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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.