NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
|
On February 1, 2022, the North Carolina Full Commission released a decision in the second extended benefits case since the Reform in 2011. The case was originally heard by Deputy Commissioner Robert Harris, who found that the claimant had proven by the preponderance of the evidence that she “sustained a total loss of wage-earning capacity” because of her compensable long-term ankle condition. The underlying facts are as follows: claimant, a 53-year-old healthcare technician, sustained an injury to her ankle while trying to restrain a combative patient. Her injury required multiple surgeries. Claimant was a high school graduate with CNA qualifications, was involved in several volunteer activities, including Girl Scouts and the PTA, cut her own grass, and did crafts, including making flowerpots out of old car tires. Claimant’s authorized treating orthopedic physician gave claimant sedentary work restrictions; however, claimant’s pain management physician, Dr. Elizabeth Bagsby, testified claimant would need a sedentary job that could accommodate elevating her leg above her heart and repositioning herself throughout the day.
Claimant’s vocational expert testified that claimant’s past employment history and education, as well as her sedentary work restrictions and need to elevate her leg throughout the workday, prevented her from being employable. Defendant’s vocational expert testified that claimant was employable and felt her need to elevate her foot could be accommodated in a sedentary position. The expert also identified several positions in the medical field that were sedentary in nature, which she believed claimant could perform. The Deputy Commissioner noted in his Opinion and Award that the Defendant’s vocational expert did not meet or speak with the claimant, nor contact any of the identified employers to discuss claimant’s ability to perform the jobs.
The Full Commission panel, consisting of Wanda Blanche Taylor, James Gillen, and Adrian Phillips, gave greater weight to the testimony of claimant’s long-time treating physician rather than the pain management physician as it relates to claimant’s work restrictions. The Full Commission noted that Dr. Thompson, the authorized treating physician, at no time opined that claimant needed to elevate her leg above her heart. Additionally, the Full Commission noted there was no expert testimony or opinion that claimant was incapable of performing work. Furthermore, the Full Commission gave greater weight to the Defendant’s vocational expert as her testimony was consistent with the medical evidence indicating claimant had the ability to perform sedentary work and was more consistent with claimant’s demonstrated ability to perform valuable services, including organization, scheduling, supervision, and her reliability in her continued volunteer work. The Full Commission noted that claimant was a likely candidate to perform flexible work from home or part-time work. The Full Commission went on to note that at oral argument, claimant’s counsel conceded that she could perform one to two hours of work a week for wages.
The Full Commission concluded that the extended benefits statute in N.C.G.S. § 97-29(c) does not invoke “disability” as defined in N.C.G.S. § 97-2(9), nor does it require the employee to prove that she is unable to obtain competitive employment. The Full Commission noted that the statute on its face requires the employee to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee has sustained a total loss of wage-earning capacity.” The Full Commission interpreted this statutory language by using the plain, ordinary, and literal meaning of the words contained in the statute. The Full Commission cited the Webster Dictionary which defined “total” as “complete;” “utter” and “loss” as “to bring to ruin or destruction;” and “capacity” as “ability.” The Full Commission concluded using these definitions that claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a complete destruction of the ability to earn wages [emphasis added]. The Full Commission noted claimant’s ability to perform sedentary work in her volunteer activities, and claimant’s claim for extended benefits beyond the 500 weeks was denied.
This case is an excellent indication of how difficult it should be for claimants to prove they are entitled to extended benefits beyond the 500-week cap. If the injured employee has any ability to earn wages, albeit small, defendants should prevail assuming all the Commissioners follow the standard articulated above. No doubt this case is probably heading to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, and we will keep you updated on its potential path through our Appellate Courts.
In the meantime, some practical takeaways when defending these extended benefit cases include:
Income Benefits
O’Bryan v. Zip Express, (2020-SC-02620WC, not final) – The Supreme Court of Kentucky
Claimant was found by the ALJ to be permanently and totally disabled following a work-related motor vehicle accident. Claimant was 65 on the date of accident. Claimant appealed the award, arguing the age 70 cap on indemnity benefits under KRS 342.730(4) is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection.
The Court of Appeals found KRS 342.730(4) and the age 70 cap is constitutional both on its face and as retroactively applied (applies to all cases not fully and finally adjudicated as of the effective date of the act, 7/14/2018). The Supreme Court affirmed, consistent with its opinion in Kroger v. Cates, 627 S.W.3d 864 (Ky. 2021).
Employee v. Independent Contractor
AIG v. Oufafa, et. al., (2020-CA-0942-WC, not final); Taxi, LLC d/b/a Taxi 7 v. Oufafa, et. al., (2020-CA-0946-WC, not final) – Kentucky Court of Appeals
Taxi 7’s business is leasing taxicabs and related services, including dispatch and credit card processing to individuals, corporations, partnerships and other entities. Claimant signed a Lease agreement with Taxi 7 agreeing to pay $405 weekly for a cab lease, dispatch services, and credit card processing services, as well as $30 weekly for vehicle insurance. He also signed a paper titled “Status as a Self-Employed Businessperson,” in which he clearly acknowledged he was not an employee and not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Claimant could operate the cab as he saw fit, choose his hours, charge his own rates, and keep his collected fares.
Claimant filed for worker’s compensation benefits after being shot while driving. ALJ found Claimant was an independent contractor and Taxi 7 was a taxicab leasing company. While the ALJ did find that cab driving was an integral part of Taxi 7’s business of leasing cabs, the ALJ concluded that driving passengers was a distinct occupation different than the leasing of cabs.
The appellate Board reversed, finding that the ALJ incorrectly concluded that Taxi 7 was a taxicab leasing company rather than a taxicab company that employed the Claimant as a driver. The Court of Appeals reversed the Board, stating that the ALJ’s finding of fact that Taxi 7 was a taxicab leasing business and Claimant was not an employee was supported by the facts and not clearly erroneous. The Court emphasized Claimant received no remuneration from Taxi 7 and his earnings all came directly from his customers.
Should you have any questions or wish to discuss any related matters, please contact us at your convenience.
H. Douglas Jones, Esq. – djones@jsbattorneys.com, 859.594.4200
Margo Menefee, Esq. – mmenefee@jsbattorneys.com, 859.594.4200
Fun Fact: No where in any of the DWC materials is there a provision for a designated doctor to seek reimbursement for a no-show appointment. If you are seeing bills for claimant’s failing to attend a DD examination – you should not be!
