<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Workers&#8217; Compensation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/workers-compensation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 20:13:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Workers’ Compensation &#8211; Uninsured Employer – Settlement Agreement – Disapproval – Piercing the Corporate Veil – Attorney’s Fees&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/workers-compensation-uninsured-employer-settlement-agreement-disapproval-piercing-the-corporate-veil-attorneys-fees/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/workers-compensation-uninsured-employer-settlement-agreement-disapproval-piercing-the-corporate-veil-attorneys-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 15:44:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industrial Commission]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Allred v. Exceptional Landscapes, Inc.</em>  Even though G.S. § 97-94(b) appears to give an employee of an uninsured employer the option of suing under the Workers’ Compensation Act or “at law,” and even though the parties believed they were settling the employee’s claim “at law,” since the employee had already filed a claim with the Industrial Commission, the Commission had jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the settlement agreement.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/workers-compensation-uninsured-employer-settlement-agreement-disapproval-piercing-the-corporate-veil-attorneys-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Workers’ Compensation – Carrier on the Risk – Construction Project – Subcontractor’s Policy Cancellation – Agency – Ineffective – General Contractor – Failure to Obtain Certificate&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/workers-compensation-carrier-on-the-risk-construction-project-subcontractors-policy-cancellation-agency-ineffective-genera-2/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/workers-compensation-carrier-on-the-risk-construction-project-subcontractors-policy-cancellation-agency-ineffective-genera-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[precedential value]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72301</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Gonzalez v. Worrell</em>  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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/workers-compensation-carrier-on-the-risk-construction-project-subcontractors-policy-cancellation-agency-ineffective-genera-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Workers’ Compensation – Carrier on the Risk – Construction Project – Subcontractor’s Policy Cancellation – Agency – Ineffective – General Contractor – Failure to Obtain Certificate&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/15/workers-compensation-carrier-on-the-risk-construction-project-subcontractors-policy-cancellation-agency-ineffective-genera/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/15/workers-compensation-carrier-on-the-risk-construction-project-subcontractors-policy-cancellation-agency-ineffective-genera/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:22:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Gonzalez v. Worrell </em> : 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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/15/workers-compensation-carrier-on-the-risk-construction-project-subcontractors-policy-cancellation-agency-ineffective-genera/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Workers’ Compensation &#8211; Credibility – Compensable Back Injury – Ankle Injury – Medical Evidence&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/11/workers-compensation-credibility-compensable-back-injury-ankle-injury-medical-evidence/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/11/workers-compensation-credibility-compensable-back-injury-ankle-injury-medical-evidence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:38:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Industrial Comm.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em> Brown v. TBC Corp. </em> 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.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/11/workers-compensation-credibility-compensable-back-injury-ankle-injury-medical-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Workers’ Compensation &#8211; Total Disability – Self-Employment – Pre-Injury – No Expansion&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/11/workers-compensation-total-disability-self-employment-pre-injury-no-expansion/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/11/workers-compensation-total-disability-self-employment-pre-injury-no-expansion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:27:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Industrial Comm.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[job injury]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Marett v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc</em>  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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/11/workers-compensation-total-disability-self-employment-pre-injury-no-expansion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Workers’ Compensation &#8211; Medical Benefits – Quadriplegic – Personal Transportation – Extra Day&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/11/workers-compensation-medical-benefits-quadriplegic-personal-transportation-extra-day/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/11/workers-compensation-medical-benefits-quadriplegic-personal-transportation-extra-day/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:03:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Western]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emotional disability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72177</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Herrera-Mendez v. Modular Home Sets Inc. </em> 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.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/11/workers-compensation-medical-benefits-quadriplegic-personal-transportation-extra-day/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Workers’ Compensation Settlement – No Meeting of the Minds – Medicare Set-Aside&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/09/workers-compensation-settlement-no-meeting-of-the-minds-medicare-set-aside/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/09/workers-compensation-settlement-no-meeting-of-the-minds-medicare-set-aside/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:12:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicare Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Rainey v. Goodyear Tire &#38; Rubber Co. </em>  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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/09/workers-compensation-settlement-no-meeting-of-the-minds-medicare-set-aside/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Workers’ Compensation &#8211; Going &amp; Coming Rule – Construction Company – Commute to Jobsite – No Exception&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/09/workers-compensation-going-coming-rule-construction-company-commute-to-jobsite-no-exception/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/09/workers-compensation-going-coming-rule-construction-company-commute-to-jobsite-no-exception/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Construction Project]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Avent v. PLT Construction </em>  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. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/09/workers-compensation-going-coming-rule-construction-company-commute-to-jobsite-no-exception/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Workers’  Compensation &#8211; Disability – Vocational Rehabilitation – Plaintiff’s Cooperation&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/05/workers-compensation-disability-vocational-rehabilitation-plaintiffs-cooperation/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/05/workers-compensation-disability-vocational-rehabilitation-plaintiffs-cooperation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 21:16:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72027</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Powe v. Centerpoint Human Services</em> 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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/05/workers-compensation-disability-vocational-rehabilitation-plaintiffs-cooperation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Workers’ Compensation &#8211; Appeals – Time Limit Waiver – Disability – Causation – Medical Evidence &#8212; Migraines&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/03/workers-compensation-appeals-time-limit-waiver-disability-causation-medical-evidence-migraines/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/03/workers-compensation-appeals-time-limit-waiver-disability-causation-medical-evidence-migraines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:26:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industrial Commission]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=71889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Williams v. Bank of America </em>  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. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/03/workers-compensation-appeals-time-limit-waiver-disability-causation-medical-evidence-migraines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
