Lewis v. N.C. Department of Correction (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-07-0569, 8 pp.) (John Martin, Ch. J.) Appealed from the Industrial Commission. N.C. App. Holding: G.S. § 97-86.2 required the Industrial Commission to order defendant to pay interest on the permanent ...

Tagged with: Disability Benefits

Breyan v. US Cotton, LLC Long Term Disability Plan Plaintiff alleges not only that defendants misled him into believing there would be no set-off deducted from his long-term disability benefits, but also that defendants never provided him with a written description of the plan; accordingly, plaintiff has stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

Tagged with: Disability Benefits

The state’s Industrial Commission recently reversed a deputy commissioner’s decision and reinstated a 57-year-old former janitor’s disability payments that had been put on hold in 1998. It also ordered the state to pay more than $50,000 he had been denied over the past five years.

Tagged with: Disability Benefits

Retired NFL quarterback Anthony L. Wright, who has been scrambling to keep his ex-wife’s hands off his disability benefits, got a favorable ruling earlier this month from the N.C. Court of Appeals.

Tagged with: Disability Benefits NFL

Wright v. Wright Defendant received line-of-duty disability benefits as part of his retirement plan because “during his playing days, he … incurred a ‘substantial disablement arising out of NFL football activities.’” The trial court reasoned that these benefits are paid to individuals whose injuries render them unable to continue to play football, but who may continue to work in other professions. The trial court focused on the nature of defendant’s former profession but did not made sufficient findings of fact showing an application of the analytic approach adopted by our Supreme Court. On remand, the trial court should focus on the nature of the wages being replaced by the line-of-duty disability benefits.

Tagged with: Disability Benefits Domestic Relations equitable distribution

Taylor v. Taylor In its order denying alimony to a disabled husband, the trial court found that the husband had been able to maintain his standard of living despite his disability. However, the trial court also found that the husband’s private-insurance disability benefits would cease when he turned 65; moreover, the source of some of the husband’s income – the couple’s pharmacy – was distributed to the wife in the court’s equitable distribution order. The trial court should have made findings as to whether the husband would continue to be able to maintain his standard of living.

Tagged with: Alimony Dependency Disability Benefits Domestic Relations