Workers’ Compensation – Injury by Accident – Occupational Disease

The North Carolina Industrial Commission failed to address the plaintiff’s injury-by-accident claim and multiple evidentiary issues, precluding meaningful appellate review.

We vacated and remanded the Industrial Commission’s denial of death benefits.

This case arose from the death of a police sergeant, who contracted COVID-19 after extensive public interaction during his duties, including working at a large public fair shortly before his illness. His widow and minor child sought death benefits, asserting that his death was compensable either as an occupational disease or as an injury by accident under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The Commission denied benefits, concluding Plaintiffs failed to establish that the decedent’s employment placed him at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 than the general public or that his infection was causally related to his work. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of those determinations. Instead, it focused on procedural deficiencies in the Commission’s opinion and award, emphasizing that the Commission is statutorily required to address every issue raised on appeal and to make sufficiently detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law to permit meaningful appellate review.

We found that the Commission failed to address plaintiffs’ “injury by accident” theory altogether, despite the claim being raised in both the initial filing and the Form 44 Application for Review. By treating the case solely as an occupational disease claim, the Commission ignored a distinct legal basis for recovery. This omission alone required vacatur because it prevented appellate review of a potentially dispositive issue.

In addition, we identified multiple failures by the Commission to address evidentiary issues raised by Plaintiffs. These included disputes over discovery orders, such as the denial of motions to compel information regarding other officers who contracted COVID-19, and rulings excluding testimony about workplace transmission and the identities of infected officers. While the Commission addressed one evidentiary issue concerning judicial notice of statistical data, it failed to make findings or conclusions on numerous other contested rulings. Simply denying motions without explanation is insufficient; the Commission must articulate the factual and legal basis for its decisions.

These omissions were not minor defects but fundamental failures to perform the Commission’s role as factfinder and adjudicator. Without findings addressing each material issue, the court could not determine whether the Commission properly applied the law or whether its conclusions were supported by the evidence. As a result, meaningful appellate review was impossible.

Accordingly, we vacated the Commission’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the Commission to address all claims and evidentiary issues raised by the plaintiffs and to enter a new order with adequate findings and conclusions.

Vacated and remanded.

McDonald v. City of Winston-Salem (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-059-26, 16 pp.) (Allegra Collins, J.) Appealed from the Full Commission in the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Daggett Shuler, by Benjamin P. Winikoff, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Orbock Ruark & Dillard, PC, by Barbara E. Ruark and Tyler Younts, for Defendant-Appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals