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
The answer is, Very Important. The reason for this was recently addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Godley v. New Hanover Medical Group (2023). In this case the injured employee had a history of pre-existing arthritis in his left shoulder, but he sustained an injury to his left shoulder at work. The employer accepted liability for the injured employee’s left shoulder injury. It is important to note that the employer did this by filing a form with the North Carolina Industrial Commission noting their acceptance of liability for the injured employee’s injury at work. The issue of whether the injured employee’s ongoing medical treatment was the result of his injury at work vs. his pre-existing condition was brought before the North Carolina Industrial Commission. The injured employee’s treating physician testified that he could not say whether the…Read More
This issue was addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Cromartie v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (2022). In this case the injured employee was assigned permanent work restrictions due to her injury at work. The employer wished to offer the injured employee a position which had to be modified in order to fall within her assigned permanent work restrictions. The injured employee refused to perform this position for her employer. The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the injured employee was not required to perform a position for her employer if this position had to be modified in order to fall with her assigned permanent work restrictions. Should you have any questions about this or any of issues involving your work-related injury, please feel free to reach out to one of the Board Certified Workers’ Compensation…Read More
This issue was addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Richards v. Harris Teeter (2022). This case involved an employee who was a truck driver for his employer, who was involved in a single vehicle accident when his truck ran off the road. Approximately three weeks after this accident the injured employee was terminated by his employer, based on what his employer noted were violations of safety procedures that involved the injured employee’s motor vehicle accident. The employer contended that they had a mandatory return to work program for any workers’ compensation injuries and noted numerous positions the injured employee could have continued to perform for them, if not for his termination. The employer argued that this constituted a “constructive refusal of employment” and based on this the injured employee should not be entitled to receive weekly disability…Read More
There may be some legal arguments that can allow for payment of death benefits due to the employee’s death. This issue was addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Frye v. Hamrock, LLC (2022). In this case the employee was a dump truck driver who crossed over the double yellow lines on the road and collided with an oncoming vehicle resulting in the employee’s death. The employee was declared dead at the scene of the accident. The employee’s death certificate noted that his cause of death was trauma and motor vehicle collision. However, the employer was able to obtain an autopsy which concluded the cause of death for the employee was a heart attack. Based on the autopsy findings the employer denied liability for the employee’s death while on the job. The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled…Read More
If there is any evidence that would support the basis for you being awarded benefits, then you should appeal. The evidence can be weighed differently on appeal, and it is definitely worth appealing the initial denial of benefits. This was highlighted recently by the N.C. Court of Appeals in Keenan v. Federal Express Corp. (2024). In this case the injured employee was denied benefits as part of the initial hearing for the case based on the testimony of a physician who the employer required the injured employee to see. This physician testified the injured employee’s shoulder injury was not caused by the accident at work. However, when this decision was appealed the Full Commission panel awarded benefits based on the fact the injured employee’s treating physician testified that the shoulder injured was caused by the accident at work. This was…Read More
