 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Radica v. Mills2/1/1994
pindle on April 18, 1988." (Emphasis added.) The record is devoid of any evidence that plaintiff's injury was caused by any event other than pulling the spinning bobbin from a spindle at work. More particularly, defendant has failed to produce "'expert testimony that the alleged precipitating event could not have been the cause of the injury . . . .'" Click, 300 N.C. at 169, 265 S.E.2d at 392 (quoting Uris, 247 Or. at 426, 427 P.2d at 756 (1967)). We find the facts presented here to be an archetype of the "'uncomplicated situation'" described in Click. Id.
Accordingly, we vacate the opinion and award of the Industrial Commission and remand for further proceedings to determine the type and amount of disability benefits to which plaintiff is entitled.
III.
Plaintiff argues that the Industrial Commission "erred by denying workers' compensation benefits for medical treatment to the plaintiff on the basis that the problems for which she sought treatment were not related to her work-related injury or did not give relief, tend to effect a cure, or lessen the period of the plaintiff's disability." Defendant contends that Dr. Dickerson was the only physician that was authorized by defendant, that plaintiff was expressly told that she would not be paid for treatment provided by her own doctors, and that the treatment provided by plaintiff's four doctors (Dr. Kelly, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Phillips, and Dr. Siva) did not relate to the injury for which she seeks compensation. This Court has stated:
A reading of G.S. § 97-25, regarding medical treatment of employees, fails to indicate any limitation on the number of physicians an employee may choose. The only requirements are that the physician be approved by the Commission, and treatment must facilitate recovery and rehabilitation. Schofield v. Tea Co., 299 N.C. 582, 264 S.E.2d 56 (1980). The determinations for the Commission to make are whether there was Commission approval of plaintiff's choice of [doctors] and whether treatment was to effect a cure or rehabilitation.
Lucas, 88 N.C. App. at 590, 364 S.E.2d at 150. We further note that this Court has recently held that "relief from pain constitutes 'relief' as that term is used in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-25." Simon, 106 N.C. App. at 43, 415 S.E.2d at 107. Given our holding that plaintiff was entitled to the Watkins v. Motor Lines presumption and that plaintiff was entitled to benefits for her disability, we remand to the Industrial Commission for a determination of plaintiff's entitlement to medical expenses pursuant to G.S. 97-25 for the services provided by Dr. Kelly, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Phillips, and Dr. Siva.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate in its entirety the opinion and award of the Industrial Commission and remand for an opinion and award not inconsistent with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
Judges COZORT and ORR concur.
Disposition
Vacated and remanded.
|