Zimmerman v. Childress Winery, L.L.C.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMay 10, 2010
DocketI.C. NO. 579667.
StatusPublished

This text of Zimmerman v. Childress Winery, L.L.C. (Zimmerman v. Childress Winery, L.L.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
Zimmerman v. Childress Winery, L.L.C., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Glenn 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 Glenn with modifications and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
EVIDENTIARY MATTERS
On February 11, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Submit Newly Discovered Evidence to the Full Commission. On March 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Submit Newly Discovered Evidence. In the discretion of the Full Commission, Plaintiff's February 11, 2010 and March 9, 2010 motion to submit newly discovered evidence are DENIED. *Page 2

***********
The Full Commission finds as a 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 North Carolina Industrial Commission and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of this case. All the parties are bound by and subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. All parties have been correctly designated and there is no question as to the misjoinder or nonjoinder of any party.

2. Defendant-employer was insured at all times relevant to this claim by The Hartford Insurance Company.

3. On October 4, 2005, Plaintiff, sustained compensable injuries by accident to his right shoulder, right arm, right hip, and right leg when he fell seven feet onto concrete flooring.

4. Defendants accepted this case via an I.C. Form 60 dated December 7, 2005. On December 7, 2005, Defendant-employer completed an I.C. Form 28, stating the Plaintiff returned to work on October 18, 2005 at a pay rate of $600.00 per week. On November 27, 2007, Defendants completed an I.C. Form 28T, stating that Plaintiff returned to work on October 31, 2005 at the same or greater wages than received at the time of injury. This Form 28T was to replace the I.C. Form 28. On September 20, 2007, Defendants completed an I.C. Form 62, reinstating temporary total disability benefits effective September 17, 2007. Plaintiff's temporary total disability benefits have continued to the present.

5. Plaintiff's average weekly wage is $508.77, yielding a compensation rate of $339.19. *Page 3

6. The parties stipulated into evidence all I.C. Orders, Motions and Responses, Form 24 Applications and Responses, and I.C. forms filed with the Industrial Commission in this case.

7. The parties stipulated into evidence Plaintiff's counsel's letter of appearance and the current defense counsel's letter of appearance.

8. The parties stipulated into evidence Plaintiff's and Defendants' discovery responses.

9. The parties stipulated into evidence Plaintiff's medical records from the following health care providers: Lexington Memorial Hospital, Lexington Memorial Rehab Department, Lexington Center for Family Health, Lexington Orthopedic Clinic, Thomas Giduz, M.D., Triangle Orthopaedic Associates, Duke University Health System, and the NCIC Nurses Section.

10. The parties stipulated into evidence The Hartford's and Defense counsel's correspondence with Plaintiff's physicians, The Hartford's and Defense counsel's correspondence and e-mails to Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff's counsel's e-mails and correspondence with The Hartford and defense counsel, and Plaintiff's counsel's correspondence with Plaintiff's treating physicians.

11. The issue to be determined is as follows:

a. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any additional benefits under the North Carolina Workers Compensation Act?

At the June 18, 2009 hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Defendants agreed to remove all the issues they listed in the Pretrial Agreement.

***********
Based upon all the competent evidence from the record, the Full Commission finds as follows: *Page 4

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Dr. Gordon Kammire has been and continues to be Plaintiff's authorized treating orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Kammire has repeatedly recommended various courses of treatment for Plaintiff, and Defendants have repeatedly ignored these recommendations which include pain management and psychological counseling for Plaintiff. In failing to provide the treatment that has been determined to be necessary by Dr. Kammire, Defendants have not sought nor obtained the advice of any other doctor to determine whether the treatment that has been recommended is necessary or not and the Defendants have not offered any explanation of their refusal to provide plaintiff with necessary medical treatment.

2. Dr. Kammire is of the opinion that pain management treatment and psychological counseling was and continues to be medically necessary for Plaintiff for the treatment of his admittedly compensable injury by accident.

3. As a part of his recommended treatment, Dr. Kammire has referred Plaintiff to Dr. Giduz for psychiatric treatment and the Defendants have repeatedly refused to authorize Dr. Kammire's referral of Plaintiff to Dr. Giduz for psychiatric treatment. When asked why this referral was not followed, Defendants did not provide any response or provide any medical or other basis for not providing the recommended care. Dr. Kammire is of the opinion that this treatment is reasonable and necessary to treat Plaintiff's ongoing problems as they relate to his compensable injury by accident.

4. Since Defendants repeatedly ignored Dr. Kammire's recommendations for psychological counseling and Dr. Kammire's referral to Dr. Giduz, and such psychiatric treatment is reasonable and necessary, Dr. Giduz should be designated as Plaintiff's authorized *Page 5 treating psychiatrist to provide ongoing psychiatric care in that Defendants have failed and refused to offer any alternative treatment for this condition.

5. On October 22, 2008 the North Carolina Industrial Commission through Special Deputy Commissioner Jennifer S. Boyer entered an order directing Defendants to cause an evaluation of Plaintiff to be done by Dr. Liebelt to determine a diagnosis, condition, work status, further treatment options, and any permanent disability. Defendants have repeatedly refused and failed to authorize Dr. Liebelt's evaluation of Plaintiff as was ordered by the Industrial Commission.

6. Dr. Liebelt has recommended that Plaintiff proceed with a diagnostic right shoulder arthroscopic surgery and also, potentially, a second right hip replacement surgery following his evaluation of plaintiff.

7. Dr. Kammire has also referred Plaintiff to Dr. Liebelt for ongoing pain management and treatment of his right hip and right shoulder. Defendants have repeatedly failed and refused to follow Dr. Kammire's recommendation as to this treatment and have not offered or provided any treatment for these conditions even though they were advised that in Dr. Kammire's opinion, these conditions were the result and natural consequence of Plaintiff's admitted injury by accident. Plaintiff continues to be in need of treatment for his right shoulder and hip, and these conditions are the direct result of his admittedly compensable injury by accident.

8.

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

Related

§ 97-18
North Carolina § 97-18
§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(19)
§ 97-25
North Carolina § 97-25
§ 97-29
North Carolina § 97-29
§ 97-30
North Carolina § 97-30
§ 97-88
North Carolina § 97-88
§ 97-88.1
North Carolina § 97-88.1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Zimmerman v. Childress Winery, L.L.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zimmerman-v-childress-winery-llc-ncworkcompcom-2010.