{
  "id": 9250960,
  "name": "DIANE ATKINS, Plaintiff v. KELLY SPRINGFIELD TIRE CO., and THE TRAVELERS INS., CO., Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Atkins v. Kelly Springfield Tire Co.",
  "decision_date": "2002-12-03",
  "docket_number": "No. COA01-1460",
  "first_page": "512",
  "last_page": "515",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "154 N.C. App. 512"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-17",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 97-1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "et seq."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-82",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "518 S.E.2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "3"
        },
        {
          "page": "3",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        },
        {
          "page": "3"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 N.C. App. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11145216
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "441"
        },
        {
          "page": "441"
        },
        {
          "page": "441"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/134/0438-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 374,
    "char_count": 7502,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.768,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.942031118523776e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9534210295658164
    },
    "sha256": "99551a14f086535a8f8da844cc9ee778227bc22e6bbbda548c61215da34b4c5d",
    "simhash": "1:29bd094724da1dd0",
    "word_count": 1215
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:30:59.212861+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GREENE and BIGGS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DIANE ATKINS, Plaintiff v. KELLY SPRINGFIELD TIRE CO., and THE TRAVELERS INS., CO., Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nUnder Lewis v. Craven Reg\u2019l Med. Ctr., 134 N.C. App. 438, 441, 518 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1999), the Industrial Commission\u2019s conclusion that compensation and compromise agreements are \u201cfair and just must be indicated in the approval order [and] must come after a full review of the medical records filed with the agreement submitted to the Commission.\u201d The claimant in this case argues that the Commission erred by approving her compensation agreement without reviewing her medical records. Because the record shows that the Commission relied only on the Form 25R Physician Evaluation for Permanent Disability, and not the \u201cfull and complete medical report\u201d as required under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-82(a) (2001), we remand this matter to the Commission for further consideration.\nThe underlying facts show that claimant Diane Atkins sustained a compensable injury to her left arm on 3 November 1995 while working at Kelly Springfield Tire Company. Based on a 10% permanent partial disability rating to her left arm made by her treating physician, Dr. James H. Askins, the parties executed a Form 21 Agreement for Compensation for Disability for 24 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits. The Commission approved the agreement on 19 August 1996 and two days later, the Commission approved a lump sum award of $11,472 to Ms. Atkins.\nFor the next three years, Ms. Atkins did not have any pain in her left arm nor did she receive any medical treatment for her compensable injury. However, after Ms. Atkins began experiencing pain in her left wrist in July 1999, she consulted with her former treating physician, Dr. Askins, who ultimately performed distal ulnar resection surgery on her hand. In October 1999, Ms. Atkins, through an attorney, filed a Form 18 Notice of Accident to Employer along with a request that the claim be assigned for a hearing. Following a hearing, Deputy Commissioner Amy Pfeiffer declined to set aside the Form 21 agreement and denied Ms. Atkins claim for additional benefits; Ms. Atkins appealed to the full Commission. From the full Commission\u2019s affirmance, Ms. Atkins now appeals to this Court.\nThe North Carolina Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 97-1 et seq., \u201cdoes' not prevent settlements made by and between the employee and employer so long as the amount of compensation and the time and manner of payment are in accordance with the provisions of this Article.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-17. If the employer and the injured employee reach an agreement regarding compensation, such agreement, \u201caccompanied by a full and complete medical report, shall be filed with and approved by the Commission; otherwise such agreement shall be voidable by the employee or his dependents.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-82(a).\nIn addition to the statutory mandate that the agreement be \u201caccompanied by a full and complete medical report\u201d, N.C. Industrial Comm. R. 501(3) states \u201cno agreement will be approved until all relevant medical, vocational and nursing rehabilitation reports known to exist in the case have been filed with the Industrial Commission.\u201d While Rule 503(3) does not define the term \u201crelevant medical reports\u201d, reading 501(3) in light of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-82(a) leads us to conclude that relevant records include the full and complete medical records related to the work-related injury.\nIn this case, the Form 21 compensation agreement was submitted for approval with a Form 25R Evaluation for Permanent Disability stamped with the treating physician\u2019s signature. Therefore, when the employer sought approval of the Form 21 agreement, no medical records were submitted to the Commission as required. Thus, the claimant argued before the full Commission that the Form 21 agreement must be set aside. In response, the full Commission concluded:\n[T]he Commission was presented with a Form 25R that was stamped with the treating physician\u2019s signature. . . . While perhaps not advisable, the Commission sometimes approves from agreements based upon a review of the Form 25R if the Form 25R is signed by the treating physician.\nWe hold that the Commission\u2019s substitution of the Form 25R for the statutory requirement of a full and complete medical report is more than \u201cnot advisable; it is statutorily impermissible. Under Lewis, this Court recognized that the N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-82(a) requires the Commission to indicate in its approval order that the agreement is fair and just; furthermore, the fair and just determination \u201cmust come after a full review of the medical records filed with the Agreement filed with the Commission.\u201d Lewis, 134 N.C. App. at 441, 518 S.E.2d at 3 (emphasis added). \u201cIf the Commission approves an agreement without conducting the required inquiry and concluding the agreement is fair and just, the agreement is subject to being set aside.\u201d Id.\nIn this case, the Commission acknowledges that it substituted the Form 25R for the statutorily required \u201cfull and complete medical reports.\u201d Since we hold that this substitution is not permitted by our legislature, we must remand this matter for further consideration by the Commission to determine whether the Form 21 Agreement was fair and just. Id.\nOn remand, \u201cthe Commission must determine the fairness and justness of the agreement from the medical evidence filed with the agreement at the time it was originally submitted to the Commission for approval.\u201d Id. Since it appears from the record there were not any medical records submitted to the Commission with the Form 21 agreement for approval in 1995, the Commission is to review all medical, vocational and rehabilitation records and data related to the work-related injury existing at the time the Form 21 agreement was submitted for original approval. In determining whether the Form 21 agreement was fair and just, the Commission should be guided by the direction set forth in Lewis: \u201cThe agreement is fair and just only if it allows the injured employee to receive the most favorable disability benefits to which he is entitled.\u201d Lewis, 134 N.C. App. at 441, 518 S.E.2d at 3.\nReversed and Remanded.\nJudges GREENE and BIGGS concur.\n. The parties discuss a 3 July 1996 medical note from the treating physician which may have been submitted with the Form 21 agreement to the Commission. The Commission concluded in its 4 October 2001 order \u201cit is unclear from the record whether the 3 July 1996 medical note was included.\u201d Therefore this Court will not consider this note in its analysis.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kathleen G. Sumner, Attorney for appellant.",
      "Jonathan C. Anders and Jaye E. Bingham, Attorneys for Appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DIANE ATKINS, Plaintiff v. KELLY SPRINGFIELD TIRE CO., and THE TRAVELERS INS., CO., Defendant\nNo. COA01-1460\n(Filed 3 December 2002)\nWorkers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 Form 21 agreement \u2014 failure to review medical records\nThe Industrial Commission erred in a workers\u2019 compensation case by approving plaintiff employee\u2019s Form 21 compensation agreement without reviewing her medical records as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-82(a) and the case is remanded for a determination of whether the Form 21 agreement was fair and just, because: (1) the record showed the Commission relied only on the Form 25R physician evaluation for permanent disability; and (2) the Commission\u2019s substitution of the Form 25R for the statutory requirement of a full and complete medical report is impermissible.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Opinion and Award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed 4 October 2001. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 September 2002.\nKathleen G. Sumner, Attorney for appellant.\nJonathan C. Anders and Jaye E. Bingham, Attorneys for Appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0512-01",
  "first_page_order": 540,
  "last_page_order": 543
}