• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

North Carolina Personal Injury & Workers Compensation Attorneys

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • linkedin

Call Us 919-240-4054

Main navigation

  • Camp Lejeune
  • Workers’ Comp
    • Durham, NC
      • Burns and Explosions
      • Durham back injury lawyers
      • Brain Injury
      • Chemical Exposure
      • Construction Accidents
      • Healthcare Workers and COVID-19
      • Occupational Disease
      • Union Members
      • Workplace Violence
  • Personal Injury
    • Durham, NC
      • Burn Injury
      • College Campus Injuries
      • Car Accidents
      • Catastrophic Injuries
      • Premises Liability
      • Product Liability
      • Trucking Accidents
      • Traumatic Brain Injury
    • Charlotte, NC
      • Trucking Accidents
      • Brain Injury Lawyer
      • Burn Injury Lawyer
      • Premises Liability Lawyer
      • Product Liability Lawyer
      • Car Accident Lawyer
      • Catastrophic Injury Lawyer
  • Wrongful Death
    • Durham, NC
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Bicycle Crash
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Our Lawyers
    • Ann E. Groninger
    • Valerie Johnson
    • Helen S. Baddour
    • Drew Culler
    • Jennifer Segnere
    • Speaking Engagements
  • Resources
    • Law Blog
    • Our Community
  • Contact Us
  • Español

July 28, 2010 By nicole

NC Court of Appeals July 20, 2010 decisions on workers’ compensation — part 1

On July 20, 2010, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued four published opinions regarding workers’ compensation. The first decision, Morales-Rodriguez v. Carolina Quality Exteriors, Inc., concerned whether the plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor of the defendant. The plaintiff sought benefits for injuries sustained when he fell from a building at Nags Head, North Carolina, while applying stucco siding. Workers’ compensation benefits can only be awarded to employees; independent contractors are not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act. In distinguishing between an employee and contractor, “The vital test is to be found in the fact that the employer has or has not retained the right of control or superintendence over the contractor or employee as to details.”  Factors to be considered are whether:

the person employed (a) is engaged in an independent business, calling, or occupation; (b) is to have the independent use of his special skill, knowledge, or training in the execution of the work; (c) is doing a specified piece of work at a fixed price or for a lump sum or upon a quantitative basis; (d) is not subject to discharge because he adopts one method of doing the work rather than another; (e) is not in the regular employ of the other contracting party; (f) is free to use such assistants as he may think proper; (g) has full control over such assistants; and (h) selects his own time.

Here, the Court credited the plaintiff’s testimony and documentary evidence that he was paid by the hour, was instructed on how to work, and did not hire his own assistants. Thus he was found to be an employee and the Court upheld his award of benefits.

In the second case, Price v. Piggy Palace, the plaintiff, a 20-year-old cook, was injured when a co-worker slipped and fell, spilling approximately three gallons of hot grease onto the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff suffered severe burns to his head, left arm, and legs. The Full Commission had ordered that the plaintiff receive the recommended pulse dye laser treatment to aid his recovery, and awarded plaintiff travel expenses for his parents’ everyday travel to the hospital. During his hospital stay, the plaintiff’s parents had gone to the hospital every day and his mother assisted in the treatment of his burns, particularly with washing and dressing them. In affirming the award of travel expenses, the Court concluded that the plaintiff’s mother’s medical assistance and psychological support were reasonably necessary to provide relief for his condition, which is sufficient to award travel expenses as part of medical expenses under N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-25.

Filed Under: In the News, Workers' Compensation Tagged With: Case Commentary, Employee Requirement, Independent Contractors, Industrial Commission, Medical Expenses, NC Court of Appeals, Travel Expenses

Primary Sidebar

Primary Sidebar

Occupation

  • Bus Drivers
  • Construction Workers
  • First Responders
  • Police Officers
  • Truck Drivers
  • State Employees
  • Union Members

Injury

  • Asbestos Exposure
  • Durham back injury lawyers
  • Brain Injury
  • Burns and explosions
  • Chemical Exposure
  • COVID-19 and Healthcare Workers
  • Occupational Diseases
  • Workplace Violence

Free Legal Resources

  • Workers’ Compensation 101
  • 8 Questions to Answer Before You Are Ever in a Wreck
  • Essentials for Workers’ Comp Success
  • Help for Families of North Carolina Burn Victims

Locations

Durham Office

300 Blackwell St S#101, Durham, NC 27701

Phone: (919) 240-4054

Fax: (888) 412-0421

Charlotte Office

1018 East Blvd., Ste 6 Charlotte, NC 28203

Phone: (704) 200-2009

Fax : (888) 412-0421

Read Our Google Reviews

Get more stuff

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously.

Copyright Johnson & Groninger PLLC Law Firm SEO by EverSpark Interactive