 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shoemaker v. Creative Builders6/4/2002
ompetent evidence adequately supporting the finding that plaintiff's accident is the direct and natural result of his brain damage. We overrule this assignment of error.
By defendants' fourth assignment of error, they argue that plaintiff's 1992 injury was not the cause of his personality disorder. Defendants concede that plaintiff's encephalitis came into existence after the injury in 1992, but contest the existence of a causal link between the injury and the encephalitis. The causal link between the encephalitis and plaintiff's personality disorder, defendants maintain, is even more tenuous.
In support of their argument, defendants rely solely on the deposition testimony of Hurwitz, who said that he could not "relate any of [plaintiff's] symptoms to his encephalomalacia with any degree of medical certainty." Extensive medical records, however, establish that the surgery for the back injury caused the encephalitis, which in turn resulted in plaintiff's cognitive and personality changes. In 1994, Lestini specifically related plaintiff's encephalitis to his back injury. The diagnoses of Morcos, Varia, and Logue also confirm the causal connection between the compensable injury and ensuing personality disorder. Kaur and McInnis agree that the encephalitis caused plaintiff's personality problems. Therefore, the Commission's findings are supported by competent evidence and we reject this assignment of error.
By their final assignment of error, defendants contend the Commission erred in concluding that they are responsible for the cost of plaintiff's treatment at Charter Hospital beginning on 30 June 1997. Defendants argue that plaintiff did not receive prior authorization for admission and there is no evidence his admission was an emergency under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-25 (1999). Defendants also point out that plaintiff had an appointment on 30 June 1997 with the physician who had treated his fractures from the automobile accident, but admitted himself to Charter Hospital instead. Had plaintiff kept his appointment, defendants claim, the doctor likely could have assisted plaintiff and defendants in coordinating mutually agreeable psychologic or psychiatric treatment.
Section 97-25 states that " edical compensation shall be provided by the employer." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-25. Under the statute "an injured employee may select a physician of his own choosing to attend, prescribe and assume the care and charge of his case, subject to the approval of the Industrial Commission." Id. Thus, a plaintiff may choose his own physician provided he: (1) obtains the approval of the Commission within a reasonable time after such procurement; and (2) the treatment sought is for recovery or rehabilitation, or to "give relief." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(19) (1999); Braswell v. Pitt County Mem. Hosp., 106 N.C. App. 1, 5, 415 S.E.2d 86, 88 (1992). "Approval is not necessary prior to [the injured employee] seeking assistance from another physician." Id. Moreover, an emergency is not required for the Commission to award compensation under the statute. Even in the absence of an emergency, the employee is entitled to choose a physician for treatment, subject to the approval of the Commission. Schofield v. Tea Co., 299 N.C. 582, 591, 264 S.E.2d 56, 62 (1980).
Here, the Commission found that the hospitalization "was necessary to treat plaintiff's depression and in particular because plaintiff was suicidal." It then concluded as a matter of law that the treatment was necessary to "effect a cure or give relief from . . . the emotional effects of plaintiff's injury." There is extensive evidence in the record detailing the severity of plaintiff's emotional problems and the need for continuous medic
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|