In a recent claim, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered a claim involving a nurse who appealed the denial of compensation for her workers’ compensation claim. Plaintiff slipped and fell on her right side in her home in July 2015 and did not seek treatment until September 2015. She did not have health insurance when she fell. Her employer offered her a job as a licensed practical nurse. She met the physical criteria for the job, and she was hired in September 2015 and promoted to full-time status in October 2015. She received health benefits three months after being hired. She received medical treatment for her slip and fall injury and the doctor recommended a total hip replacement as the treatment of choice, but plaintiff opted to manage it conservatively until she was eligible for leave under FMLA.

In March 2016, plaintiff was working in a patient’s room when her feet became tangled in oxygen tubing and she fell on her left side. She sought medical treatment during which the doctor observed issues with her hip. She was assigned work restrictions, which her employer acknowledged. Plaintiff then sought workers’ compensation benefits and the defendant employer challenged the claim on the basis that her work injury was not the primary cause of her need for treatment. The court agreed with the defendant finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her fall aggravated her pre-existing injury and was the causal factor in her need for a total right hip replacement.

On appeal, the reviewing court upheld the denial of the claim. The plaintiff argued that the lower court relied too heavily on a legal conclusion in a medical report stating that the doctor would not expect workers’ compensation to cover her hip replacement because the issues she was experiencing predated the injury in March. The appellate court noted that the remaining evidence in the record was sufficient to support the lower court’s finding that her most recent fall did not aggravate her right hip injury and was not the causal need of a hip replacement.

If you were injured at work, the diligent workers’ compensation attorneys at Maurer Law are prepared to assist you with seeking the compensation that you deserve and protecting your rights. This is an incredibly stressful and overwhelming situation, which is why we offer a free consultation to discuss your legal options and how we can help you. Call us today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent claim dispute, the worker suffered an injury to her wrist while working as a flight attendant in 2014. The injury required the plaintiff to stop working and continue receiving medical treatment for the injury over a long period of time. A year later, the plaintiff’s wrist was still tender, but a reviewing physician could not figure out why the pain was persisting. The next year, the plaintiff returned to work without restrictions, which required her to undergo training as a flight attendant. This training required the plaintiff to show that she could lift up to 55 pounds. The plaintiff passed the test and began working later that month.

During a hearing regarding her claim for benefits, however, the plaintiff testified that she experienced extreme pain in her wrist during the training but did not report it to anyone. The plaintiff was awarded a lump sum payment for her permanent partial disability, which she accepted, and continued working. Later that year, the plaintiff reported increasing pain to her employer and was authorized to return to her doctor for treatment. During the examination, plaintiff stated that she was able to perform all of her required job duties, but the doctor assigned temporary restrictions including not lifting more than five pounds. The plaintiff continued to work and did not request to be excused based on her injury.

Eventually, the adjuster assigned to her claim denied extending her temporary total disability benefits because the doctor did not show a change of condition. The plaintiff appealed and the deputy commissioner concluded that the plaintiff had suffered a change of condition in her left wrist injury. The defendant appealed and the Full Commission denied the plaintiff’s claim for a change in condition, so the plaintiff filed another appeal.

On review to the North Carolina Court of Appeal, the reviewing judges concluded that the plaintiff had not shown that she suffered a change in her earning capacity, her degree of disability, or a substantial change in the physical conditions that impacted her earning capacity. As a result, she was not entitled to additional benefits. The plaintiff continued working in a full-time capacity and her treating physician did not note any worsening of her symptoms or ability to perform her job duties.

Getting hurt at work can be a stressful and life-altering situation especially if you are left with a permanent disability. At Maurer Law, we know just how important it is for you to make sure that you are being treated fairly and receiving the outcomes that you deserve under the law. Our seasoned team of workers’ compensation lawyers are ready to evaluate your potential case and determine whether they can assist you. Call today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to set up your free consultation.

A recent workers’ compensation case discussed a few key procedural rules and determinations. The plaintiff in the case appealed a decision from the workers’ compensation commission stating that it erred in determining that he was not disabled and that his post-injury job was suitable employment. The plaintiff worked as a pipe fitter for many years. He was operating a scissor lift at work when the equipment malfunctioned causing him to be thrown. He returned to work after his injury but was restricted to light duty work and was unable to drive while taking his prescribed pain medication. After two years of treatment, the plaintiff was assigned permanent work restrictions including being prohibited from lifting more than 20 pounds, being required to alternate between sitting and standing, and wearing a brace while working.

The plaintiff was put on “helper” positions and he filed a Form 33 “Request for a Hearing” to determine whether his jobs were suitable. The commissioner presiding at the hearing concluded that the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proving that he was disabled and therefore the question of whether his employment was suitable was not discussed. His request for total and temporary partial disability benefits was denied. The Full Commission affirmed this finding and the plaintiff appealed again.

The appellate court ultimately affirmed some of the Commission’s findings but remanded the case for more findings based on the Commission’s improper determination of whether the employee was disabled. It first concluded that the plaintiff did not make a reasonable but unsuccessful effort to obtain employment, which is a component of proving that someone is disabled. But factual questions remained regarding whether the plaintiff’s position was suitable employment or “make work,” which is a position that has been so altered that it would not be normally available on the market. Specifically, the Commission failed to address whether the plaintiff’s position exists at other employers. Without this analysis, it was impossible for the appellate court to determine whether the plaintiff was offered suitable employment.

Next, the appellate court disagreed with the Commission’s determination that the employee failed to establish any evidence of futility. An employee can meet the burden of showing disability by proving that the employee is capable of some work but that it would be futile because of the conditions that he or she suffers like lack of education. Based on the record, the plaintiff offered some evidence to show that futility may apply to his situation.

If you were hurt at work, you probably have questions about whether you can seek compensation for your injuries through the North Carolina workers’ compensation system. We understand how daunting this can seem and will provide you with the attentive and knowledgeable legal counsel that you deserve. To schedule a free consultation, call us today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent appellate opinion, the North Carolina appellate court was asked to consider whether an injury claim fell within workers’ compensation jurisdiction. The plaintiff, a North Carolina resident, alleged that he was hurt while working as a construction worker in Virginia. The employer was based in Tennessee and hires employees to work on specific projects. The plaintiff had worked for the employer on multiple occasions including pipelines in Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.

He originally filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits in Virginia and he received benefit payments. The plaintiff later filed a voluntary dismissal of the claim and refiled it in North Carolina with the state’s workers’ compensation commission.  The North Carolina workers’ compensation commission denied the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to oversee his claim. The employer then filed a motion to dismiss the claim pending any evidence that the claim belonged in North Carolina. The plaintiff responded by offering evidence of his North Carolina residence and that his wages were deposited into a North Carolina account. The court disagreed with plaintiff and dismissed his claim.

On appeal, the reviewing court upheld the lower court’s decision finding that the plaintiff could not prove that the injury fell within North Carolina’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff performed all his work in other states and earned all his income in other states. The appellate court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that because the contracts for employment were made in North Carolina the workers’ compensation system had jurisdiction over his injury.

If you were involved in a construction accident or another accident on the job, it is critical that you explore your legal rights, including any potential right to compensation from the individual who caused your injuries. At Maurer Law, our seasoned team of lawyers will provide you with a free consultation to discuss your situation and whether we can assist you. This includes assessing the appropriate location to pursue your claim as well as dealing with any insurance company disputes. Don’t wait, time may be running out on your claim. Call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent case, the injured worker suffered injuries to her face, head, neck, and right shoulder during a work-related accident in 1995. She filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was litigated on numerous occasions during the following two decades to determine which expenses were compensable. An award in 2003 left open the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to permanent partial disability payments for her right shoulder injury until a doctor was able to conclude that the plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement.

The plaintiff underwent several treatments and exams regarding the right shoulder injury. In 2011, the plaintiff filed an occupational disease claim for upper extremity conditions she suffered due to the repetitive nature of her job duties. The commission denied the request and also concluded that she had failed to satisfy the standard of an occupational disease.

In 2016, the plaintiff filed a request for a hearing on the basis that there had been a change in her condition. She underwent an independent medical exam, which revealed significant degenerative changes and other injuries to her right shoulder including a partial thickness rotator cuff tear. Surgery was not recommended. The injury was linked to the 1995 accident. Another doctor, however, concluded that the injury was not related to the 1995 accident. Ultimately, the court denied the plaintiff’s change of condition motion and the plaintiff appealed.

On review, the appellate court reversed and remanded the case for additional findings on whether the plaintiff was entitled to disability compensation for her right shoulder injury. The lower court made inconsistent findings regarding the medical testimony and evidence from the two doctors. Based on this, the appellate court concluded that the insurer had failed to show that the current right shoulder condition was not related to the 1995 accident. The appellate court also concluded that because the case had left open the issue of whether the shoulder injury reached maximum medical improvement, it was premature to determine whether there had been a change of condition.

If you were hurt at work, you should speak to an experienced Charlotte work injury lawyer as soon as possible to explore your legal rights and options. Maurer Law knows how stressful this situation can be and how overwhelming the workers’ compensation claims process might seem while you are coping with the pain of your injury and countless doctors’ appointments. We offer a free consultation to discuss your situation and how we may be able to assist you. Call us as soon as possible at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent claim, the plaintiff appealed from a dismissal of her complaint against her employer, asserting a claim for negligence. The lower court determined that the events giving rise to her claim happened in the course and scope of employment and that as a result, the workers’ compensation system was her sole remedy. In the case, the plaintiff suffered from a mental illness and had been out of work for some time. She eventually began work for the employer, a bank. Shortly after receiving a promotion at the bank, the mental illness resurfaced. The bank put the plaintiff on short-term disability as a result of her condition and inability to perform her duties.

The plaintiff eventually returned to work on a limited schedule but was unable to perform the duties that her employer expected. She asked to be transferred, but the request was denied, and her doctor eventually took her out of work and diagnosed her as bipolar.

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the bank was negligent in not providing her with a safe working environment that was free from mental stress or anxiety and that the failure aggravated her pre-existing mental condition that the defendant knew about. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the claim was barred in civil court by the exclusivity provision of the workers’ compensation system, and the lower court granted the motion.

The plaintiff appealed, and the reviewing court ultimately agreed, finding that the events giving rise to her alleged cause of action happened within the course and scope of her employment. The appellate court also concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to include any factual allegations demonstrating that the defendants acted intentionally in causing her claimed mental injury. In order for the case to be heard in civil court outside the exclusivity provision of the workers’ compensation act, the plaintiff would need to show that the defendant acted willfully in causing her mental suffering.

If you were injured at work or have questions about the workers’ compensation system in North Carolina, contact the seasoned team of Charlotte workers’ compensation lawyers of Maurer Law as soon as possible. We know how confusing the legal process can be and how difficult it can be to understand if you are being treated fairly. We can review your situation and help you determine the best way to proceed to recover the compensation that you deserve. We offer a free consultation, so call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent case, the employee allegedly hurt himself at work when he slipped and fell. He sought medical treatment, which his employer paid for through its insurance carrier. He underwent additional treatment with no improvement, eventually requiring surgery. Several months later, the worker was designated as having reached maximum medical improvement with certain limitations including permanent work restrictions on what he could lift. During the following weeks, the plaintiff continued to complain of pain.

The worker eventually suggested that his truck driver position was beyond the scope of his work limitations, so the employer provided him with a position as part of the loading crew and assured him that it would not conflict with the lifting restrictions. The description, however, said that the worker must be required to lift 50 pounds on occasion, use his or her hands and wrists, and grasp objects repetitively. The worker attempted to perform these tasks, but experienced pain quickly.

The employee missed work for two weeks pursuant to a physician’s instruction. The employer then modified the position to a “sorter” position, which involved lifting no more than 20-pounds. Soon thereafter, one of the worker’s physicians removed him from work indefinitely due to his pain.

Throughout this time, the employer had stopped paying workers’ compensation benefits and advised the worker that he could receive Family Medical Leave Act pay. The worker had sought reinstatement of his benefits. The presiding judge concluded that the worker did not unjustifiably or constructively refuse suitable employment, that the employer had not provided a job that was within the physical limitations that the worker experienced and that the worker was a credible witness about his pain and limitations. The judge also concluded that the employer did not provide suitable employment and failed to show that another employer would hire the worker to do a similar job at a comparable wage.

The employer appealed and the reviewing court ultimately concluded that the worker was entitled to ongoing workers’ compensation benefits as well as medical expenses reimbursement. The defendant appealed again, and the appellate court affirmed the decision, thereby upholding the award of benefits to the worker.

If you were hurt at work, you deserve compassionate and experienced Charlotte work injury lawyers processing your workers’ compensation claim. This can be one of the most confusing situations in your career and it can have serious consequences for your health. Maurer Law provides a free consultation to help you learn about your potential legal rights, how your employer must treat you during this period, and whether you are required to go back to work or to accept an alternative position. To set up your appointment call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

In a recent claim, a worker was a transporter who was responsible for loading 100-pound to 200-pound tires into a tractor-trailer and delivering them. Sometimes he would unload the tires himself and he would make anywhere between four and 12 deliveries each day. Reportedly, while making a delivery in 2015, a tire fell from the truck and hit him in the chest. It bounced and hit him in the chest again. He was later taken to an urgent care center. It was later determined that he suffered an aortic dissection and collapsed lung, requiring him to be admitted to the ICU.

As a result of his injury, plaintiff’s physician instructed him that he would not be able to lift more than 40-pounds indefinitely. The doctor’s medical opinion concluded that the plaintiff was permanently disabled and incapable of returning to work.

The worker sought workers’ compensation benefits. During a hearing, he testified that tire strikes happened routinely and that he suffered memory loss as a result of the aortic dissection. He was initially awarded temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses reimbursement. The insurer appealed and the full commission required medical deposition testimony. The full Commission determined that the worker’s testimony was inconsistent with the medical reports and that it was not supported by evidence in the record. It, therefore, concluded that the worker failed to show that he suffered a compensable injury that occurred during the course and scope of his employment and denied his claim for benefits.

The plaintiff appealed, alleging that the Commission failed to consider medical evidence, made findings of fact that were not supported by the evidence, made conclusions of law that were not founded on the facts, and made an inconsistent conclusion. The appellate court agreed, determining that the Commission failed to consider testimony and records of the worker’s treating physicians. In determining whether the worker suffered a compensable work injury, the Commission should have considered medical testimony regarding the aortic dissection and what caused it.

Based on this, the appellate court reversed the Commission’s denial of worker’s claim and remanded the matter.

If you were hurt at work, it is critical that you understand how the workers’ compensation system works in North Carolina. Maurer Law knows how overwhelming this can seem when you are trying to recover from your injuries while still taking care of your financial, familial, and other responsibilities. We handle a broad range of work injury accident claims and offer a free consultation so that you can learn more about our legal team and whether we can assist you. Call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent workers’ compensation claim, a worker suffered an injury while working as a flight attendant when she attempted to remove a wheelchair dislodged in a compartment on a plane. The defendant insurance company denied the plaintiff’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits, and a deputy commissioner determined that the worker should be awarded partial relief. The parties appealed, and the Full Commission denied the plaintiff’s claim outright on the basis of credibility.

After reviewing the basic workers’ compensation rules, the appellate court specified that for an injury to be compensable, it must happen in the course of employment, which involves reviewing the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident took place. The worker’s first basis for appeal was that the lower court did not make proper findings regarding the testimony that her co-workers provided. The appellate court disagreed. Just because the court failed to recite the testimony or make significant mention of it in its opinion did not necessarily mean that the court failed to consider the weight of the testimony. Reviewing the opinion, the judge made numerous references to the testimony and described the co-workers’ testimony in detail.

Next, the worker contended that the lower court failed to attribute proper credibility to her testimony. The opinion from the lower court stated that the worker did not provide credible testimony because there were many inconsistencies, including the date of the onset of her injuries, the date she reported the injury, and eyewitness testimony that contradicted the plaintiff’s testimony.

The appellate court also noted that the plaintiff failed to contest findings in the opinion that concluded that the plaintiff’s injury was not caused by her employment. The appellate court pointed to evidence in the record that showed that the worker missed several doctors’ appointments, failed to use a medical provider within the workers’ compensation network, and did not properly submit the claim, despite having submitted claims in the past. Based on these findings, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

If you were hurt at work, it is critical that you seek guidance from an experienced and knowledgeable Raleigh work injury lawyer as soon as possible. We know that you are probably stressed and overwhelmed by your painful injuries as well as trying to ensure that you are receiving the fair treatment that you deserve. We provide a free consultation to help you learn more about how we can assist you and whether you have a viable claim for benefits. Call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent claim, the plaintiff filed a claim alleging that he received negligent care from a medical professional when he was treated for a stroke that he suffered at work. Plaintiff also filed a workers’ compensation claim based on the same situation. The workers’ compensation claim was dismissed on the basis that the injuries that the plaintiff suffered were not caused by his job duties or occupation and that as a result he was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The plaintiff did not appeal the denial of his claim.

The defendants in the civil case moved to dismiss the matter alleging that the plaintiff’s appropriate remedy was through the workers’ compensation system. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment and the defendants appealed. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the medical negligence claims and that the facts giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim did not arise out of the course and scope of the plaintiff’s employment. It also relied on the Industrial Commission’s denial of the plaintiff’s claim for benefits in reaching this conclusion.

On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the motion for summary judgment. It noted that while the workers’ compensation laws provide benefits and medical expenses reimbursement for injuries that occur as the direct result of an employee’s job duties, the system is designed to only compensate injuries that arise from the course and scope of the employment. The medical professional’s failure to properly diagnose and treat the plaintiff following his stroke were not acts that occurred within the course and scope of the plaintiff’s employment.

The court also noted that injuries that fall under the workers’ compensation system are injuries that are a probable consequence of the nature of the employment. The stroke was not caused by the plaintiff’s employment as a grinding machine operator and the negligent care rendered by the medical defendants to address the stroke was not a foreseeable injury that he may suffer as a result of his employment. If the employee had suffered an injury as a direct result of his job duties such as operating, inspecting, or repairing the machine, then that injury would have probably fallen within the workers’ compensation system.

If you were hurt at work and believe that you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, our diligent team of North Carolina work injury lawyers are prepared to help you investigate your claim. We will assist you with each step of the process from gathering medical evidence to negotiating with insurance companies. We provide a free consultation so that you can learn more about your potential claim and whether we can assist you. Call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In an opinion from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, an insurance company appealed a decision from the North Carolina Industrial Commission finding that an injured worker’s death was directly related to and a consequence of his employment. In 2000, the man suffered an injury to his groin and abdomen while lifting a tire. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier initially accepted liability for the accident and the man started receiving temporary total disability benefits.

The worker then underwent a series of medical treatments including surgeries and pain management prescriptions. Despite these efforts, the man’s condition worsened and he reported experiencing severe side effects from his opiate pain relief medications. He also reported abdominal issues including chronic constipation. In 2012, a tumor was found in his bladder and he was diagnosed with cancer. In 2013, he reported to the emergency room with difficulty urinating and tenderness in his stomach. A few months later, he reported to the emergency room again with worsening symptoms and bowel obstruction. He underwent emergency surgery to remove the obstruction but never regained consciousness, eventually passing away.

Following the worker’s passing, his wife filed a request for death benefits, resulting in the award of compensation. The defendants challenged the finding on the basis that the judge did not have enough evidence to support a finding that the death was related to this injury and his employment.

On review, the appellate court affirmed the entire award of benefits. It reviewed substantial evidence in the record including a number of reports from doctors who treated the worker and expert witnesses. To find causation, the court must identify enough evidence to support a finding that the work-related injury was the primary cause and contributing factor to the decedent’s death. The worker’s long-term use of narcotic medication to manage his pain from the injury led to constipation, which ultimately contributed to his death. But for the worker’s need to take pain medication, he would not have battled chronic constipation and eventually cancer.

If you were hurt at work and believe that you are entitled to benefits, or if you lost a loved one due to a work-related injury, contact us today to start learning more about your right to workers’ compensation benefits. There are countless rules to follow and hurdles that you must overcome before you will be awarded benefits, and insurance companies often challenge awards. A seasoned work injury lawyer by your side can help ensure that everyone treats you fairly and that you receive the outcome that you deserve in an efficient and timely manner. Our seasoned team of work injury lawyers offers a free consultation so that we can discuss your situation and whether we are able to help you. Call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

A recent claim from the North Carolina Court of Appeal discusses average weekly wage calculations. The employer’s workers’ compensation insurer appealed from a decision awarding an injured certified nursing assistant benefits. The insurer challenged the lower court’s calculation of the nurse’s average weekly wages according to one of the many methods listed in North Carolina’s workers’ compensation statutes. According to the insurer, the lower court gave too much credence to the worker’s earnings following the injury and that the figure it chose was not a close approximation of the amount she would have earned had she not been injured.

The appellate court began by reviewing the state’s standard for calculating average weekly wages, which is covered in N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 97-2(5). It sets forth five ways that a court can make this calculation. The methods are listed in the priority that they should be used. Overall, the legislature intended for the court to make the calculation fair and just to the employer and the employee. This has been interpreted to mean that the average weekly wages should be as close as possible to the amount that the employee would have been earning had he or she not suffered an injury on the job.

Here, the lower court used the fifth method to calculate weekly wages for the injured nurse. Under this method, the court must conclude that there are exceptional reasons that using one of the other four methods would be unfair to the worker or the employer, or that another method would result in a closer approximation of what the employee would have earned had he or she not been injured.

The lower court divided the worker’s gross wages by the total number of days that she worked, which the appellate court deemed as fair. This included wages she earned while working part-time, full-time and at two different hourly rates. The lower court also only divided these earnings by the actual number of days that the employee worked. By doing so, the lower court properly accounted for both peak periods and slack periods in her work pattern.

If you were hurt at work, we are ready to help you fight for your right to receive workers’ compensation benefits. Understanding this process and knowing whether you are getting the results that you deserve can be challenging and seemingly impossible, especially if your injuries are severe. We offer injured workers a free and confidential consultation to learn more about our legal team and how we can help you. Call us today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent claim, the worker suffered neck and spinal injuries while employed with a trucking company as a driver. Her employer and its workers’ compensation insurer appealed a decision from a lower court denying its request to terminate her temporary total disability benefits. Specifically, the employer and insurer alleged that the lower court erred in concluding that the worker was disabled after her doctor released her in December 2015 to “return to full activities.”

The appellate court began by noting the standard of review that it must apply, which is to review findings of fact to determine whether “any competent evidence supports the Commission’s findings … and whether the findings of fact support the Commission’s conclusions of law.”

In workers’ compensation cases under North Carolina law, the worker has the burden of showing that he or she is suffering from a disability, which is the incapacity to earn the same level of wages because of the injury. Reviewing the record of evidence, the appellate court concluded that the lower court relied on sufficient facts to support its finding that the employee remained disabled as the result of a work injury. Mainly, it noted that the December 2015 release was a qualified release that did not account for the physical limitations that the worker may have continued to experience.

As far as being released to return to full activities, the doctor who made this medical conclusion indicated that he had not assessed whether the worker was capable of performing the duties of a truck driver. Rather, the doctor said he would leave it up to the Department of Transportation to conclude whether she could safely operate a truck. Also, the doctor testified that he released the worker to return to activities that she felt she was capable of performing at her own discretion. While the release did not contain specific work restrictions, the doctor’s report and testimony supported the lower court’s finding that she remained disabled.

The employer and insurer also challenged the lower court’s finding that the worker’s search to find comparable employment had been reasonable. The lower court found that the worker had looked for jobs within fields where she had experience and that she had requested vocational rehabilitation to pursue other types of employment, but that her request had been denied by the defendants. The record also showed that she had applied for 19 trucking jobs and that she was willing to submit to physical examinations for each.

If you were hurt on the job and are facing challenges to your benefit award from your employer and/or employer’s insurer, contact our seasoned team of North Carolina work injury lawyers today to protect your right to compensation. We have assisted countless injured workers throughout the region and are well-versed in the rules that apply to the claims process. To schedule a free consultation, call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

Related Posts

North Carolina Appellate Court Issues Ruling in Workers’ Compensation Death Benefit Subrogation Dispute

North Carolina Court Issues Opinion in Slip and Fall Case Highlighting Importance of Preserving Evidence and Submitting a Complete Record on Appeal

Recently, the North Carolina appellate court considered a case in which an employee lost his life in a motor vehicle accident while driving a truck for his employer. He was operating the employer’s vehicle at the time of the crash, which was insured under an auto policy. The order also required the insurer to pay the widow five hundred weekly payments of roughly $650 each and over $8,000 for funeral expenses. The total amount of benefits amounted to approximately $333,000 dollars.

The widow was then appointed as the personal representative for the decedent’s estate. She filed a wrongful death action against the driver who caused the crash and his father. The plaintiff reached a settlement of roughly $950,000 for these claims including the policy limits for the at-fault driver’s auto insurance.

The employer’s insurer then filed a subrogation claim against the widow seeking $333,763 of the $950,000, describing the settlement as a third-party settlement. A deputy commissioner filed an opinion in the defendant’s favor requiring the widow to pay the insurer the roughly $350,000 in subrogation funds that it sought.

The decedent’s widow filed an action to recover death benefits shortly after the accident and the Industrial Commission entered an award making several findings, including a finding that the decedent died in a car crash arising from the course and scope of his employment and that he had six children who were all over the age of eighteen at the time of his death. The plaintiff appealed and the Full Commission upheld the lower court’s ruling.

The plaintiff appealed again on several grounds, including the assertion that the insurer was not allowed to assert a subrogation lien against the underinsured motorist policy benefits because the applicable auto insurance policy originated in South Carolina and a provision of South Carolina law immunizes UIM benefits from subrogation claims. The appellate court sided with the defendants on the grounds that North Carolina’s subrogation law controlled the proceedings because it was the state in which the action was filed.

If you lost a loved one in a work-related accident, you may be entitled to benefits and compensation. At Maurer Law, our North Carolina workers’ compensation and wrongful death lawyers understand that your family is experiencing incredible pain and suffering during this time, which is why we will stand by you through each step of the process to ensure that you understand your legal rights. We provide a free consultation to discuss your situation and whether legal action is right for you. Call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

Related Posts

North Carolina Court Issues Opinion in Slip and Fall Case Highlighting Importance of Preserving Evidence and Submitting a Complete Record on Appeal

North Carolina Appellate Court Affirms Award of 15% Disability in Knee Injury Claim

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered a dispute in a claim involving a pre-existing injury. The claimant worked at a hospital where she was injured on April 20. Roughly one month later on May 26, she stood up after finishing her lunch, heard a loud popping noise in her knee, and experienced immediate unbearable pain.

The plaintiff filed a claim seeking compensation for the original injury. She also had a history of conditions in both knees, starting roughly 40 years ago. The employer accepted the claim on a medical-only basis and denied further treatment on the basis that the claimant’s current condition was not causally related to the accident. It also denied the injury that occurred one month after the accident. A Deputy Commissioner denied the woman’s claim for benefits, which was later affirmed by the Full Commission.

The plaintiff appealed on several grounds, including an allegation that the judge mistakenly imposed a burden of proof on her, and determined that there was no exacerbation of her existing injury and that the May 26 injury was an intervening accident.

Regarding her first assignment of error, the appellate court disagreed and found that the woman was not entitled to a presumption that would have shifted the burden of proof to the employer. This presumption is only available where the claimant’s injury has been proven to be compensable. The employer’s acceptance of the claim on a medical-only basis did not serve as an admission of liability and therefore could not serve as a basis for shifting the burden of proof to the employer. The court properly assigned the burden of proof to the plaintiff to show that her need for medical treatment was the result of the April 20 accident.

Next, the appellate court addressed the plaintiff’s allegation that the court erred in concluding that she was no longer experiencing an aggravation of her pre-existing injury. Reviewing the record, the appellate court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the judge’s finding that the claimant had returned or was returning to her pre-injury state or baseline condition after the accident. Multiple doctors testified about the injury and whether it contributed to the woman’s need for a total right knee replacement. They concluded that her need for the surgery was inevitable regardless of the injuries that were sustained on April 20 or May 26. For these reasons, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision.

If you were hurt at work, call us immediately to start learning about the North Carolina workers’ compensation system and whether you may be entitled to benefits and medical expenses reimbursements. We have assisted countless individuals throughout the region with a wide variety of injury types. We are ready to put our experience to use for you and offer a free consultation so that we can discuss your situation. Call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

Related Posts

North Carolina Supreme Court Issues Opinion Discussing when an Attorney’s Fee Award is Proper in Workers’ Compensation Cases

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Reinstatement of Benefits for Injured Truck Driver

In a recent lawsuit, the North Carolina Supreme Court considered whether a lower court acted correctly in denying to award attorney’s fees to the plaintiff under a North Carolina statute. The statute in question, N.C.G.S. §97-90(c), state that where an attorney has an agreement for a fee, it shall be filed with the Commission and if the agreement is not unreasonable, it shall be approved.

The worker was employed as a bartender when he suffered two back injuries in 2010. He sought workers’ compensation benefits, which he was awarded. The plaintiff underwent back surgery and therapy, but his disability did not improve and continued to worsen. He eventually required attendant care medical services, which the defendants agreed to provide if they could take the depositions of two of the plaintiff’s doctors. The plaintiff and his attorney modified their retainer agreement at this time to include fees for the attorney in the event that attendant care services were awarded.

A dispute arose and the defendant ceased to provide attendant care. Eventually, the Commission awarded the plaintiff retroactive attendant care compensation and approved an attorney’s fee of 25% of the value of the retroactive attendant care based on the plaintiff’s retainer agreement with his attorney.

The defendant appealed and the superior court reversed the North Carolina Industrial Commission’s award of attorney’s fees. The plaintiff and the defendants appealed. A full Commission panel concluded that the fee agreement providing the attorney compensation from the attendant home care award was unreasonable and violated North Carolina statutes governing fee agreements.

The plaintiff appealed to the superior court and provided an affidavit explaining the amended fee agreement. The superior court vacated the Commission’s finding and upheld the original award of attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeal then vacated that order finding that the superior court exceeded the scope of its authority to review the reasonableness of the Commission’s award of attorney’s fees according to North Carolina workers’ compensation statutes when it took into consideration new evidence that was not before the Commission.

On review to the Supreme Court, it concluded that the superior court had jurisdiction to consider additional evidence like the affidavits when determining whether the award of attorney’s fees was reasonable. Reviewing the record, it found that the superior court based its determination on proper factual findings and acted in accordance with North Carolina statutes and that the award of attorney’s fees was proper. Based on this, it vacated the lower court’s ruling and provided instructions for the Commission to reinstate the award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiff.

If you were injured on the job, you may be entitled to various categories of benefits and compensation. Our diligent and responsive team of North Carolina work injury lawyers are prepared to help you ensure that you explore every possible right of recovery and that you receive the fair outcome that you deserve during this painful and stressful situation. To schedule your free consultation, call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

Related Posts

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Reinstatement of Benefits for Injured Truck Driver

North Carolina Court Upholds Award of Benefits to Injured Grocery Store Worker

The North Carolina appellate court recently considered a claim in which the worker suffered injuries to her neck and spine while working as a truck driver, which required her to maintain a Class A commercial license. Obtaining this license requires the applicant to undergo a medical examination on a periodic basis. She injured her back and spine while operating the landing gear on her vehicle. The company told her that there was no light duty work available. Eventually, the Industrial Commission concluded that she had suffered a work-related injury and she was entitled to temporary total disability benefits.

The woman underwent treatment for her injuries, including a surgical procedure. She was unable to work for several weeks after the surgery. Her treating physician testified that her injury would affect her for the rest of her life, in terms of her ability to move and lift heavy objects. He did indicate that she was able to return to full activities. He prescribed her Vicodin as needed and referred her to the DMV or federal Department of Transportation to determine whether she could return to truck driving.

Her employer asked if she could return to work and she indicated that she was still taking medication and unable to drive. The employer terminated her on the basis that she had been released with no restrictions and also sought an order terminating her disability benefits. The order was granted and the woman appealed. She provided evidence showing that she applied to 19 trucking companies and that she was denied an interview each time because of her condition and the fact that she still took Vicodin for the pain. She filed a motion to compel vocational rehabilitation so that she could train for another field, but the Commission denied the request and she appealed. The reviewing deputy commissioner reinstated her benefits and ordered the defendants to pay any missed payments. The employer appealed.

On review, the appellate court noted the narrow standard of review that applies to fact-finding by the Commission, which requires a reviewing court to uphold a decision if there is any competent evidence supporting the findings. The employer challenged the Commission’s finding that the woman was disabled after she was released. Disability is defined under North Carolina law as incapacity because of an injury to earn wages that the employee was receiving at the time of the injury or any other employment. The appellate court concluded that although she had been released to full activities without specific work restrictions, there was enough evidence to support a finding that the release focused on the progress of her healing and in no way indicated that she was free of any injury-related restrictions. Based on similar findings, the appellate court upheld the reinstatement of benefits.

If you were hurt at work or currently involved in a workers’ compensation claim, we are ready to help you fight for the outcome that you deserve. To schedule your free consultation to learn more about our legal team and our services, call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

Related Posts

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Denial of Benefits Based on Lower Court’s Improper Determination Regarding whether Employee’s Search for Work was Reasonable

North Carolina Appellate Court Dismisses Appeal Regarding Discovery Order as Improperly Filed and Discusses Interlocutory Appeal Exceptions

In a recent case, the North Carolina appellate court considered a claim in which the worker hurt his back while working in the produce department of a grocery store. He was lifting watermelons from a bin which required him to bend over and scoop them out of the bin. He experienced a sudden onset of pain in his right arm and shoulder. A medical exam was conducted and the doctor concluded that the injury was likely neurological in nature. The MRI revealed acute and chronic damage to his spine with multilevel degenerative disc disease. The doctor attributed it to a sudden event but noted that MRIs do not indicate when an injury occurred. He also identified narrowing of the worker’s spinal cord.

He underwent further treatment, including a decompression surgery for his spine. One of his doctors testified that he could not give a medical opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty regarding whether the incident with the watermelons was the primary cause of his injury. The employer challenged the worker’s claim for benefits on the basis that the injury was chronic and not related to the course and scope of his employment. The Commission agreed with the employer and the worker appealed.

The full commission reversed the denial of benefits, finding enough evidence in the record and medical testimony to support a causal link between the work incident and his injury. The defendants appealed, arguing that the commission relied on an incompetent expert medical opinion in finding a causal relationship because the testimony was based primarily on the timing of the injury and the aggravation of his spinal condition. The appellate court first noted that medical opinions cannot be used as competent evidence where it is based on speculation and conjecture. It also noted that medical evidence based solely on the timing of events and symptoms does not rise to the level of competent evidence.

Turning to the case at hand, the reviewing court concluded that the medical evidence met the sufficient burden and was not simply reliant on the sequence of events related to the worker’s symptoms. The expert made some reference to timing, but the opinion as a whole was not based solely on the temporal connection between the injury and the symptoms that the worker experienced.

Work injuries can be extremely painful and stressful. Our seasoned team of North Carolina workers’ compensation lawyers is prepared to answer your questions and to help assess your potential claim for benefits. We offer a free consultation so that you can learn more about our attorneys and how we can assist you during this difficult time. Call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to schedule your appointment.

Related Posts

North Carolina Supreme Court Upholds Application of Governmental Immunity Doctrine in Slip and Fall Case

North Carolina Appellate Court Rejects Constitutional Privacy-Based Request to Seal Workers’ Compensation Awards Decision

In a recent claim, the plaintiff worked in a major department store for nearly 22 years when she tripped and fell forward over the bottom of a stairway ladder. She attempted to break her fall and struck her wrist on the cement floor as well as her shoulder and knee. The plaintiff received emergency medical treatment for her injuries and she was diagnosed with a shoulder sprain. She followed up with the doctor several times complaining of continued pain in her wrist, shoulder, arm, neck, and knee. She underwent many additional medical examinations and treatments to address her pain and symptoms.

The plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits and the employer accepted plaintiff’s claim and identified the injury as impacting her right shoulder and arm. The insurer later filed a form indicating that it denied compensability of any new injuries that the plaintiff reported outside of her employment involving her cervical spine. The matter came before a Deputy Commissioner for hearing and he concluded that the plaintiff had suffered a work-related injury that impacted her wrist, knee, and pre-existing cervical disc disease. The plaintiff was awarded benefits and compensation for her medical expenses, including any surgical procedures that were recommended.

The defendant appealed and the reviewing commission concluded that because the defendant filed a form accepting compensability of her injuries, a presumption arose that the plaintiff’s other injuries were related to her accident and that the insurer was required to rebut that presumption with evidence. The defendant appealed again, and the Court of Appeals concluded that the lower court erred in applying the presumption, but found sufficient evidence in the record to also conclude that the plaintiff had established a causal link between all of her injuries and the accident.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the high court first noted that the insurer listed only right shoulder and arm injuries in the form accepting compensability of the plaintiff’s injuries. Turning to the Commission’s findings, the Supreme Court found an inconsistency regarding whether the Commission relied on this presumption or independent evidence establishing causation to conclude that the insurer must pay benefits for all of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court was unable to determine whether the Commission and the Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence to link the additional injuries concerning the plaintiff’s neck and other ailments to the fall and whether the Commission placed the burden of proof or need to rebut causation on the insurer. As a result, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings on the issue of causation.

If you were hurt at work, you deserve knowledgeable and efficient legal counsel to help you determine whether you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. There are countless procedural and substantive rules that claimants must follow, or they risk losing their right to payments. We have handled countless different types of work injuries and offer a free consultation to discuss your situation and to help you understand how we can assist you. Call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to set up your appointment.

Related Posts

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Denial of Workers’ Compensation Claim in Psychiatric Injury Case Based on Improper Appeal Procedures

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Decision Finding Car Accident Victim Entitled to Employer’s $1 Million Uninsured Motorist Policy Provision

A recent North Carolina appellate opinion discusses the issue of reasonableness. The worker was injured in an accident involving a flatbed truck during the course and scope of his employment. He received emergency medical treatment and complained of pain in the left side of his back, hip, and knee. He received treatment for his injuries including physical therapy and pain medication. He eventually returned to work, but indicated that his back pain increased. The employee attempted to obtain different positions with his employer but was unable to qualify for the positions due to his back pain.

The worker continued to undergo different medical treatments and examinations for his back pain. He was eventually diagnosed with non-mechanical back pain and a spinal contusion.

The parties agreed that the worker was injured, but the employer disputed the extent of the worker’s injuries. The court awarded the worker temporary total disability benefits but did not award the full duration of benefits that the worker claimed based on its determination that the man had not made a reasonable effort to find suitable employment or that as a result of his injury and work restrictions a search would have been futile. The worker appealed on the basis that he was not required to search for employment positions outside of his existing employer. The employer argued that the plaintiff’s search was insufficient.

The appellate court first reviewed the standard for determining whether an employee has made a genuine effort for obtaining employment, stating that there is no general rule for assessing reasonableness. Instead, it is up to the Commission to decide what was reasonable. and that the Commission must make specific findings of fact to support its conclusions. The court then reviewed the Commission’s findings regarding the worker’s job search and concluded that the lower court failed to provide any explanation for its determination of whether the employee’s search was reasonable. Accordingly, the appellate court remanded the matter with instructions to the lower court to further examine the issue of reasonableness.

If you were hurt at work, you may be entitled to workers’ compensation and benefits. The seasoned team of work injury lawyers at Maurer Law have assisted injured people throughout North Carolina with a broad range of injury types involving many different occupations. We know how stressful this situation is for you and your family and how important it is for you to have some sense of financial security as you cope with your injuries. We provide a free consultation so call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

Related Posts

North Carolina Appellate Court Dismisses Appeal Regarding Discovery Order as Improperly Filed and Discusses Interlocutory Appeal Exceptions

North Carolina Supreme Court Upholds Application of Governmental Immunity Doctrine in Slip and Fall Case