 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Echols v. Granville Medical Management6/17/2003
ugust 1999, testified that he first learnedof plaintiff's alleged on-the-job injury when he received a letter from plaintiff's attorney in August or September of 1999. Plaintiff agreed that she did not inform Ms. Matteson or Dr. Mahan of an on-the-job injury between 15 August 1998 and July 1999. While plaintiff stated that she might have informed Ms. Matteson that she was involved in an automobile collision, plaintiff admitted that she did not tell Ms. Matteson that she was working at the time of the injury.
Dr. Hemmerlein testified that he supervised plaintiff's medical work and co-signed her work charts. He also stated that he was responsible for her because he "carried" her on his medical license. Dr. Hemmerlein stated that he did not provide insurance, did not make administrative decisions, and only addressed decisions relating to patient care. He approved of plaintiff making house calls and signed off on plaintiff's progress notes stemming from house calls she made, for which patients were subsequently billed. Following plaintiff's visit to Mr. Riggs' house, no note was registered in Mr. Riggs' medical chart and no bill was generated for plaintiff's services.
Dr. Hemmerlein also testified that he first learned that plaintiff injured her back in a motor vehicle collision while traveling to the Riggs' house between three and seven weeks after the accident. Dr. Hemmerlein stated that he could not remember specifics from the conversation where he first learned plaintiff had suffered a back injury . Dr. Hemmerlein discussed plaintiff's condition while at work with her, documented it in her chart, andverbally referred plaintiff to physical therapy. He stated that it would be difficult to classify the interaction as a normal doctor/patient relationship since they were both medical providers, but that he considered himself as her treating physician for a while.
The evidence in the record fails to show that plaintiff provided written notice to her employer within thirty days as required by statute regarding her alleged work-related injury that occurred on 15 August 1998. The evidence also does not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for plaintiff's failure to give the required notice. Plaintiff testified that she did not inform anyone at her place of employment about a work-related injury for over a year, including the clinic director and the owner. Additionally, the evidence shows that the owner and the clinic director were unaware of plaintiff's alleged on-the-job injury until plaintiff filed for workers' compensation in August 1999.
There is no evidence that plaintiff gave Dr. Hemmerlein written notice of the injury or of her claim that the injury occurred within the course and scope of her employment. Dr. Hemmerlein's notes on plaintiff's back injury do not indicate the cause of plaintiff's injury or whether it occurred within the scope of her employment. Dr. Hemmerlein testified that he became aware of plaintiff's injury and its alleged occurrence within the course and scope of employment between three and seven weeks following the accident but did not remember specifics from the conversation. While Dr. Hemmerlein stated that he was plaintiff's supervisor, theevidence shows that he only addressed decisions relating to patient care and did not provide insurance or make administrative or personnel decisions.
The Industrial Commission has already weighed any conflicts in the evidence and this Court is not permitted to reevaluate evidence that may support a contrary conclusion and make a decision based on the weight of the evidence. Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998). There is competent evidence in the record showing that plaintiff fa
Page 1 2 3 4 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|