My employer was paying for the medical treatment for my work-related injury and now they are telling me that my workers’ compensation claim has been denied, can they do this? This issue was addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Garrett v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (2019). In this case the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the prior decision of the North Carolina Industrial Commission who ruled that an employer may voluntarily provide payment of medical bills for an injured employee via the filing of a Form 63 and then later, and in some instances much later, file a Form 61 denying any further workers’ compensation benefits for the injured employee, requiring a formal trial before the North Carolina Industrial Commission if the injured employee alleges the entitlement of further workers’ compensation benefits due to the…Read More
This issue was addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Bache v. TIC-Gulf Coast (2019). In this case the injured employee lived in Florida and was hired by an employer located in Colorado to work on a building site in North Carolina, which was estimated to take 1.5 to 2 years to complete the building project. The injured employee was paid an hourly rate for the work performed and received a $70/day per diem to cover living expenses while working in North Carolina, since the injured employee lived in Florida. After getting off work one day the injured employee and a co-worker went out to dinner at a restaurant and on the way home the injured employee was involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in a significant injury. The North Carolina Court of Appeals noted that generally…Read More
I was injured when something got jammed in a machine at work and my employer says this is not an accident which would allow me to receive workers’ compensation benefits. This issue was addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Embery v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2020) In this case the injured employee injured his shoulder when he was removing rubber jammed in a machine at work. The employer denied the injured employee workers' compensation benefits alleging there was not an “accident” at work, which caused the injury. The North Carolina Court of Appeals noted that an “accident” is defined as an interruption of the normal work routine of work and the introduction thereby of unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences. The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that when an activity which is otherwise unusual becomes part of the…Read More
I have continued to receive treatment from my workers’ compensation doctor, but now the insurance company is denying to pay for my further medical treatment? This issue was address by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Dunbar v. Acme Southern (2020). In this case the injured employee was not entitled to any ongoing disability checks due to his injury at work, but he continued to receive medical treatment for his workers’ compensation injury. At some point, without the knowledge of the injured employee his medical bills began to be paid by Medicare vs. his employer via the workers’ compensation claim. After approximately 4 years of this occurring, the injured employee was recommended to see a new doctor for medical treatment related to his work injury, but the employer denied payment for this based on the fact that they had…Read More
An option to address this type of situation was addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Suazo v. Juan J. Gutierrez-Bojorquez (2021). In this case the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that a principal contractor is a statutory employer and may be held responsible for the injuries for an injured employee who was working for a subcontractor contracted by the principal contractor when the subcontractor does not have workers’ compensation insurance. Should you have any questions about this or any other issues involving your work-related injury, please feel free to reach out to one of the Board Certified Workers’ Compensation Specialists at Cardinal Law Partners for a free consultation by calling (833) 444-4127. Read More
This issue was address by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Nichols v. United Painting Services, Inc. (2021). In this case the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that an injured employee was justified in refusing to return to work in the light duty position offered by his employer when his employer failed to provide a job description noting the duties of the position and the position was not approved by the injured employee’s authorized treating physician. Should you have any questions about this or any other issues involving your work-related injury, please feel free to reach out to one of the Board Certified Workers’ Compensation Specialists at Cardinal Law Partners for a free consultation by calling (833) 444-4127.Read More
This issue was addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Jenkins v. Wells Fargo Bank (2022). This case dealt with an employee who traveled for work and when she was in her hotel room as she attempted to get up from the couch where she was seated her foot/ankle rolled resulting in an injury. There was no evidence presented that there was a slip/trip/fall or anything unusual that cased the employee’s foot/ankle to roll. The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that there was no “accident” that caused the employee’s injury to her foot/ankle, thereby denying her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. There was evidence presented to the North Carolina Industrial Commission that the morning after this incident when the employee attempted to get out of bed she fell because she could not place any weigh on her…Read More
This issue was address by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Mahone v. Home Fox Custom (2022). In this case the North Carolina Court of Appeals clarified a medical opinion that the work injury “could or might” have caused the need for medical treatment is insufficient evidence to prove that the employer is responsible for paying for the inured employee’s medical treatment. However, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that a medical opinion that the work injury “likely” caused the need for medical treatment is sufficient evidence to prove that the employer is responsible for paying for the injured employee’s medical treatment. Further noting that it is not required that the medical opinion be provided to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Lastly, the Court noted that the medical opinion is not required to be provided via deposition…Read More
This issue was addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Rimmer v. Town of Chapel Hill (2022). The decision in this case centered on the issue of notice and filing requirements for an occupational disease claim. The North Carolina Court of Appeals clarified that for the North Carolina Industrial Commission to have jurisdiction to address an injured employee’s claim for an occupational disease that a claim for benefits must be filed with the North Carolina Industrial Commission within 2 years of the date of death or date of disability caused by the occupational disease. The North Carolina Court of Appeals noted that notice of the injured employee’s occupational disease is to be provided to the employer within 30 days from the date the injured employee is “clearly, simply, directly” informed by her/his treating physician that the occupational disease…Read More
The decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Maas v. Walgreens (2022) highlighted how an experienced attorney’s involvement in your workers’ compensation may assist you for your workers’ compensation claim. In this case the injured employee, without the assistance of a workers’ compensation attorney, requested a trial before the North Carolina Industrial Commission, which resulted in the North Carolina Industrial ordering the employer to pay for certain medical treatment for the injured employer. The employer appealed this decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The North Carolina Court of Appeals denied the injured employee’s entitlement to certain medical treatment based on the fact this issue was not listed in the pre-trial agreement or Form 44 filed with the North Carolina Industrial Commission. This case highlights the importance of involving an experienced attorney in your workers’ compensation claim.…Read More
