By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 27,2013
Antelo v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. The Industrial Commission found plaintiff “to be credible in his account of the circumstances of his termination
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 27,2013
Brodie v. Excel Staffing Services Although other occupations are known to cause bilateral epicondylitis, plaintiff’s development of this condition can nonetheless be deemed “characteristic of” a drywall installer/finisher.” It is not necessary that the disease originate exclusively from or be unique to a particular trade or occupation in order to be an occupational disease.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 20,2013
Gray v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Where the autopsy of plaintiff’s decedent lists the cause of death as coronary atherosclerosis, and where defense witness Dr. Welborne opined that the decedent’s fall from his work truck “did not cause or contribute to his heart attack, noting that a fall was not an accepted cause of heart attack,” the evidence supports the Industrial Commission’s finding and conclusion that plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proof to show that her decedent’s death was the result of an accident arising out of the course and scope of his employment.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 15,2013
Bell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Only one of plaintiff’s doctors testified that plaintiff might be at risk for further conditions related to his compensable hernia; the only one of those conditions that had a greater than 50 percent chance of development was chronic abdominal pain, which would be manageable with over-the-counter pain relievers. The Industrial Commission’s findings of fact support its conclusion that plaintiff did not meet his initial burden of proving there was a “substantial risk” that he would need future medical treatment.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 14,2013
Moore v. Bell Senior Living The Industrial Commission gave several reasons, in addition to a defense witness’s possible reliance on an MSNBC.com article, for giving more weight to the opinion of plaintiff’s witness. We affirm the Commission’s award of benefits, including back surgery. Defense witness Dr. Lacin’s testimony can be read as indicating that he read about a spine study on MSNBC.com rather than going back to the source article in a professional journal. In addition, the Commission pointed to plaintiff’s witness Dr. Voos' significant history of treating plaintiff as compared to Dr. Lacin's single examination, as well as the bases for Dr. Lacin's opinion, which not only included the MSNBC.com article, but also Dr. Lacin's belief -- inconsistent with the Commission's findings of fact -- that there were no significant clinical findings in plaintiff's case. The Commission noted Dr. Lacin's incomplete review of plaintiff's medical records.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 7,2013
Keeton v. Circle K We held previously that defendants have a credit under G.S. § 97-42 for payments of temporary total disability compensation made to plaintiff after Aug. 28, 2009.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 6,2013
Yingling v. Bank of America After delivering refreshments to a meeting, plaintiff was moving his car back to his regular parking space when he was involved in a collision.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 6,2013
Helfrich v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated Plaintiff suffered four work-related injuries, and the Industrial Commission found that he was totally disabled by the last two; however, the Commission based plaintiff’s compensation rate on his average weekly wage at the time of his fourth injury (which was lower than his average weekly wage at the time of his third injury) without discussing the application of G.S. § 97-34
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 14,2013
Wright v. Wal-Mart, Inc. # 1127 Plaintiff concedes that the evidence before the Industrial Commission did not support a finding of disability based on medical evidence, an unsuccessful job search, or a lower-paying job.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 13,2013
Burton v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. Plaintiff’s doctor testified about the limits of his abilities to sit, walk, and work; a vocational expert testified that there were no jobs in the competitive labor market that plaintiff could perform without accommodations. Plaintiff’s evidence supported the Industrial Commission’s finding that the position proffered by the defendant-employer was not suitable to plaintiff’s capacity and did not reflect his capacity to earn wages in the general economy
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
Bartlett v. Wayne County Board of Education Plaintiffs contend that the majority of eyewitnesses in this case testified that the responding officer’s diagram depicting the accident scene was accurate, that the diagram demonstrates plaintiffs’ “van had to have been almost directly in front of the bus at the time [the bus driver] started her turn,” and that this evidence conclusively established that the bus driver failed to yield the right-of-way to plaintiffs’ van.
Fidelity Bank v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Even though the N.C. Revenue Act uses the Internal Revenue Code to determine state net income, and even though the Code treats “market discount income” on U.S. Treasury bonds as interest for purposes of the Code, under the N.C. Revenue Act market discount income on U.S. Treasury bonds is treated as income rather than interest.
Apex Tool Group, LLC v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Neither plaintiff nor the individual defendants are Texas residents; nevertheless, each of the individual defendants’ employment agreements includes an unambiguous and mandatory forum selection clause, which says any lawsuit involving the agreement must be brought in Harris County, Texas. The employment agreements were entered into by plaintiff’s predecessor and the individual defendants, who apparently did not live in Texas when they entered into the contracts and thus apparently anticipated interstate travel in the event of a trial.
