DocketNumber: I.C. NO. 139423
Judges: <center> OPINION AND AWARD for the Full Commission by CHRISTOPHER SCOTT, Commissioner, and DISSENT by THOMAS J. BOLCH, Commissioner, N.C. Industrial Commission.</center>
Filed Date: 1/21/2005
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
It is well settled that "the evidence tending to support plaintiff's claim is to be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence." Doggett v. South Atl. Warehouse Co.,
The majority erred in finding that Dr. Sue signed the Form 28U in error, when his testimony and the evidence of record does not support this finding. Dr. Sue never testified that the 28U was signed in error; rather, he testified that he merely could not recall signing it, even though he was able authenticate his signature. In fact, Dr. Sue testified that plaintiff had ongoing back problems during the period in which the Form 28U was signed and dated. The undersigned notes that Dr. Sue has a busy practice, and finds it to be reasonable for Dr. Sue to forget the exact circumstances in which he signed the Form 28U. Moreover, the January 28, 2002, notes of Dr. Ramos, a physiatrist who practices with Dr. Sue, shows that plaintiff reported during a visit on that date problems with performing her work duties during her return to work.
The undersigned finds that plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury by accident as a result of a specific traumatic incident on May 2, 2001. N.C. Gen. Stat. §
The majority has erred in failing to view the evidence of record in the light most favorable to plaintiff by finding the Form 28U was signed by Dr. Sue in error. Greater weight should be given to the signature of Dr. Sue on the Form 28U, in which he specifically attested: "This is to certify that the employee is unable to continue the trial return to work due to the employee's injury for which compensation has been paid." Dr. Sue certified that plaintiff was unable to continue with the trial return, and plaintiff should not be penalized at this juncture because Dr. Sue has a poor memory and did not take adequate notes at the time he signed and certified the Form 28U. Dr. Sue's testimony that plaintiff continued to have back problems during the period in which the Form 28U was signed and dated is sufficient evidence to support the legitimacy of his certification of the Form 28U. Thus, plaintiff should be awarded continuing temporary total disability benefits, as well as continued medical compensation. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
This 30th day of December 2004.
S/_____________ THOMAS J. BOLCH COMMISSIONER