Hale v. Lake Norman Cleaning Systems LLC
I.C. NO. 766829.
| N.C. Indus. Comm. | Aug 4, 2011Background
- Plaintiff, age 36, injured March 28, 2007 while working for Defendant-Employer; disability began March 29, 2007; medical history includes asthma and hypertension but no prior sleep apnea; Plaintiff’s average weekly wage $781.11 and disability benefits at $520.77 weekly since injury.
- Plaintiff underwent L4–L5 and L5–S1 disc decompression (July 3, 2007) followed by nerve blocks and later a total disc replacement (July 24, 2008) and spinal cord stimulator (trial July 20, 2009; permanent implant September 2, 2009).
- Plaintiff received ongoing pain management medications (OxyContin, Oxycodone, Neurontin, Zanaflex) and aquatic therapy; elevated blood pressure noted in 2009, with therapies and referrals addressing possible sleep apnea and weight gain.
- Defendant-Employer was insured and liable for medical treatment; Defendant argued treatment should follow authorized physicians and contested causation for non-direct effects (blood pressure, sleep apnea, weight gain).
- The Full Commission affirmed Deputy Commissioner Gillen’s Opinion and Award with specified medical treatment orders, disability award, and future evaluation/review of related conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medical treatment appropriate for March 28, 2007 injury | Plaintiff seeks continued treatment as directed by treating physicians. | Treatment should be limited to authorized providers and generally standard care. | Yes; treatment directed to Sullivan, evaluation with Rauck, aquatic therapy, and possible repeat stimulator.” |
| Disability status and duration | Plaintiff is totally disabled due to work injury. | Defendant disputes ongoing total disability. | Plaintiff remains temporarily totally disabled from March 29, 2007 forward. |
| Compensability of sleep apnea, blood pressure, weight gain | These conditions may be compensable if direct and natural results of the injury. | Insufficient evidence linking these conditions to the original injury. | Not yet determined; evidence insufficient to prove direct/natural causation; further evaluation ordered. |
| Authority and choice of treating physician | Plaintiff seeks Commission-approved physician (Sullivan) for ongoing care. | Employer can direct medical care; physician selection in a compensated case follows Commission discretion. | Dr. Sullivan designated as treating physician; Commission may approve Dr. Rauck evaluation and potential repeat stimulator; Nurse oversight appointed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vandiford v. Stewart Equip. Co., 98 N.C. App. 458, 391 S.E.2d 193 (1990) (causation of related conditions examined for compensability)
- Starr v. Charlotte Paper Co., 8 N.C. App. 604, 175 S.E.2d 342 (1970) (direct and natural result standard for compensability of related conditions)
- Demery v. Perdue Farms, Inc., 143 N.C. App. 259, 545 S.E.2d 485 (2001) (burden-shifting framework for proving disability and available work)
- Russell v. Lowe Prod. Distrib., 108 N.C. App. 762, 425 S.E.2d 454 (1993) (disability proof shifts to employer to show suitable jobs)
- Kanipe v. Lane Upholstery, 141 N.C. App. 620, 540 S.E.2d 883 (2000) ( Commission discretion on approving employee-selected treating physician)