Gonzalez v. Worrell Our Court of Appeals held that Where the defendant-subcontractor’s insurer could not produce the green signature card from its certified-mail cancellation of the subcontractor’s workers’ compensation policy, the insurer failed to prove that it successfully completed the process for canceling the subcontractor’s policy set out in G.S. § 58-36-105(b). Justice Beasley took no part in the consideration or decision of this case, and the remaining members of the court are equally divided. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ decision is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value.
Gonzalez v. Worrell : Our Court of Appeals held that Where the defendant-subcontractor’s insurer could not produce the green signature card from its certified-mail cancellation of the subcontractor’s workers’ compensation policy, the insurer failed to prove that it successfully completed the process for canceling the subcontractor’s policy set out in G.S. § 58-36-105(b). Justice Beasley took no part in the consideration or decision of this case, and the remaining members of the court are equally divided. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ decision is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value.
Brown v. TBC Corp. Plaintiff contends that his ankle injury was the direct and natural result of his compensable back injury. His varying accounts of his ankle injury render his testimony about the incident incredible.
Marett v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc Since plaintiff did not expand his part-time catering business after he was disabled by an on-the-job injury, income from the catering business does not allow defendants to pay plaintiff partial – rather than total – disability benefits.
Herrera-Mendez v. Modular Home Sets Inc. Where the quadriplegic plaintiff’s mental health is adversely affected by his inability to be independent and by the feeling that he is trapped in his two-room home, an increase in plaintiff’s personal and recreational transportation from twice a week to three times per week is reasonably necessary to provide relief and lessen plaintiff’s physical, mental, and emotional disability.
Rainey v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Plaintiff contends that, in the parties’ settlement negotiations, defendants agreed to whatever Medicare set-aside (MSA) the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) approved, while defendants contend that CMS’ approval of a $65,000 MSA was a condition precedent to settlement, but that CMS would only go as low as $266,207. The issue of whether there was a meeting of the minds is one of fact, and the Industrial Commission agreed with defendants as to this issue.
Avent v. PLT Construction Although plaintiff, a Surf City resident who was assigned to a Kinston construction project, was a “full-time employee” of the defendant Wilson construction company, there was no guarantee that plaintiff would continue in defendant’s employ at the conclusion of the Kinston project.
Powe v. Centerpoint Human Services Where defendants never stipulated that plaintiff was disabled, and where they paid benefits only pursuant to a Form 60 and Industrial Commission orders, the Commission must determine the issue of plaintiff’s disability before deciding whether she is entitled to vocational rehabilitation.
Williams v. Bank of America Although defendants did not strictly comply with the time limitations in Industrial Commission Rule 701, the Commission had discretion to allow defendants’ appeal to go forward.
Anglin v. Dunbar Armored, Inc. After the South Carolina-resident plaintiff suffered an on-the-job injury in South Carolina, he sought and received benefits under the N.C. Workers’ Compensation Act from the defendant N.C. employer.
