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.
The panel that determines workers' compensation awards to injured workers in North Carolina has a new leader.
Gregory v. Pearson When it agreed to staff its landfill with temporary agency workers, the defendant-county allocated the risk of workers’ compensation liability to the temp agency.
Advocates for injured workers say the state needs to create a safety net to catch vulnerable workers who are hurt while working for uninsured companies.
Legislators say they don't expect any obstacles when they consider a bill allowing workers to make sure their employers carry workers' compensation insurance on them.
Bowman v. Cox Toyota Scion Defendants presented evidence concerning the operation of the defendant-employer’s video camera, the chain of custody of the DVDs that were made by the employer’s vice-president, and testimony that the videotape had not been edited and that the picture fairly and accurately recorded the actual appearance of the area photographed. Defendants thus laid an adequate foundation, and the Industrial Commission erred by refusing to consider the surveillance videos.
There was no free lunch for one North Carolina employer after the Court of Appeals ruled that an employee who slipped and fell while on an unpaid lunch break could still recover workers’ comp.
Thompson v. Carolina Cabinet Co. Even though the Industrial Commission did not expressly state which prong of Russell v. Lowes Prod. Distribution, 108 N.C. App. 762, 425 S.E.2d 454 (1993), it applied, it is apparent from the Commission’s findings that it applied the third prong: that plaintiff “is capable of some work but that it would be futile because of preexisting conditions, i.e., age, inexperience, lack of education, to seek other employment….”
McAdams v. Safety Kleen Systems, Inc. Judge Bryant noted in her dissent that the Industrial Commission had already evaluated plaintiff’s seemingly disparate descriptions of the accident and that the Commission’s findings of fact and conclusions were supported by the record. For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, which would have remanded to the Industrial Commission for further findings.
Thornton v. City of Raleigh Where the Industrial Commission found as fact, “The greater weight of the credible evidence establishes that the physical requirements of the booth attendant position offered to plaintiff by defendant-employer are within plaintiff’s physical restrictions,” this finding, which is supported by competent evidence, is sufficiently broad to address plaintiff’s mental health and urinary urgency conditions.