State News

NWCDN is a network of law firms dedicated to protecting employers in workers’ compensation claims.


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.


Now Considering Firms for Our Network in

Written by: Tracey Jones


In the course of handling a workers’ compensation case, an adjuster will have to communicate with the employee’s treating physician to collect valuable medical information relevant to the diagnosis and ability to return to work. As noted in N.C.G.S § 97-25.6(c)(2), Written Communications with Healthcare Providers:

Defendants may communicate with the Plaintiff’s authorized health care provider in writing, without the express authorization of Plaintiff, to obtain certain relevant medical information not available in Plaintiff’s medical records, provided Defendants provide Plaintiff with contemporaneous written notice.

Without express authorization by the employee, but with contemporaneous written notice – Defendants may request the following additional information not available in the employee’s medical records:

  • The diagnosis of Plaintiff’s condition;
  • The appropriate course of treatment;
  • The anticipated time that Plaintiff will be out of work;
  • The relationship, if any, of Plaintiff’s condition to the employment;
  • Work restrictions from the condition, including whether Plaintiff may return to work with the employer as provided in attached job description (New provision enacted 7/1/12 provides clarity that Defendants may forward job description to physician);
  • The kind of work for which Plaintiff may be eligible; and
  • Any permanent impairment as a result of the condition.

Defendants must provide Plaintiff a copy of the healthcare provider’s response within ten business days of receipt.

When communicating with healthcare providers, NC adjusters and Defendants can use the following examples as a guide:

  • Communications on Diagnosis: In situations where you are trying to differentiate between a shoulder injury or back injury; or if you are trying to determine if Plaintiff has an enumerated occupational disease; or if the doctor is just not being clear about the diagnosis in his note – you can ask the question bluntly in correspondence.
  • Communications about Return to Work: Useful when you require information for when Plaintiff may be able to return to some form of light duty work.  You no longer have to serve the form MSQ on which too much information may be placed.
  • Communications regarding causation: You may now reference facts listed in Plaintiff’s records that might indicate lack of causal relationship and then inquire about opinion.
  • Communications regarding appropriate care:
    • Why are you recommending X treatment?

It is critical to keep in mind that all correspondence with the treating physician must be shared with the employee. All correspondence must occur with an authorized healthcare provider.

If you have questions on corresponding with medical providers or other workers’ compensation questions, reach out to Teague Campbell’s skilled team of workers’ compensation attorneys.

Written By: Elizabeth Ligon

The day is finally here and your case is settled. But is it really over? Let’s go over some key issues in regards to mutual consent in settlement agreements and make sure.

First things first, a settlement agreement is a contract, to be interpreted and tested by established rules relating to contracts. A valid contract exists only where there has been a “meeting of the minds” as to all the essential terms of the agreement.   Material terms generally means anything essential to the bargain, such as amount of settlement.  The fact that a few secondary issues remain to be resolved will not defeat enforcement.   If a court finds the material terms of a contract are overly vague or not definitive enough to provide a basis for mutual consent, it will not enforce the agreement.

Often times a court will find no mutual consent where a settlement agreement includes a provision that a release will be drafted later.  Disagreements as to the terms of the release have caused many settlement agreements to fail.  Similarly, where parties provide in the settlement agreement that the release to be delivered later is to be “mutually agreeable to both parties”, courts have refused enforcement of the entire agreement because there was no meeting of the minds on that material term.

Keeping that in mind, North Carolina courts will not recognize lack of mutual consent when a party claims that it had not signed the agreement, and that the signature of his attorney was not authorized. North Carolina courts presume that an attorney acts under the authority and in favor of the client, even in settlement circumstances. One who challenges the actions of his attorney has the burden of rebutting the presumption and proving lack of authority.

Ensuring that mutual consent occurs and that all settlement terms are well documented is critical, but that is only part of the settlement agreement process.

Claimant, Mary Justice, was seeking acknowledgment of an alleged cumulative detrimental effects injuries to her back and lower extremities as the result of lifting activities as a school bus aide.
The Board denied Justice’s claim, noting she was not credible as there were numerous inconsistencies throughout the case. Claimant denied having any prior back problems during a defense medical examination with Dr. Rushton and told her own doctor that she had back surgery in 1989 and then no other back problems. The Board noted these statements were “far from the truth” as she had extensive spinal problems since 1989 with several injuries and numerous rounds of treatment over the years, including additional lumbar surgical recommendations, which Claimant also denied during her testimony at the Board. Claimant denied having diabetes, which was contradicted by her own records. She failed to report two other jobs in connection with filing her Petition, despite being specifically asked for this information. She made conflicting statements about when her allegedly work-related back problems started. Her job duties were much less physically demanding than she alleged. She filed numerous prior workers’ compensation claims, but denied them when speaking with the adjuster, and claimed to not be able to remember them during the current Hearing, despite the current Hearing being conducted in front of the same Hearing Officer as a prior Board Hearing. She made statements in the earlier Hearing that were inconsistent with statements made at the current Hearing. Given all of the above inconsistencies, the Board noted that they did not believe that claimant was injured as a result of her job duties as a school bus aide.
Should you have any questions concerning this Decision, please contactJohn Ellis or any other attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department.
Mary Justice v. State, IAB Hrg. No. 1494830 (Feb. 5, 2021)

Written By John Tomei 

When the actions of an insured give rise to the need for a carrier to cancel a workers’ compensation policy, it is vitally important for the carrier to be aware of how to effectively cancel the policy under North Carolina law. The North Carolina Supreme Court has long established the principle that failure to comply with statutory requirements for cancelling an insurance policy renders the cancellation ineffective. Pearson v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 325 N.C. 246, 382 S.E.2d 745 (1989). Compliance with statutory requirements may seem straightforward but there are a few common pitfalls that prevent effective cancellation and create liability.

Cancellations of workers’ compensation insurance policies in North Carolina are governed by N.C.G.S. § 58-36-105, “Certain Workers’ Compensation Insurance Policy Cancellations Prohibited” (hereinafter the “Statute”). It is critical for an insurance carrier to be aware of the governing statute and the correct processes to effectively cancel a workers’ compensation insurance policy in North Carolina.

Provisions of the Statute

The Statute states:

(a)  No policy of workers’ compensation insurance or employers’ liability insurance written in connection with a policy of workers’ compensation insurance shall be cancelled by the insurer before the expiration of the term or anniversary date stated in the policy and without the prior written consent of the insured, except for any one of the following reasons:

 (1) Nonpayment of premium in accordance with the policy terms;

(2) An act or omission by the insured or his representative that constitutes material misrepresentation or nondisclosure of a material fact in obtaining the policy, continuing the policy, or presenting a claim under the policy;

(3) Increased hazard or material change in the risk assumed that could not have been reasonably contemplated by the parties at the time of assumption of the risk;

(4) Substantial breach of contractual duties, conditions, or warranties that materially affects the insurability of the risk;

(5) A fraudulent act against the company by the insured or his representative that materially affects the insurability of the risk;

(6) Willful failure by the insured or his representative to institute reasonable loss control measures that materially affect the insurability of the risk after written notice by the insurer;

(7) Loss of facultative reinsurance, or loss of or substantial changes in applicable reinsurance as provided in G.S. 58-41-30;

(8) Conviction of the insured of a crime arising out of acts that materially affect the insurability of the risk;

(9) A determination by the Commissioner that the continuation of the policy would place the insurer in violation of the laws of this State; or

(10) The named insured fails to meet the requirements contained in the corporate charter, articles of incorporation, or bylaws of the insurer, when the insurer is a company organized for the sole purpose of providing members of an organization with insurance coverage in this State.

(b)  Any cancellation permitted by subsection (a) of this section is not effective unless written notice of cancellation has been given to the insured not less than 15 days before the proposed effective date of cancellation. The notice may be given by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the insured and any other person designated in the policy to receive notice of cancellation at their addresses shown in the policy or, if not indicated in the policy, at their last known addresses. The notice shall state the precise reason for cancellation. Whenever notice of intention to cancel is given by registered or certified mail, no cancellation by the insurer shall be effective unless and until such method is employed and completed. Notice of intent to cancel given by registered or certified mail shall be conclusively presumed completed three days after the notice is sent if, on the same day that the notice is sent by registered or certified mail, the insurer also provides notice by first-class mail and by electronic means if available as defined in G.S. 58-2-255(a) to the insured and any other person designated in the policy to receive notice. Any such supplemental notice given by electronic means shall be effective for the limited purpose of establishing this conclusive presumption. Notice of cancellation, termination, or nonrenewal may also be given by any method permitted for service of process pursuant to Rule 4 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to send this notice, as provided in this section, to any other person designated in the policy to receive notice of cancellation invalidates the cancellation only as to that other person’s interest.

(c) This section does not apply to any policy that has been in effect for fewer than 60 days and is not a renewal of a policy. That policy may be cancelled for any reason by giving at least 30 days prior written notice of and reasons for cancellation to the insured by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.

(d) Cancellation for nonpayment of premium is not effective if the amount due is paid before the effective date set forth in the notice of cancellation.

(e) Copies of the notice required by this section shall also be sent to the agent or broker of record though failure to send copies of the notice to those persons shall not invalidate the cancellation. Mailing copies of the notice by regular first-class mail to the agent or broker of record satisfies the requirements of this subsection.

Complying with Sections (a) and (b) to Reduce Risk of Improper Cancellation of Workers’ Compensation Insurance Policies

The central requirements of the Statute are that the insured be notified in writing of the precise reason for the cancellation of the policy and that the insured be given the required notice of such cancellation.

Some of the more common reasons for canceling a workers’ compensation policy include: failure to pay premiums, failure to submit to audits pursuant to the policy provisions, or other failures by the insured to otherwise cooperate with the carrier in providing coverage.

    • Nonpayment of a premium is covered under section (1).
    • Misrepresenting the nature of the insured’s business, and the risks connected with it, would come under section (2).
    • If the insured changes the nature of its business, thereby increasing the risk of an employee’s injury, such behavior would come under section (3).
    • Failing to submit to an audit would likely be deemed a substantial breach of contractual duties or conditions under the policy, which would be covered under section (4). Any form of fraud would be covered by section (5).
    • Behavior that would be covered by sections (6) and (7) are less common.
    • Clearly, if an insured commits a crime that impacts the insurability of the risk, that would be covered under section (8).
    • If the Department of Insurance determines that continuation of the policy would cause the carrier to violate the laws of the state of North Carolina, this would implicate section (9).
    • Finally, if the insured somehow violates its corporate charter, articles of incorporation or its bylaws, this conduct could give rise to cancellation of a policy where the carrier is a self-insurance pool or other similar organization, under section (10).

As mentioned above, when canceling a policy, it is critical for the carrier to state the precise reason, in writing, in its notice for the cancellation of the policy. Ideally, a citation to the particular section of the Statute, or at least tracking its language, would be best, since it would help to build a stronger case for effective cancellation in the event of litigation.

The Statute clearly sets out the manner by which the insured must be given notice of the cancellation of the policy. Specifically, the notice is not effective unless it is in writing and it is “given” to the insured, not less than 15 days before the proposed effective date of cancellation. Again, the written notice must be consistent with one or more of the 10 bases of cancellation as allowed under the Statute. Note that the Statute has no explicit requirement that the insured actually “receive” the notice of cancellation. Rather, the Statute clearly sets out the means by which the giving of the notice is rendered effective and how it can be proven as such. More specifically, the Statute provides that cancellation of a policy is effective once the mailing requirement is “employed and completed.” So, if the carrier can show its use and completion of the registered or certified mail and its return receipt process, such use is a showing of effective cancellation of a policy.

Importantly for a carrier, the Statute provides for a conclusive presumption of completion of the registered or certified mailing of notice of a cancellation of a policy, three days after the notice is sent. Specifically, on the same day that the notice is sent by registered or certified mail, if the insurer also provides notice by first-class mail and by electronic means if available (as defined in G.S. 58-2-255(a), which concerns and allows for electronic insurance communications and records) to the insured, this conclusive presumption applies. So, to enjoy this conclusive presumption, the best practice is for a carrier to (1) use the required registered or certified mail return receipt process and, (2) use the first class mail and electronic means of communications as allowed in the Statute for electronic insurance communications and records.

Complying with Section (c) Notice Requirements for Effective Cancellation

It is important to be aware that section (c) of the Statute has significantly different notice requirement for cancellation of those workers’ compensation insurance policies that have been in effect for less than 60 days and are not a renewal of a policy. More specifically, those policies may be canceled for any reason, and not just those set out in section (a)’s subsections (1) through (10), simply by giving the insured at least 30 days prior written notice of the reason for the cancellation.

In a homeowners insurance policy case which involved N.C.G.S. § 58-41-15, in Ha v. Nationwide Insurance Co., the Court held that an insured’s actual receipt of notice of the cancellation is necessary in these section (c) policy cancellations. In that statute, under its section (c), a carrier is required to “furnish” an insured with the notice of cancellation, rather than “giving” such notice to an insured in the workers’ compensation statute.

Keeping this in mind, it is not clear whether Ha would apply to a N.C.G.S. § 58-36-105 (c) cancellation of a workers’ compensation policy. In this writer’s opinion, the holding in Ha would very likely be found applicable to workers’ compensation policies. This is because of the very similar structure, language and provisions of each of the two statutes.

With all of this in mind, section (c) provides for the same registered or certified mail, return receipt requested process for giving an insured notice of a policy’s cancellation, as does section (b). However, it must be noted that section (c) does not provide for the conclusive presumption of completion of the registered and certified mailing of notice of a cancellation of a policy, as provided in section (b). So, in section (c), a carrier can only use and complete registered or certified mail and its return receipt process, to prove that an insured actually received the notice of cancellation of the policy to effectively cancel it under section (c)’s circumstances.

Additional Items to Consider When Canceling a Policy, Sections (d) and (e)

If a policy is canceled for nonpayment of premium, section (d) of the Statute provides that such cancellation is not effective if the amount due is paid before the effective date set forth in the notice of cancellation.

Finally, in section (e) of the Statute, it is required that copies of the notice required by the Statute be sent to the agent or broker of record. However, there is no sanction of invalidating the cancellation if copies of those notices are not sent to such persons. Nonetheless, it is the best practice to copy such persons, as that may serve to aid in proving that the notice of cancellation was also given to the insured.

Final Thoughts for Insurance Carriers Keep In Mind

The foremost considerations in effectively canceling a North Carolina workers’ compensation policy are 1.) N.C.G.S. § 58-36-105’s requirements that the precise reason be stated in writing, and 2.) that the notice be given consistent with both the 15-day timing, as well as the mailing requirements.

Have questions? Reach out to Teague Campbell’s John Tomei who can aid insurance carriers in the effective cancellation of policies when the actions of their insureds dictate the need for such cancellations.

We all know certain events are going to happen every year:  Alabama is going to play for the national football championship, your property taxes will certainly rise, Tom Brady will be in the Super Bowl, and most likely of all – someone is going to challenge the way Section 40 liens are calculated in New Jersey.  This year the lien challenge has already occurred in Panckeri v. Allentown Police Department, No. A-2015-19 (App. Div. March 2, 2021).

Police Officer Daniel Panckeri was injured on April 15, 2012 rendering assistance at the scene of a motor vehicle accident. While attempting to stop one of the cars that was rolling into oncoming traffic, Panckeri suffered injuries to his left foot that resulted in an award of thirty three and one third percent permanent disability.  He reopened the case two years later and received an increase to forty percent of the foot. 

Panckeri also settled a third party suit for $99,000 and respondent asserted its full lien for the gross amount of its workers’ compensation payments: $16,547.13 for temporary disability benefits, $16,287.05 in medical benefits, $16,560.01 in permanency benefits for the first settlement, and $4,323.09 for the reopener settlement.  That meant that the Township was entitled to be reimbursed two thirds of all these payments minus $750 in costs because the third party settlement amount was higher than the total amount of workers’ compensation payments.

The issue in this case centered on the fees petitioner paid his attorney and whether they should be included in the lien.  In the original workers’ compensation case the Judge of Compensation assessed against petitioner $1,524 for Panckeri’s share of counsel fees and costs and another $844 for Panckeri’s share of counsel fees and costs on the reopener claim.  Panckeri argued that the workers’ compensation lien should not apply to his payments of counsel fees and costs on the two cases because he never received those funds.  He argued they should be deducted before respondent calculates its lien.

The Judge of Compensation, Christopher B. Leitner, ruled in favor of the Allentown Police Department and held that there should be no reduction of $2,368 for the two combined awards of counsel fees and costs assessed against petitioner because the New Jersey statute does not sanction any such exception.  The judge ruled that the statute is designed to avoid double recoveries, and the only cost allowance allowed by the statute is $750.  Judge Leitner further observed that the Act is “silent’ with regard to costs incurred in the workers’ compensation matter by the petitioner.  Finally, Judge Leitner observed that the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 34:15-40 in 2007 to raise the cost allowance from $250 to $750 and specifically “examined exemptible fees and costs,” choosing “only to increase the deductible amount,” and “not to include any new interpretation.”

On appeal Panckeri argued that the attorneys’ fees and costs he paid in the workers’ compensation case were not made for his “benefit or enjoyment” and therefore were not “compensation payments.”   The Appellate Division did not agree. “We affirm substantially for the reasons articulated by Judge of Compensation Christopher B. Leitner, in his thoughtful and thorough written decision.”

The Appellate Division observed that the case relied on by Panckeri, namely Kuhnel v. CNA Insurance Cos., 322 N.J. Super. 568 (App. Div. 1999) is not really on point.  That case held that a Section 40 lien does not include rehabilitation nursing services in most cases and does not include the respondent’s portion of petitioner’s attorney’ fees nor expert fees for defense IMEs.  The Court concluded that Kuhnel did not address at all whether petitioner can deduct his portion of fees and costs paid in the workers’ compensation case.  Lastly, the Court said that the Legislature could have amended Section 40 in 2007 to make such an adjustment, but it chose not to do so.

 

 

--------------------------------

John H. Geaney, Esq., is a Shareholder and Co-Chair in Capehart Scatchard's Workers’ Compensation Group.  Mr. Geaney concentrates his practice in the representation of employers, self-insured companies, third-party administrators, and insurance carriers in workers’ compensation, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act. Should you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Mr. Geaney at 856.914.2063 or by e‑mail at jgeaney@capehart.com. 

Legal Update by Attorneys Alison Stewart, Nick Cooling, and Law Clerk Jordan Gehlhaar

The Iowa Court of Appeals recently addressed workers’ compensation benefits, causation, and penalties inRegional Care Hospital Partners Inc. v. Marrs. Claimant Marrs injured her back and neck while working as a nurse and was diagnosed with thoracic and high-lumbar sprains. Four months following the accident she was released to return to light duty work. The employer did not offer light duty work and stopped payment of medical expenses and temporary benefits. The Claimant continued to have pain, which was attributed to a degenerative disc condition of the cervical spine. A cervical fusion procedure was recommended.

Three doctors provided opinions on the work relatedness of Claimant Marrs’s condition. Doctor Abernathey concluded she reached MMI ( Maximum Medical Improvement) six months following the accident and the surgery was not work related. Doctor Kaspar, who had treated Claimant through her private insurance, determined the work incident either caused the injury or materially aggravated her pre-exiting degenerative condition. Doctor Harbach, who completed an IME (Independent Medical Examination), opined Claimant had not reached MMI and would have a permanent impairment as a result of the work injury.

Following a hearing, a deputy commissioner awarded healing period benefits and ordered the employer to reimburse medical expenses and pay a penalty of $50,000. On appeal, the commissioner affirmed healing period benefits but reduced the penalty to $39,000. The district court affirmed. Regional challenged causation, the weekly benefit rate, and the assessment of penalty benefits.

The Court of Appeals held that causation was properly attributed to the work injury. The commissioner properly concluded that Dr. Abernathy’s opinion was unpersuasive because it provided “no explanation whatsoever.” Further, the commissioner properly excluded a two-week outlier payment period from the benefit calculation in which the Claimant worked 54.75 hours as opposed to the usual 62.5. Under Iowa Code § 85.36(6) this was the “closest previous week with earnings that fairly represent[ed] the employee’s customary earnings.”

Penalty benefits were also affirmed on appeal. Under Iowa Code § 86.134(a), the commissioner may award benefits up to 50 percent of the amount denied, delayed, or terminated without reason, probable cause, or excuse. Regional care ceased payment when claimant was released for light duty work, relying on Dr. Abernathey’s opinion and claiming she did not return to work for unrelated reasons. However, the opinion was rendered months after benefits ceased and there was no evidence Regional communicated its denial to Marrs. The court found $39,000 to be an appropriate penalty, given roughly $80,000 in benefits were unpaid at the time of the hearing.

If you'd like to sign up for our e-newsletter, please click here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

Peddicord Wharton Legal Updates are intended to provide information on current developments in legislation impacting our clients. Readers should not rely solely upon this information as legal advice. Peddicord Wharton attorneys would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about this update. ©2021 Peddicord Wharton. All Rights Reserved.


On February 26, 2021, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals released its opinions concerning three petitions for mandamus that arose out of an action for contempt.  Specifically, the plaintiff was awarded permanent and total disability benefits in a 2012 lawsuit against his employer.  In 2020, the employee filed a post judgment motion for contempt due to the alleged systematic late payment of his weekly benefits.  Although the lion’s share of the opinion addressed procedural and jurisdictional matters not specific to workers’ compensation, Judge Terry Moore pointed out, in his dissenting opinion, that the Legislature already provided for a remedy when indemnity payments are delayed.  Alabama Code § 25-5-59(b) provides for an automatic 15% penalty if any indemnity payment that is owed is not paid within 30 days.  Further, § 25-5-86(1) provides that, if an employer defaults on its obligation to pay indemnity benefits, the employee can petition for the remaining payments to be accelerated, reduced to present value, and paid in lump sum.  As such, it was Judge Moore’s opinion that the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act precludes an employee from using a contempt proceeding as an additional remedy when indemnity payments are not timely made.

 

-------------------


About the Author

This blog submission was prepared by Mike Fish, an attorney with Fish Nelson & Holden, LLC, a law firm dedicated to representing self-insured employers, insurance carriers, and third-party administrators in all matters related to workers’ compensation. Fish Nelson & Holden is a member of the National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network. If you have any questions about this submission or Alabama workers’ compensation in general, please contact Fish by e-mailing him at mfish@fishnelson.com or by calling him directly at 205-332-1448.

The Industrial Commission recently passed a number of rule changes which were scheduled to go into effect on two different dates.The first set of rule changes went into effect on December 1, 2020.

The rules that went into effect on December 1 included changing the medical charge threshold from $2,000 to $4,000 to dictate when employers need to file the first report of injury, or Form 19. There were also changes made concerning claims for death benefits, which allow the parties to either submit a Form 30 Agreement for Compensation for Death, or a proposed Opinion and Award. Another change provided that payment for a permanent disability will not be approved if claimant has returned to work with the defendant-employer and has permanent work restrictions, unless a job description is also provided as part of the filing. Finally, the last change was to the Form 90 Report of Earnings and dictates that form can only be served when defendants are paying ongoing temporary total disability or temporary partial disability benefits, and Defendants are now able to serve the Form 90 via e-mail, facsimile, certified mail, or any other method that provides proof of receipt.

The next set of changes go into effect on March 1, 2021.

Some of the rule changes provide updates to filing requirements. Specifically, these changes show that the Commission is working to make full use of the Electronic Document Filing Portal (“EDFP”). A number of documents that were previously exempt from EDFP filing, like the Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals, can now be filed via EDFP. These rule changes were delayed to an effective date of March 1, 2021, to coordinate with the rollout of the Commission’s new case management system. The new system was released in early 2021. Rule 11 NCAC 23A.0109 has now been updated to reflect changes in the contact information required to be provided to the Commission by the parties. This rule has been amended to streamline the provision of contact information by the parties, to make it easier for the Commission to reach the parties if necessary. Specifically, updated contact information can be provided via EDFP, or by email tocontactinfo@ic.nc.gov.

A change was made to 11 NCAC 23G .0104 to change the “physical attendance” requirements to remote requirements. "Attendance" is now defined as in-person whenever the mediation rules approved by the North Carolina Supreme Court require it. The rule now allows for the in-person requirement to be excused or modified by agreement of the parties. Further, the attendance requirement will be met with remote technology when the mediation rules approved by the North Carolina Supreme Court require attendance via remote technology. The rule also provides that all parties shall comply with public health and safety requirements in effect at such time of the mediation. This rule was revised in light of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, and the ongoing need to have mediations via Zoom or WebEx.

Moving forward, we encourage our clients to be aware of these rules, particularly those concerning ongoing changes regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, which change often. To view an annotated copy of the rules effective March 1, 2021,click here.

If you have any questions in regards to the rule changes, feel free to reach out to a member of our workers’ compensation team.

In 1979 the New Jersey legislature adopted a change to N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 to add that recreational and social activities are not compensable unless the injured worker could prove that the activity promoted a benefit to the employer beyond improvement of health and morale.  Prior Supreme Court cases have already made clear that if an employer compels attendance at a social or recreational event, then an injury during a social or recreational activity will be found to be compensable.  But it has taken over 40 years for a case to get to the Supreme Court which defines what constitutes a social and recreational activity in the first place, and what sort of activities satisfy the standard of proof of a benefit beyond improvement of health and morale.  Last week’s Supreme Court decision in Goulding v. NJ Friendship House, Inc., (A-48-19) provides very helpful answers.

The key facts are simple.  Goulding was an employee of North Jersey Friendship House, Inc., which is a non-profit that assists individuals with developmental disabilities.  She worked Monday to Friday as a chef/cook, and she cooked meals for Friendship House’s clients, as well as teaching vocational classes.

Goulding was injured on Saturday, September 23, 2017 when Friendship House hosted its first “Family Fun Day.”  It planned to host this event annually going forward. The stated purpose of the event was to offer a fun and safe environment for the clients of Friendship House and their families.  As such, Friendship House asked for volunteers to work the event.  Employees were under no obligation to attend the event.  Goulding volunteered.

Goulding arrived between 8:30 and 9:00 a.m. and started setting up for breakfast.  After breakfast was concluded, she began preparing for lunch.  She injured her ankle when she stepped in a small pothole in the parking lot and fell.  Several people assisted her in getting up and helping her ice her foot.  She continued working, helping the other cooks prepare lunch.  She never participated in any of the games or activities at the event, and she left around 2:30 p.m.

A claim petition was filed as well as a motion for medical and temporary disability benefits. Goulding sought surgery to repair her injured ankle as well as temporary disability benefits from the date of her injury.  Both the Judge of Compensation and the Appellate Division found against petitioner.  The Judge of Compensation ruled that Family Fun Day was a social and recreational event. The Judge found that there was no proof that this event “was a regular incident of employment.”  The Judge observed that petitioner volunteered to participate and was not pressured to do so. Finally, the Judge found that there was no proof of a benefit to Friendship House beyond improvement of health and morale.  For much the same reasons, the Appellate Division affirmed.

The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification.  Goulding argued before the Supreme Court that she was there to work and was never engaged in any recreational or social activities. She also argued that even a first annual event can be considered to be a regular incident of employment.  She added that there was a benefit beyond improvement of health and morale for Friendship House because the event furthered the mission of the non-profit in providing services to clients and their families. 

For its part Friendship House argued that the law does not apply to those who truly volunteer and have no expectation of financial consideration.  Friendship House also argued that this situation was unlike those cases where the Supreme Court found coverage because an employee was compelled to perform some task.  There was no compulsion in this case. Finally, Friendship House argued that this was not a fundraiser and there was no benefit to Friendship House beyond improvement of health and morale.

The Supreme Court first observed that just because an activity is non-compulsory does not mean that it must be considered a social or recreational activity.  The Court found that Goulding was working at the event and as to her, the event was not a social or recreational activity. The Court said, “In contrast to prior cases where the employees were participating in the social or recreational activity – playing softball, golfing, or attending a picnic – Goulding was facilitating Family Fun Day by cooking and preparing meals for clients of Friendship House, just as she does in her regular employment. Accordingly, Family Fun Day, as to Goulding, was not a social or recreational activity.  And, because Friendship House has advanced no other applicable exception under the Act, Goulding’s injuries are compensable.”

Next, the Court tackled the language of the statute itself.  The Court concluded that even if Goulding’s activities were considered social or recreational, she met the statutory exception.  The Court viewed the event as a regular incident of employment because it was sponsored by Friendship House and because it was planned to be an annual event.  The more difficult question was whether there was a benefit to Friendship House beyond improvement of health and morale. The Court highlighted the following points:

*  There was nothing in the trial record suggesting employees and their own families were invited to attend as guests;

*  The event’s purpose was “celebrating clients or members, their families, and the community.”

*  Friendship House received the “intangible benefits” of promoting itself and fostering goodwill in the community

*  The experience enjoyed by the clients and their families constituted “a separate benefit in and of itself.”

There is a fundamental problem with the Court’s primary holding that Ms. Goulding was working during this event and not engaging in a social or recreational activity.  The logical conclusion of the decision that Goulding was working at the Fun Day event brings into play the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court observed that Goulding did not participate in any fun activities but it failed to address the elephant in the room — whether Friendship House was required to pay Goulding and other non-exempt cooks like her who were doing their regular jobs.  If they were truly working, of course they would have to be paid.

More than likely Ms. Goulding volunteered to cook and probably had no expectation of being paid. She probably felt her contribution to the event would be better served by cooking and interacting with clients in that manner, as opposed to playing games with clients. She could have changed her mind at any point or she could have done both.  The case will have the negative effect of deterring employers from hosting positive events like this Family Fun Day event because the employer will have to figure out ahead of time who will be working and who will not be and then pay those volunteers who were considered to be working.  Employers will also have to keep accurate time records in order to make correct payments.

The Court’s alternative analysis was the right one.  Petitioner was able to meet the statutory exception to the law in N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.  In this practitioner’s view, petitioner was involved in a social and recreational activity and was not working.  She proved to the Supreme Court that there was a benefit to Friendship House greater than improvement in health and morale.  The Court therefore concluded that she should therefore be covered for workers’ compensation purposes.  This analysis avoids the FLSA issue for future employers who host events like this.

For employers, practitioners and judges, the focus should be now on whether the goal of the employer-sponsored activity is targeted to serving clients and promoting business opportunities as opposed to promoting health and morale of the employees through an employee softball game or an employee picnic, for example.  If the objective is to reach out to the community at large and promote goodwill or company advertisement of its services, this case suggests that an injury to a volunteer during such an event will be considered compensable for workers’ compensation purposes. If the purpose is just to promote health and morale of employees, the activity is not compensable.

 

--------------------------------

John H. Geaney, Esq., is a Shareholder and Co-Chair in Capehart Scatchard's Workers’ Compensation Group.  Mr. Geaney concentrates his practice in the representation of employers, self-insured companies, third-party administrators, and insurance carriers in workers’ compensation, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act. Should you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Mr. Geaney at 856.914.2063 or by e‑mail at jgeaney@capehart.com. 

Claimant was involved in a compensable work accident in 2001. She received total disability benefits until they were terminated in 2010. She received significant awards of lumbar and cervical spine permanent impairment. In 2020, Employer filed a Petition seeking to terminate ongoing narcotic medications and injections provided by Drs. Woo and Winas.

In accordance with the opinion of the defense medical expert, Dr. Townsend, the Board granted Employer’s Petition finding that claimant was required to wean over a 10-month period of time, and that injections were no longer reasonable, necessary, or causally related. The Board questioned claimant’s credibility as to whether her treatment was effective in improving her function, noting that despite extensive evidence that she was physically able to return to work for over 10 years, she never actually attempted to return to work in any capacity. The claimant was utilizing approximately 300 morphine milligram equivalents (“MME”) of narcotic medication per day, which was grossly in excess of limits of 90 MME set forth by the Centers for Disease Control. Supposedly effective injections never resulted in a reduction in narcotic medication levels. The Hearing Officer rejected arguments from the claimant as to the “stable” nature of the treatment course, commenting that “simply because Claimant has been on the same pain management regimen for an extended period does not guarantee that a continuation of such treatment remains reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the work accident.”

This Decision represents a continuation of a trend in Board decisions ordering weaning from narcotic medications, where not effective, even when the medications have been prescribed for many years.

Should you have any questions concerning this Decision or the compensability of chronic pain management treatment in general, please contactJohn Morgan or any other attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department atHeckler & Frabizzio. 

Deborah Cantoni v. Delaware Park, IAB Hrg. No. 1213719 (Jan. 12, 2021).