Raleigh Estate Planning and Corporate Law Attorneys

Workers' Compensation

NC Supreme Court Reaches Verdict In Wilkes v. City of Greenville

By

On Friday, June 9, 2017, the North Carolina Supreme Court reached its decision in the Wilkes v. City of Greenville case, and the ramifications of the decision will have the most impact on workers’ compensation claims since the Reform Act of June 24, 2011.

At issue in the Wilkes case was the causation presumption. It has long been Defendants’ position that only the body parts specifically identified on a Form 60 or 63 are compensable, and it is Plaintiff’s burden of proving that other symptoms, conditions and/or injuries to other body parts are related to the original accident. The North Carolina Supreme Court in the Wilkes decision has struck down such an argument, holding that in admittedly compensable accidents, Plaintiffs are entitled to a rebuttable presumption that additional medical treatment for any symptoms, conditions or injuries is related to the work accident.

We encourage you to contact one of our attorneys to schedule a meeting or seminar to discuss the impact of the Wilkes decision on your current claims and your handling of future claims.

Kristine L. Prati Defends Appeal To Full Commission

By

Kristine L. Prati successfully defended an appeal brought by the employee to the Full Commission requesting reinstatement of indemnity benefits. In the Opinion and Award filed on August 15, 2016, the Full Commission agreed with the prior ruling of the Deputy Commissioner and refused to award ongoing temporary total disability benefits as the employee failed to prove that he was disabled.

Kristine Prati Successfully Defends Two Matters Before The Full Commission

By

Kristine L. Prati of Wilson Ratledge has successfully defended two matters before the Full Commission. In the first matter, the plaintiff appealed the deputy commissioner’s denial of indemnity benefits and compensability of a newly diagnosed occupational disease to the Full Commission. In an Opinion and Award filed on April 22, 2016, the Full Commission upheld the Deputy Commissioner’s determination. Of significance, the Full Commission concluded that the Parsons and Perez presumptions were not applicable to the case, as a prior Consent Opinion and Award with one of the three defendants only accepted compensability of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and not the newly diagnosed occupational disease of flexor carpi radialis tendonitis. Instead, the Full Commission concluded that it was Plaintiff’s burden of proving that the newly diagnosed occupational disease was compensable.

Upon review of the evidence, the Full Commission determined: (1) the plaintiff failed to prove that her employment with any of the named employers placed her at an increased risk of contracting the newly diagnosed occupational disease; (2) the plaintiff failed to prove that her employment with any of the named defendants caused her newly diagnosed occupational disease; and (3) the plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity benefits, as her newly diagnosed occupational disease was the cause of her inability to work, not her compensable carpal tunnel syndrome condition.

In the second matter, the plaintiff appealed the Deputy Commissioner’s full denial of the claim to the Full Commission. In an Opinion and Award filed on May 2, 2016, the Full Commission upheld the Deputy Commissioner’s determination, agreeing that Plaintiff was engaged in her normal work routine at the time of the alleged accident and failed to describe an unlooked for, untoward, or unexpected event that occurred on the alleged date of injury.

Kristine Prati Successfully Defends Two Cases Before The Industrial Commission

By

Kristine L. Prati of Wilson Ratledge has successfully defended two cases before the Industrial Commission. The primary issue in the first case was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a reinstatement of temporary total disability benefits. On January 25, 2016, the Deputy Commissioner denied Plaintiff’s request for a reinstatement of TTD benefits, holding that Plaintiff failed to prove an impairment in his earning capacity. The Deputy Commissioner also denied Plaintiff’s request that he be provided with vocational assistance. The primary issue in the second case was whether Plaintiff was entitled to a myoelectric prosthesis. On February 11, 2016, the Deputy Commissioner denied Plaintiff’s request for the myoelectric prosthesis, holding that it was not medically or reasonably necessary.

Recent North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Case Summaries

By

The attorneys at Wilson Ratledge stay up to date with the latest North Carolina Workers’ Compensation cases in order to provide you the best possible outcome. Below you will find the some of the most recent North Carolina decisions.

August 5, 2015

Battle v. Meadowbrook Meat Co. (Ordinary duties)

Plaintiff testified that it was normal for delivery drivers, like him, to lean over and maneuver on pallets when making deliveries when pallets could not be moved. Plaintiff felt something in his arm pull loose when reaching down the side of a pallet to pull up a box. The Industrial Commission found that Plaintiff did not suffer a compensable injury because there was no unusual circumstance from the work performed.

Zapata Dominguez v. Francisco Domingez Masonry, Inc. (Self-employed wage earning capacity)

Plaintiff was the owner and a crew leader of Defendant company, and was the primary contact for subcontract work. Plaintiff sustained an injury which would not allow him to perform the physical duties of a brick mason. To determine if a self-employed employee has wage earning capacity, the Commission must look to whether he 1) is actively involved in the day-to-day operation of the business and 2) uses skills which would enable him to be employable in the competitive market place not withstanding his physical limitations, age, education, and experience. In this case, since Plaintiff could work as the crew leader and supervisor, he was not totally disabled, and did have wage earning capacity.

Butler v. Drive Automotive Industries of America, Inc. (Employment law, Joint employment)

In this recent 4th Circuit case, Plaintiff was hired by ResourceMFG to work at Drive. Plaintiff was harassed about her body, was called vulgar nicknames, and was touched by one of her supervisors. Plaintiff reported the behavior to ResourceMFG, but nothing was done. Plaintiff was asked to perform work day and she refused due to being tired from the overtime she was working. Drive’s supervisor cussed at her, and called her a vulgar nickname. When she told the supervisor she did not like the name calling, he told her she was a temp and was expendable. Only a few days later, Drive contacted ResourceMFG about terminating Plaintiff. Drive’s supervisor called Plaintiff and told her he could save her job in exchange for sexual favors. Plaintiff refused and was fired. Plaintiff then filed a Title VII action.

The case was moved to federal court, and the staffing agency was dropped from the lawsuit. Defendants won at a summary judgment hearing, wherein the judge found that Drive did not exercise sufficient control over Plaintiff’s employment to entitle her to a Title VII action. Although Plaintiff wore the uniform of ResourceMFG, Drive determined Plaintiff’s work duties, scheduling and supervision.

The 4th Circuit reviewed tests from other Circuits. The “control” test looks at who has the authority to hire and fire the employee, and set the conditions of employment; who supervises the employee day-to-day; and who controls the payroll, insurance and taxes of employee. The “economic realities” test determines which entity the employee relies on for work, not necessarily who is writing the paychecks.

The 4th Circuit ultimately adopted a hybrid test between the control and economic test, and determined that the joint employment doctrine was the law of the Circuit, and that an employee may have two employers, opening up claims against more employers in the future.