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
This issue was addressed by Rainey v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (2022). In this case the injured employee was placed out of work due to his workplace injury and his employer paid him weekly disability checks for his time out of work. As his medical treatment proceeded the injured employee was ultimately allowed to return to work under light duty work restrictions. When the injured employee returned to work for his employer in a light duty position within his assigned work restrictions he was paid his same pre-injury hourly wage, but he did not work overtime which he averaged at 22.9 hours per week prior to his injury. The employer refused to pay the injured employee partial disability checks based on the reductions in his overall pre-injury wages, due to the fact he was not working any overtime hours.…Read More
This issue was addressed in Spencer v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2022). In this case the injured employee’s position for his employer involved the construction of tires. On the date of injury, rubber was stuck in the machine the injured employee was working on and as he pulled to get it unstuck, the injured employee alleged he injured his shoulder due to this incident at work. The employer denied the injured employee’s claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits. The employer alleged that there was not an “injury by accident” that resulted in the injured employee’s injury. The North Carolina Court of Appeals noted that in order for an injured employee to prove that she/he sustained an “injury by accident” that there must be evidence of an unlooked for, unexpected or out of the ordinary event that resulted in the injury…Read More
This issue was addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Duke v. Xylem, Inc. (2022). In this case, all the parties agree that the employer was located in Virginia, the injured employee worked in Virginia and the injured employee was injured in Virginia. The only issue before the North Carolina Court of Appeals was whether the injured employee was “hired” by the employer over the phone while he was physically in North Carolina, which would allow the injured employee to bring a workers’ compensation claim in North Carolina. The Court determined that the “last act” of the injured employee’s “hiring” was when he completed a driving test, drug screening and background check for the employer when the injured employee was physically in Virginia. The Court also suggested that the “last act” test would apply even when the injured employee was…Read More
This issue was addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Stewart v. Goulston Technologies, Inc. (2022). In this case the injured employee was working in a chemical mixing plant. On the date of injury, the injured employee remembers feeling nauseated and leaving his work area to see if he would feel better. However, after this, all the injured employee remembers is waking up at the bottom of 15 stairs, wherein he allegedly passed out and fell down the stairs. There was medical evidence offered noting the injured employee’s pre-existing medical conditions which may have caused him to pass out on the date of injury. However, the injured employee’s doctor was unable to definitively say what caused him to pass out on the date of injury. The Court determined that because this was an “unexplained” fall that the injured…Read More
The North Carolina Industrial Commission addressed this issue in Dominguez v. Francisco Dominguez Masonry, Inc. (2022). In this case the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Company paid for the injured employee’s medical treatment and disability checks due to a workplace injury. However, the last disability check was issued in December 2013 and the last medical bill was paid in June 2015. In August 2017 the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Company contacted the injured employee about a disability check that was not cashed from July 2011. The injured employee requested that this check be re-issued and in September of 2017 the injured employee cashed the re-issued disability check. In 2018 the injured employee request the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Company pay for additional medical treatment due to his injury at work. The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Company denied this request alleging that the injured employee’s entitlement…Read More
