011 Opinion and Award, the Full Commission addresses the following:

ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff was disabled under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-29, and therefore, entitled to benefits between June 12, 2010, and August 1, 2010?

2. Whether defendant has defended the action without reasonable grounds under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1?

***********
Based upon the preponderance of the evidence from the entire record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was hired at Central Piedmont Community College as an Instructor in the Culinary Arts Building. She was employed as a full time 10-month employee with the summer months scheduled off. *Page 4

2. On January 8, 2010, plaintiff suffered a compensable injury by accident while in the course and scope of her employment with defendant. She sustained injuries to her left knee, lower back, and upper back.

3. On June 21, 2010, plaintiff underwent arthroscopic and debridement procedures to her left knee, which was performed by Dr. Glenn Perry.

4. As a result of her injury and resulting surgery, Dr. Perry wrote plaintiff out of work beginning June 21, 2010.

5. Defendant denied plaintiff was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from June 21, 2010, through August 1, 2010, because she was not scheduled to work for the summer months. On August 2, 2010, defendant initiated payment of temporary total disability benefits as plaintiff remained out of work under Dr. Perry's instructions. August 2, 2010, was the first day of her second semester contract with defendant-employer.

6. On October 15, 2010, plaintiff returned to employment with a different employer. As a result, defendant terminated temporary total disability compensation payments.

7. The calculation of plaintiff's average weekly wage is controlled by the North Carolina Court of Appeals case ofConyers v. New Hanover County Schools,188 N.C. App. 253, 654 S.E.2d 745 (2008). Conyers instructs that for a 10-month employee, the average weekly wage should be calculated by dividing plaintiff's earnings in the 52 weeks prior to the injury by 52 weeks. Defendant followed this method of calculation to determine plaintiff's average weekly wage and defendant's calculation of plaintiff's average weekly wage provided results that are fair and just to both the employer and employee, and which most nearly approximates the amount plaintiff would be earning were it not for her injury. The parties have stipulated, and the Full *Page 5 Commission finds, plaintiff's correct average weekly wage pursuant to Conyers is $849.59, which yields a weekly compensation rate of $566.42.

8. Conyers further instructs that a 10 month employee, when determined to be eligible for disability compensation, is to be paid such compensation every week, including the weeks of her summer vacation. The parties have stipulated, and the Full Commission finds, that plaintiff is a 10 month employee.

9. Based on the greater weight of the medical evidence of record, plaintiff was totally disabled from employment from June 21, 2010, to August 1, 2010, and is entitled to receive temporary total disability benefits for this period.

10. Defendant has argued that plaintiff should not receive disability compensation for the months of her summer vacation. This argument is not well taken as the aforementioned case ofConyers v. New Hanover County Schools is directly on point with the instant case and demands the opposite conclusion. Furthermore, the position of defendant, if followed, would not be fair and just to plaintiff. Defendant argues that plaintiff's average weekly wage should be based on dividing her 10 month earnings by the whole year, 52 weeks, but then argues that compensation should be denied for those parts of the whole year that plaintiff is not working. The Full Commission finds no relevant facts in this case to distinguish it from Conyers. Conyers

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

Related

Conyers v. New Hanover County Schools
654 S.E.2d 745 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2008)
Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution
425 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Woodruff v. Central Piedmont Community College, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodruff-v-central-piedmont-community-college-ncworkcompcom-2011.