Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Craven County ABC Board

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

April 17, 2018

JERRY DAVIS, Employee, Plaintiff,
v.
CRAVEN COUNTY ABC BOARD, Employer, PENN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants.

          Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 February 2018.

          Appeal by defendants from opinion and award entered 16 May 2017 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. No. W98733

          The Law Offices of Nicole D. Hart, PLLC, by Nicole D. Hart, for plaintiff-appellee.

          Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., by Brian C. Groesser, for defendants-appellants.

          DIETZ, Judge.

         Plaintiff Jerry Davis injured his ankle at work and struggled with pain for many years. In 2014, his doctors prescribed a compound cream that Davis found more effective than previous treatments. This compound cream was not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

         Defendants, who are Davis's workers' compensation providers, refused to compensate him for this non-FDA-approved treatment. The Industrial Commission concluded that the compound cream was reasonably required to provide relief and ordered Defendants to pay. Defendants appealed.

         As explained below, we reject Defendants' argument that non-FDA-approved drugs should be categorically excluded from medical compensation under the workers' compensation system. The text of the Workers' Compensation Act does not limit drug treatment solely to FDA-approved drugs. Defendants assert a number of persuasive policy arguments concerning the risks of non-FDA-approved drugs, but this Court has no authority to rewrite the law on policy grounds. That is a task for the legislative branch.

         We likewise reject Defendants' argument that the compound cream is not reasonably required to provide relief in this case because its risks outweigh the marginal pain relief Davis experienced. This is a fact question for the Commission. There is at least some competent evidence supporting the Commission's findings and they are therefore binding on this Court. Accordingly, we affirm the Commission's opinion and award.

         Facts and Procedural History

         Plaintiff Jerry Davis began working for the Craven County ABC Board in 2009. In May 2010, Davis injured his right ankle while at work and began receiving workers' compensation.

         In 2011, Davis was treated by Dr. Marcono Hines at Nova Pain Management. Dr. Hines prescribed Davis Voltaren gel, an FDA-approved drug. In 2014, Defendants sent Davis to Dr. Garlon Campbell, a pain management physician at The Carolinas Center for Surgery. On 4 June 2014, Dr. Campbell conducted a physical examination of Davis and noted that Davis's symptoms were consistent with complex regional pain syndrome or reflex sympathetic dystrophy.

         Dr. Campbell prescribed Davis a compound cream to treat his condition. That compound cream was not approved by the FDA, the federal agency that regulates prescription drugs. However, the drugs that are "compounded" together to create the cream each are FDA-approved on their own for the treatment of various medical conditions.

         At a follow-up visit, Davis told Dr. Campbell that the compound cream relieved some of his symptoms. Dr. Campbell recommended continued use of the compound cream for three months. Defendants refused to pay for this non-FDA-approved drug ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.