In a recent case, the plaintiff was reportedly employed as a police officer from February 2009 until he was terminated in January 2016. The plaintiff filed a civil action claiming that the termination was a retaliatory response to his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. As background, the police department received a grant to purchase two police motorcycles as long as they were used regularly. The plaintiff was hired to fill one of the motorcycle positions.

Sometime in 2015, Plaintiff’s supervisor noticed that the plaintiff was not using the motorcycle regularly. The plaintiff informed the supervisor that it was too hot that day. The supervisor later sent an email to the plaintiff instructing him to ride his motorcycle every day. One month later, the plaintiff was hospitalized for heat-related symptoms while riding his motorcycle at work. The plaintiff filed a claim seeking workers’ compensation benefits for this medical emergency.

According to evidence in the record, the plaintiff lied about why he was not riding his motorcycle. It was not due to the heat, but because he had been suffering from stomach issues. The police chief enforced a strict policy against lying. The city’s insurance carrier also suspected that the plaintiff was engaging in workers’ compensation fraud and had him surveilled while he was on leave following his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The surveillance included videotape during the plaintiff’s vacation to Disneyland that showed him standing, walking, and riding rides for up to 12 hours. The city concluded that the plaintiff was engaging in workers’ compensation fraud.

The plaintiff eventually returned to work in an administrative capacity and was later transferred to a dispatch position. Due to his claimed symptoms, however, including fatigue and difficulties performing his job duties, the plaintiff’s doctor did not release him to full duty. The plaintiff was eventually terminated after an Internal Affairs investigation.

In order to prevail in his retaliatory action claim, the plaintiff needed to show that his discharge was caused by his good faith application for workers’ compensation benefits, among other things. This is often shown by proving a close temporal proximity between the application for benefits and the alleged retaliatory conduct. Here, the court concluded that summary judgment for the city was proper because four months had passed between the plaintiff’s application for benefits and his termination. Even assuming timing was not an issue, the evidence showed that the plaintiff had offered nothing more than speculation regarding whether the town was retaliating against him for seeking workers’ compensation benefits.

If you were hurt at work, it is critical that you are treated with the fairness and dignity that you deserve during this stressful time. Maurer Law has provided diligent and compassionate legal counsel to injured workers throughout North Carolina, including Charlotte. To schedule a free consultation call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

On the way home, the plaintiff noticed several issues with his vehicle, and when he arrived home, he found significant problems that had not been repaired. He contacted the auto body shop and returned the vehicle for further repairs. The plaintiff contacted the at-fault driver’s insurer and requested that they pay for the repairs. The plaintiff rejected the insurer’s initial offer on the basis that it was insufficient.

The plaintiff took his vehicle to another auto body repair shop to obtain an estimate on the diminished value of his vehicle. The shop determined that the vehicle was not safe to drive, and the insurer deemed it a total loss. The insurer told the plaintiff that it would need to conduct a third-party inspection before it could declare the car a total loss. The plaintiff called off the inspection before it could be performed.

The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the insurer, the at-fault driver, and the first auto body shop, seeking compensation for repairs to the vehicle and other damages. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserted claims for negligence, fraud, bad faith refusal to settle, unfair trade practices, tortious breach of contract, and more. The insurer was dismissed, and the claims proceeded against the remaining defendants separately. The jury concluded that the auto body shop was liable to the plaintiff for $200,000. The trial court reduced the verdict to roughly $100,000 but tripled the amount upon finding that the defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices. The defendant appealed, and the reviewing court upheld the verdict and the lower court’s award of damages.

If you were injured in a car accident, you likely are facing a multitude of damages and expenses. At Maurer Law, we proudly provide committed and responsive legal counsel to individuals and families throughout North Carolina. We offer a free consultation to discuss your situation and how we might be able to help you seek the justice that you deserve. Call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

Related Posts

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Insurer’s Subrogation Claim in Multi-Vehicle Injury Accident

North Carolina Court Upholds Dismissal of Action Involving Injured Elderly Patient Due to Improper Pleading as a Negligence Claim

North Carolina Court Holds Injured Worker Not Entitled to Reinstatement of Benefits Following Incarceration