Workers’ Compensation – Medical Expenses – Attendant Care – Family Members – Timeliness of Request – Ordinary Expenses of Life – Wife’s Disability

Burroughs v. Laser Recharge of Carolinas, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-16-0524, 14 pp.) (Robert C. Hunter, J.) Appealed from the Industrial Commission. N.C. App. Unpub.

Holding: Defendants challenged the reasonableness of the timing of plaintiff’s request for reimbursement for attendant care services, but the Industrial Commission failed to make findings of fact or conclusions of law resolving the issue. Accordingly, under Mehaffey v. Burger King, 749 S.E.2d 252 (N.C. 2013), we remand for entry of further findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the timeliness of plaintiff’s request for reimbursement for the attendant care that was provided to him by his family members.

Reversed and remanded.

Some of the activities that plaintiff’s family members performed for him, such as yard work and other household chores, are “ordinary expenses of life” that are not compensable as medical expenses under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Although the Commission’s conclusion that plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for attendant care is supported by competent evidence, we have no way of knowing how many of the hours awarded were comprised of non-compensable “ordinary expenses of life” activities. We remand for clarification as to this distinction. We instruct the Commission to award reimbursement only for those “extraordinary and unusual expenses” that are compensable under G.S. § 97-25.

Finally, we disagree with defendants’ contention that plaintiff’s wife should not be awarded compensation solely because she herself is also disabled. Defendants assert that plaintiff’s wife “has not had to alter her routine at all in order to provide Plaintiff with this ‘passive care.’ Due to her own disability, she has not worked since before Plaintiff was injured and would be at home with him regardless of his need for someone to be within shouting distance.” We expressly reject this line of argument. Neither defendants nor this court have any basis to assume how plaintiff’s wife would have spent her time had plaintiff not been seriously injured.

Reversed and remanded.