By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 5,2013
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.
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: 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: November 13,2012
Sellers v. McArthur Supply After plaintiff’s compensable arm injury left him with permanent work restrictions, the defendant-employer modified plaintiff’s position so he could keep working. Although plaintiff continued to work in the modified position until he suffered a heart attack, the modified position was not available in the competitive work place.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 24,2012
Cosey v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America Even though all of plaintiff’s medical complaints are subjective, the defendant-insurer was still entitled to require objective “proof” of plaintiff’s claimed disability. The court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 11,2012
Lawley v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. If defendants breached their disability insurance contract with plaintiff, they did so when they denied her claim on March 28, 2003, not every time a monthly disability payment was due. Plaintiff’s June 27, 2011 complaint was not timely filed.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 13,2012
Allen v. HBD Industries Even though plaintiff’s physician released him to return to full-duty work, the Industrial Commission’s finding of disability was supported by the testimony of a rehabilitation counselor that plaintiff was unemployable because of his advanced age, functional illiteracy, low cognitive ability, and work history in repetitive and labor-intensive jobs, which his injury left him unable to perform.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 17,2012
Hutchens v. Lee Where there were differences in the histories plaintiff gave to the two doctors who testified, it was up to the Industrial Commission to choose which doctor to believe. We may not second-guess the Commission on this point.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 12,2012
Smith v. Baxter International, Inc. Plaintiff’s medical evidence did not prove that she was disabled after Jan. 31, 2008; on that date, plaintiff told her plastic surgeon that her pain level was “zero on a zero to 10 pain scale,” and the doctor released her with no permanent work restrictions. Furthermore, plaintiff’s rehabilitation counselor’s opinion that she could not work was based on a psychologist’s conclusion that plaintiff’s depression (exacerbated by her work injury) impaired her ability to return to work and maintain employment; however, the psychologist was unaware that plaintiff helped her husband with customers at a public trade lot one day a week, babysat her toddler-age grandchildren one day a week, and had gone on several family camping trips after her injury.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 12,2012
Harrell v. Edgecombe County Public Schools Plaintiff showed that, after her injury, she did not earn the same wages she had earned before her injury. Such proof only showed partial disability, and plaintiff received the 300 weeks of temporary partial disability benefits to which she was entitled, plus permanent partial disability benefits.
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
State v. Phillips Since defendant did not object at trial when the trial court referred to the prosecuting witness as “the victim,” he is only entitled to plain-error review. Considering the fact that our courts have on many occasions said that the use of the term “victim” in jury instructions is not an expression of opinion, and considering the horrifying facts of the assault in the instant case, we can discern no prejudicial error as a result of the trial court’s use of the word “victim” to identify the state’s prosecuting witness during its jury instructions.
State v. Hill Even though the carrying-a-concealed-weapon charge was based on a razor blade stuck to the underside of a table in a day room to which defendant’s access was non-exclusive and out of his control, he had regularly scheduled access to the day room, he had been seated at the table under which the blade was discovered on the same day it was discovered, the blade was one of two taken from a pencil sharpener, and the other blade was found in defendant’s cell.
State v. Leach : Although the defendant-prisoner alleged that his Mutual Agreement Parole Program contract required his release if he complied with the conditions set out in that document, he failed to attach the complete MAPP contract to his habeas application.
