• 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

  • Workers’ Comp
    • Durham, NC
      • Brain Injury Lawyer
      • Burns and Explosions Lawyer
      • Chemical Exposure Lawyer
      • Construction Accident Lawyer
      • Durham Back Injury Lawyer
      • Healthcare Workers and COVID-19 Lawyer
      • Occupational Disease Lawyer
      • Union Member Lawyer
      • Workplace Violence Lawyer
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Bicycle Crashes
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Personal Injury
    • Durham, NC
      • Burn Injury Lawyer
      • College Campus Injury Lawyer
      • Car Accident Lawyer
      • Catastrophic Injury Lawyer
      • Motorcycle Accident Lawyer
      • Premises Liability Lawyer
      • Product Liability Lawyer
      • Truck Accident Lawyer
    • Charlotte, NC
      • Brain Injury Lawyer
      • Burn Injury Lawyer
      • Car Accident Lawyer
      • Catastrophic Injury Lawyer
      • Premises Liability Lawyer
      • Motorcycle Accident Lawyer
      • Product Liability Lawyer
      • Truck Accident Lawyer
  • Wrongful Death
    • Durham, NC
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Our Lawyers
    • Ann Groninger
    • Valerie Johnson
    • Drew Culler
    • Jennifer Segnere
    • Request a Speaking Engagement
  • Resources
    • Law Blog
    • Our Community
  • Contact Us
  • Español

October 7, 2009 By nicole

This week’s workers’ compensation decisions by the NC Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals released two opinions this week on workers’ compensation.  In the first opinion, Fonville v. General Motors, the most significant holding concerned the defendants’ unilateral termination of benefits. In this case, the plaintiff was hurt when she was struck in the head by a tent pole at a corporate event, and the defendants accepted her workers’ comp claim by filing a Form 60. The plaintiff appeared to have fully recovered several months later, by which time she had already been terminated for a reason unrelated to her injury. At this point, the defendants terminated her benefits, without filing any form with the Industrial Commission or asking for a hearing.

While the Commission denied the plaintiff’s claim for benefits for the period up until she found another job, the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed. The court held that defendants can only terminate benefits for an accepted claim if (1) the plaintiff has returned to work, (2) defendants ask for a hearing, or (3) defendants comply with N.C.G.S. 97-18(c) and I.C. Rule 404 by filing a Form 24. As defendnats did not file a Form 24 or ask for a hearing before terminating benefits, they denied the plaintiff due process.  Therefore, plaintiff is now entitled to the benefits up until the time she returned to work, plus the 10% penalty under N.C.G.S. 97-18(g). The remainder of the Commission’s decision, in part concluding that the plaintiff was not entitled to further medical treatment, was affirmed. This decision forcefully reminds employers and their insurance companies that they have to follow the rules. Cutting off someone’s benefits is a significant matter, and workers need due process so that they can contest unlawful decisions.

The second opinion, Dobson v. The Salvation Army, is unpublished, and generally consists of the court affirming the decision of the Industrial Commission because the Commission’s findings were supported by at least some competent evidence. Of note is how one of plaintiff’s experts was handled, and whether she was qualified to give expert medical testimony. The expert testified to the plaintiff’s depression and substance abuse issues, whether those were caused or aggravated by the plaintiff’s injury, and how they affected his ability to work. At the deposition, defendants’ counsel stipulated that the witness was an expert in social work and substance abuse. Then, defendants did not raise the issue of her qualifications before the Full Commission. Thus, the court held that defendants had waived the issue, and could no longer challenge her. So, it’s important to remember the usual rules about appeals and waivers, even when practicing in the Commission.

Related posts:

  1. NC Court of Appeals’ latest decisions on workers’ compensation and medical malpractice
  2. NC Court of Appeals cases on REDA and appellate procedure
  3. Today’s workers’ compensation decisions by the NC Court of Appeals
  4. Today’s workers’ compensation and employment decisions by the NC Court of Appeals

Filed Under: In the News, Workers' Compensation Tagged With: Appeals, Case Commentary, Expert Testimony, Industrial Commission, NC Court of Appeals, Termination of Benefits

Primary Sidebar

Primary Sidebar

Contact us

Occupation

  • Bus Drivers
  • Construction Workers
  • First Responders
  • Police Officers
  • Truck Drivers
  • State Employees Workers’ Compensation Lawyers in Charlotte
  • Experienced Union Members Attorneys in North Carolina

Injury

  • Asbestos Exposure
  • Durham Back Injury Lawyers
  • 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. #101,
Durham, NC 27701

Phone: (919) 240-4054

Fax: (888) 412-0421

Charlotte Office

1018 East Blvd. #6
Charlotte, NC 28203

Phone: (704) 200-2009

Fax : (888) 412-0421

Practice Areas

Workers Compensation | Bicycle Crashes | Personal Injury

OTHER PRACTICE AREAS

Crisis Management | Employment Law | Mass Torts | Camp Lejeune Water Contamination | Vaccine Injury | Resort & Recreational Activity Injuries | Workers Comp Wage & Hours Disputes | College Campus Injuries | Drunk Driving Injury victim | Industrial Accidents | Inadequate Security Claims | Workplace Injuries | Covid 19 – Business Interruption | Workplace Injury 3rd Party Claims

Copyright Johnson & Groninger PLLC