DeJesus v. R.P.M. Enterprises, Inc.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Bright; Moll; Young
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- Appeal from Compensation Review Board affirming Workers' Compensation Commissioner's decisions on jurisdiction and compensability
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Commission's finding that the plaintiff sustained a compensable injury from a car falling on him at the employer's junkyard, despite the plaintiff's failure to timely file a notice of claim, as the medical care exception applied and jurisdiction was proper.
Excerpt
The defendant employer, R Co., and its owner, M, appealed to this court from the decisions of the Compensation Review Board affirming the finding of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner that the Workers' Compensation Commission had jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation benefits and that the plaintiff employee had sustained a compensable injury. The plaintiff sustained injuries when a car he was working on at R Co.'s junkyard fell on his shoulders and the back of his head. The plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim within one year of the date of his injury as required by statute (§ 31-294c), and R Co. and M argued that the commission lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim. The commissioner bifurcated the issues, deciding the jurisdictional question first before holding a hearing on the issue of compensability. After the first hearing, the commissioner found that the medical care exception in § 31-294c (c) applied. The commissioner further found that an employer-employee relationship existed between R Co. and/or M. Thus, the commissioner found that the commission had jurisdiction over the matter. R Co. and M filed a petition for review with the board, which affirmed the commissioner's finding of jurisdiction in a decision issued in 2017. In 2019, a hearing was held before the commissioner to address the issue of compensability. No additional evidence or testimony was presented and the parties agreed that record from the prior hearing would be incorporated by reference and constitute the record for purposes of the new hearing. The commissioner concluded that the plaintiff's injury was compensable and that R Co. and M, as alter egos, were jointly and severally liable. The board affirmed the decision of the commissioner in part, and R Co. and M appealed both decisions of the board to this court. Held: 1. Although the board erred in affirming the 2019 decision of the commis- sioner on the basis of collateral estoppel, it properly
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
<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
Workers' compensation—Claimant who leaves former position of employment for a new position does not forfeit temporary total disability compensation eligibility.
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.