State ex rel. Prime Roof Solutions, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.

Petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Magistrate did not err in his determination that OneSource failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief or that the commission was under a clear legal duty to provide it.

Workers' compensation—Mandamus—Violations of specific safety requirements ("VSSRs")—Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(7)—Judicial branch must defer to Industrial Commission's factual determinations but not to its legal interpretations of specific safety requirements—TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors and In re Application of Alamo Solar I, L.L.C., followed—Court of appeals correctly concluded that whether large excavator was a power shovel does not determine whether Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(7) was applicable but erred by (1) proceeding to evaluate the evidence and determine that employer violated Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(7) because large excavator was a "heavy object[] on a level above and near" trench where VSSR applicant was working when he was injured and (2) holding that staff hearing officer abused her discretion by not finding a violation of Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(7) based on location of dump truck and fill dirt—Court of appeals' judgment granting writ ordering commission to issue VSSR award reversed and limited writ ordering commission to resolve certain factual issues it did not reach when denying VSSR application granted.

<bold>Workers' Compensation — Causation — fibromyalgia — doctor's opinion</bold> <bold>testimony</bold> <block_quote> The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that competent evidence was presented to support the Industrial Commission's findings of fact with regard to the cause of plaintiff-employee's fibromyalgia based solely on the opinion testimony of one doctor.</block_quote>

<bold>1. Workers' Compensation — Seagraves test — injured employee's</bold> <bold>right to continuing benefits — termination for misconduct</bold> <block_quote> Our Supreme Court adopts the <italic>Seagraves</italic>, <cross_reference>123 N.C. App. 228</cross_reference> (2003), test for determining an injured employee's right to continuing workers' compensation benefits after being terminated for misconduct whereby an employer must demonstrate initially that the employee was terminated for misconduct, the same misconduct would have resulted in the termination of a nondisabled employee, and the termination was unrelated to the employee's compensable injury, in order to find that an employee constructively refused suitable work, thus barring workers' compensation benefits for lost earnings unless the employee is then able to show that his inability to find or hold other employment at a wage comparable to that earned prior to the injury is due to the work-related injury.</block_quote> <bold>2. Workers' Compensation — constructive refusal of suitable</bold> <bold>employment — termination for misconduct unrelated to</bold> <bold>workplace injuries</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission erred in a workers' compensation case by concluding that defendant employer met its burden of providing competent evidence that plaintiff employee's failure to perform her UPC labeling duties was not related to her prior compensable injury under workers' compensation, which thereby led to her termination for misconduct and denial of additional workers' compensation benefits based on an alleged failure to accept a suitable position reasonably offered by her employer, because: (1) the evidence relied upon by the Commission's majority indicated that plaintiff was having continuing problems in the wake of, and as a result of, her injuries; (2) there was no competent evidence referenced in the Commission's opinion and award that supported a showing by defendant employer that