Wrongful Termination Cases

SIU S. TONG, et al., Plaintiffs v. DAVID DUNN, TIMOTHY KRONGARD, ED MASI, SOPHIA WONG and JANET WYLIE, Defendants No. COA12-1261 Filed 17 December 2013 1. Appeal and Error — motion to dismiss appeal — denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal under Hill v. West, 177 N.C. App. 132, was denied by the Court of Appeals. Hill has been repeatedly limited to its specific, unusual facts, which were not present here. 2. Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata — claim splitting— federal and state actions — separate wrongs The trial court erred in an action by the founder of a company arising from a merger by concluding that the doctrines of claim-splitting and res judicata applied. A separate wrong was asserted in the federal action and in this case; plaintiff’s claims in the federal action involved claims arising out of his position as an employee while the current action involved a wrong inflicted upon plaintiff in his capacity as a common shareholder. Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 25 May 2012 by Judge James L. Gale in Orange County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 April 2013. Poyner Spruill LLP, by Steven B. Epstein and Andrew H. Erteschik, for plaintiff-appellant. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, by John M. Moye, for defendants-appeUees. GEER, Judge. Plaintiff Siu S. Tong appeals from an order granting judgment on the pleadings to defendants David Dunn, Timothy Krongard, Ed Masi, Sophia Wong, and Janet Wylie on Mr. Tong’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants contended and the trial court agreed that Mr. Tong’s claim in this case was barred by res judicata because the claim in this case arose from the same set of operative facts as the claims in Mr. Tong’s earlier employment action. We hold that the order is contrary to our Supreme Court’s holding in Bockweg v. Anderson, 333 N.C. 486, 428 S.E.2d 157 (1993), and, therefore, reverse and remand. Facts Mr. Tong was the founder of Engineous Software, Inc. (“Engineous”). During the events that gave rise to this action, Mr. Tong continued to be a key employee of Engineous, a common shareholder of Engineous, and a member of the Board of Directors of Engineous elected to represent the common shareholders. The common shareholders collectively owned a minority interest in the company. In Spring 2006, the Engineous Board of Directors, amajority of which were preferred shareholders, hired Wachovia Bank to explore opportunities to sell Engineous. Ultimately, Dassault Systems S.A. (“Dassault”) offered $35-40 million for Engineous. Although Mr. Tong believed that Dassault’s offer was not in the best interests of the common shareholders, the Board ultimately agreed to a merger with Dassault in which Dassault acquired Engineous for approximately $40 million and merged Engineous into ENG Acquisition, Inc. (“ENG”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dassault. On 11 July 2011, Mr. Tong filed suit in Wake County Superior Court against Dassault, Engineous, Dassault Systemes Simulia K.K. formerly known as Engineous Japan, Inc., Janet Wylie, Edward Masi, Tim Krongard, David Dunn, Sophia Wong, and Charles Johnson. This action was ultimately removed to federal court (“the federal action”). In an amended complaint, Mr. Tong alleged that the individual defendants knew that the proposed merger agreement between Engineous and Dassault made Mr. Tong’s continued employment a condition of Dassault purchasing Engineous. On 10 June 2008, however, Mr. Tong resigned from the Engineous Board of Directors because of his concerns regarding the manner in which the proposed sale of Engineous to Dassault would affect the common shareholders. On 13 June 2008, three days before the execution of the merger agreement, Engineous, acting through defendant Krongard with the knowledge and consent of the other individual defendants (all of whom were members of Engineous’ Board of Directors), promised Mr. Tong a payment of at least $300,000.00 (the “carve-out payment”) if he would execute an employment agreement agreeing to continue to work for Dassault after the merger. The amended complaint alleged that Mr. Krongard knew that Mr. Tong would have to also sign a release agreement in order to receive the carve-out payment, but Mr. Krongard intentionally or negligently, with the knowledge and consent of the other individual defendants, failed to inform Mr. Tong of that requirement. Mr. Tong asserted that Mr. Krongard’s offer of the carve-out payment without mention of the required release was intended to fraudulently induce Mr. Tong into signing an employment agreement with Dassault. Further, Mr. Tong alleged that Engineous and the individual defendants knew that he would likely exercise his rights as a minority shareholder to challenge the sale. On 16 June 2008, Mr. Tong signed the employment agreement with Dassault. On the same day, after Mr. Tong signed the employment agreement, Engineous and Dassault signed the merger agreement. The merger agreement required that Mr. Tong, as well as certain other Engineous employees, have active and valid employment agreements with Dassault at the time the merger closed in order for the deal to be consummated. On 8 July 2008, the shareholders approved the merger agreement. Mr. Tong did not vote in favor of the merger agreement and preserved his rights as a common shareholder to object to the merger. On 14 July 2008, however, defendant Janet Wylie, the CEO of Engineous, notified Mr. Tong for the first time that in order to receive the $300,000.00 carve-out payment, he would have to sign a release extinguishing any claims he had as a common shareholder to challenge the sale of Engineous. Because Mr. Tong refused to sign the release, he was not paid the $300,000.00 carve-out payment. On 21 July 2008, the merger closed and other Engineous executives who had signed employment contracts and releases were paid the promised carve-out payments. The federal amended complaint further alleged that Mr. Tong complied with his employment agreement by commencing work for Dassault. Mr. Tong alleged, however, that Dassault breached the employment agreement by not paying him performance bonuses and by undermining Mr. Tong’s ability to earn compensation specified in the agreement as part of an incentive plan. The amended complaint alleged that Dassault terminated Mr. Tong’s employment on 13 January 2010, but refused, in breach of the terms of the employment agreement, to pay reasonable business expenses and severance pay. Dassault also failed to pay a Japanese retirement allowance that Mr. Tong alleged was due for his service as a director of Engineous Japan, Inc. Mr. Tong asserted claims in the federal action against the individual defendants (defendants Krongard, Wylie, Masi, Dunn, Wong, and Johnson) and Engineous for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation based on Mr. Tong’s having been induced to sign the employment agreement in exchange for $300,000.00 without being told that receipt of the sum was conditioned on his signing a release of his claims as a common shareholder. Mr. Tong also alleged a claim for breach of contract against Engineous for failure to pay the $300,000.00 and against Dassault for tortious interference with the agreement to pay Mr. Tong $300,000.00. In addition, Mr. Tong sued Dassault for breach of the employment agreement, violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and breach of contract and/or quantum meruit for failure to pay the Japanese retirement allowance. Mr. Tong stated in his amended complaint that he consented to arbitrate the claims brought against Dassault for breach of contract and violation of the Wage and Hour Act. On 20 July 2011, 10 days after he filed his first lawsuit, Mr. Tong and 47 other plaintiffs, all common shareholders of Engineous, filed this action in Orange County Superior Court against individual defendants David Dunn, Timothy Krongard, Ed Masi, Sophia Wong, and Janet Wylie, all of whom were preferred shareholders of Engineous and members of Engineous’ Board of Directors. Also joined as a defendant was ENG in its own capacity and as the successor to Engineous. The Orange County Superior Court complaint alleged that the individual defendants owed the common shareholders a fiduciary duty, which included a duty to maximize the value to all shareholders, including the common shareholders, in connection with Dassault’s acquisition of Engineous. The complaint alleged that “[t]he Individual Defendants breached these duties by knowingly and recklessly placing their own interests above those of all shareholders, self-dealing, and failing to adequately oversee the Engineous[] officers, failing to maximize the value of the sale of Engineous, thereby actually and proximately causing Mr. Tong and the other Common Shareholders to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.” The complaint further asserted a claim for aiding and abetting these breaches of fiduciary duty against ENG. In support of these claims, plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Tong agreed to work with Mr. Krongard and Wachovia Bank to explore opportunities to sell Engineous. Although Mr. Tong’s efforts resulted in four well-known potential buyers expressing interest, with two of them entering a bidding process, the board of directors cut off Mr. Tong’s interactions with the potential buyers. The complaint further alleged that during board meetings, statements were made reflecting that certain board members were placing their own interests ahead of the common shareholders. Mr. Tong refused to sign board minutes for one of the key board meetings because, the complaint alleged, of “the omission of many statements and the failure to acknowledge the apparent agreement between the preferred board members that their individual interests should and would drive the decision making process going forward (casting aside the common shareholders’ interests).” The board and Engineous’ executive management then attempted to block Mr. Tong’s interaction with the potential buyer, Dassault, so as to limit the flow of information to Mr. Tong and the other common shareholders. Although board members recognized that Engineous was not in a strong position to sell and although Mr. Tong urged the board to wait until after the roll out of Engineous’ new enterprise product because it would likely significantly improve the company’s sale value, the board refused to wait. The board members justified that refusal by expressing concern about a potential cash flow shortage in the future, and yet awarded substantial executive bonuses to company officers, including the individual defendants. The complaint further alleged that the preferred stock board members, including the individual defendants, voted to set aside funds to reward employees and executives who supported the merger that favored preferred shareholders and to buy general releases from certain key employees. Dassault initially made an offer of $35 million to $40 million for Engineous. Mr. Dunn, a member of the board representing preferred shareholders, proposed that the board accept the sale price, while Mr. Tong proposed that the board wait for a competing offer from Siemens. Mr. Tong expected that an additional bidder would offer a higher price. The complaint alleged that the board, however, showed little interest in attempting to negotiate a higher sale price, but rather were more interested in proceeding to a closing that would benefit the preferred shareholders. The complaint alleged that Mr. Krongard stated that particular terms offered by Dassault -- including the speed at which the preferred shareholders would collect the sale proceeds, the size of the escrow, and the timing of the closing - were of paramount importance. Those terms did not, however, assist the common shareholders or protect the value of the common shareholders’ interests in Engineous. In addition, according to the complaint, throughout the merger and acquisition process, the individual defendants Ms. Wylie and Mr. Krongard interfered with Mr. Tong’s right, as a director representing common shareholders and as a common shareholder himself, to interact with participants and gather information about ongoing developments. Dassault acquired Engineous by merger with ENG for approximately $40 million. The complaint alleged that several board members made false representations to common shareholders to represent that the deal accorded with their fiduciary responsibilities when, in fact, the individual defendants “were considering their own self-interest first.” The complaint also asserted that had defendants acted in accord with their fiduciary responsibilities, the ultimate valuation of Engineous would have been higher which would have benefitted the common shareholders. Further, according to the complaint, “in closing this transaction in the manner described above, and as they did, the Defendants were not acting in the best interests of the Company and all its shareholders, but rather in their own self-interest, causing harm to Mr. Tong and the Common Shareholders.” As relief, the Orange County complaint sought a declaration that the Engineous board’s actions constituted breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint also sought compensatory damages suffered as a result of defendants’ wrongdoing. The individual defendants filed an answer dated 19 September 2011. Defendant ENG filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure on 29 September 2011. In the federal action, on 7 October 2011, Mr. Tong filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of his claims against Engineous and the individual defendants for fraudulent inducement to contract and negligent misrepresentation, as well as his claims against Engineous for breach of contract and against Dassault for tortious interference with the contract to pay the carve-out payment. On 24 October 2011, the individual defendants in the Orange County action filed an amended answer adding an affirmative defense that “[p]laintiff Tong’s claims against the Individual Defendants are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and claim splitting, given that Plaintiff Tong filed a prior action against the Individual Defendants . . . and that action was dismissed with prejudice.” The answer contended that “[u] nder the doctrines of res judicata and claim splitting, the prior disposition of the Federal Action operates as a bar on Plaintiff Tong’s present action against the Individual Defendants, and thus Plaintiff Tong’s claims are subject to dismissal as a matter of law.” The individual defendants then moved for judgment on the pleadings as to Mr. Tong’s claims on 30 November 2011. The trial court granted ENG’s motion to dismiss on 26 March 2012. On 25 May 2012, the trial court also granted the individual defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Mr. Tong’s claims. The court concluded “that issues Tong now seeks to litigate in the Present Action were raised by the pleadings in the [federal action] and res judicata applies. Rather than asserting different injuries arising from independent successive acts, Tong complains that Individual Defendants set out on a concerted course of action designed to complete the Merger, including buying Tong’s consent through false pretenses and at the same time extinguishing the rights of common shareholders, including Tong’s. While other shareholders . . . were not party to the [federal action] and are not then subject to res judicata, Tong’s claims are barred by his dismissal of the [federal action] with prejudice.” On 5 August 2012, the remaining plaintiffs other than Mr. Tong filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Mr. Tong filed a notice of appeal from the order granting judgment on the pleadings on 7 August 2012. Motion to Dismiss Anneal We first address defendants’ motion to dismiss Mr. Tong’s appeal. Defendants contend that this Court must dismiss the appeal under Hill v. West, 177 N.C. App. 132, 627 S.E.2d 662 (2006). This Court has, however, repeatedly limited Hill to the specific, unusual facts present in that case. The circumstances present in Hill are not found in this case and, therefore, Hill is not controlling here. In Hill, the plaintiffs filed a negligence action arising out of a traffic accident. Id. at 133,627 S.E.2d at 662-63. The trial court entered an order granting two defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and a subsequent order granting summary judgment to three other defendants, with claims against one defendant remaining unresolved. Id. at 133-34, 627 S.E.2d at 663. This Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal from the partial summary judgment order as interlocutory, noting in addition that the plaintiffs had failed to include a statement of grounds for appellate review in violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id. at 133, 627 S.E.2d at 663. On remand, the trial court entered a consent order that purported to be a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the claims against the remaining defendant. Hill, 177 N.C. App. at 135, 627 S.E.2d at 664. The order, however, included a special provision stating that the trial court “ ‘specifically order[ed], with the consent of all parties, that if this case is remanded for trial, all claims against [the remaining defendant] may be reinstated as the Plaintiffs deem necessary and that the prior dismissals without prejudice will not be pled as a bar to said claims.’ ” Id. In other words, contrary to Rule 41(a)(1), the claims against the remaining defendant could be reinstated at any time without regard to the one-year limitation contained in Rule 41(a)(1). When the plaintiffs then appealed the summary judgment order a second time, this Court first noted that the plaintiffs had again violated the Rules of Appellate Procedure by failing to include a statement of the grounds for appellate review. Hill, 177 N.C. App. at 134, 627 S.E.2d at 633. Relying on Viar v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005), the Court found no basis for suspending the Rules of Appellate Procedure under Rule 2. Hill, 177 N.C. App. at 134, 627 S.E.2d at 663-64. The Court then pointed out, in addition, that the unique consent order was a “manipulation of] the Rules of Civil Procedure in an attempt to appeal the 2003 summary judgment that otherwise would not be appealable” and was not a final judgment within the meaning of Rule 54 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 135, 627 S.E.2d at 664. Based on both the appellate rules violation and the attempt to manipulate the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court dismissed the second appeal. Id. at 136, 627 S.E.2d at 664. In subsequent cases, this Court has declined to dismiss appeals under Hill under circumstances identical to those in this case. In Curl v. Am. Multimedia, Inc., 187 N.C. App. 649, 654, 654 S.E.2d 76, 80 (2007), this Court limited Hill’s holding “to the facts of that case,” noting that “Hill did not attempt to distinguish its holding from the significant body of case law holding contra” and that “the holding in Hill was apparently based in part on the appellants’ ‘manipulative’ behavior and failure to follow the Rules of Appellate Procedure[.]” See also Goodman v. Holmes & McLaurin Attorneys at Law, 192 N.C. App. 467, 472, 665 S.E.2d 526, 530 (2008) (declining to dismiss appeal based on Hill even though appeal followed voluntary dismissal without prejudice of claims surviving trial court’s order because plaintiff followed Rules of Appellate Procedure). This Court also rejected an identical argument based on Hill in Duval v. OM Hospitality, LLC, 186 N.C. App. 390, 651 S.E.2d 261 (2007). This Court explained: “The stipulation of dismissal did not contain any additional language purporting to give plaintiff any time beyond that permitted by Rule 41(a)(1) to pursue her claim against Days Inn. The procedural posture of this case does not

THE ESTATE OF GARY VAUGHN, TAMMY VAUGHN, ADMINISTRATRIX, Plaintiff v. PIKE ELECTRIC, LLC, PIKE ELECTRIC, INC., and KENNETH SHALAKO PENLAND, Defendants No. COA13-448 Filed 19 November 2013 1. Appeal and Error — interlocutory orders and appeals— denial of motions to dismiss — substantial right — Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity provision The denial of a motion to dismiss under N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(1) and the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act in a negligence case affected a substantial right and were immediately appealable. Further, the denial of defendants’ N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss were immediately appeal-able as affecting a substantial right to the extent that they involved the trial court’s jurisdiction over this matter. 2. Workers’ Compensation — Woodson employer exception— failure to allege intentional misconduct The trial court’s order denying defendant Pike Electric’s motions to dismiss under N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) in a negligence case was reversed. Plaintiff offered no basis to believe that Pike Electric was aware of, intended, or was substantially certain that defendant Penland’s actions on that day would result in decedent’s death. Plaintiff failed to allege uncontroverted evidence of defendant Pike Electric’s intentional misconduct. 3. Workers’ Compensation — Pleasant co-employee exception— willful, wanton, and reckless negligence The trial court’s order denying defendant Penland’s motions to dismiss under N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) in a negligence case was affirmed. An employee may exhibit willful, wanton, and reckless negligence either when he intentionally injures a coworker or when he does so with manifest disregard to the consequences of his actions. Defendant Penland’s alleged direction to send decedent up a utility pole despite decedent’s severe lack of training and expertise was sufficient to create an inference that Penland was manifestly indifferent to the consequences of his actions under either Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6). Appeal by Defendants from order entered 25 February 2013 by Judge Gary M. Gavenus in Rutherford County Superior Court. Héard in the Court of Appeals 11 September 2013. Podgomy Law, P.A., by George Podgomy, Jr., and Price, Smith, Hargett, Petho & Anderson, by Richard L. Anderson, for Plaintiff. Roberts & Stevens, P.A., by F. Lachicotte Zemp, Jr. and Robin A. Seelbach, for Defendants Pike Electric, LLC and Pike Electric, Inc. Bennett & Guthrie, P.L.L.C., by Richard V. Bennett, Roberta King Latham, and Joshua H. Bennett, for Defendant Kineth Shalako Penland. STEPHENS, Judge. Factual and Procedural Background This case arises from the death of Gary Vaughn (“Decedent”). He was electrocuted on 29 October 2009 while working as a groundman for Defendants Pike Electric, LLC and Pike Electric, Inc. (collectively, “Pike Electric”) and died as a result of that injury. Almost three years later, on 4 October 2012, Decedent’s surviving spouse and the administratrix of his estate, Tammy Vaughn (“Plaintiff’), filed a negligence complaint against Pike Electric and Decedent’s supervisor, Defendant Kineth Penland (“Penland”), in Rutherford County Superior Court. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following: 10. . . . Decedent was employed by Pike Electric as a groundman. As a groundman, . . . Decedent assisted foremen, linemen[,] and other employees of Pike Electric who worked on... overhead distribution lines .... 11. [Groundmen]... were neither trained nor permitted to perform work on poles with energized lines . .. due to the risk of electrocution and/or death inherent in such work. 13. On the morning of October 29, 2009,... Decedent was employed as a groundman in a crew overseen by Penland [, which had been] instructed to retrofit transformers on overhead power lines.... 14. As a groundman, the duties to be performed by . . . Decedent during this work were prescribed and circumscribed by the Pike Electric [work methods and safety manuals]. These duties did not include working on power lines; especially work on energized power lines. 15. [At the time of his death, Decedent had been employed as a groundman for less than two months] and had not received any training or job assessment during that period of time. [Defendants] knew that... Decedent had received no training to perform the work required of a lineman. 16. Defendants knew that . . . Decedent had ... no previous experience with power line distribution and transmission and had worked as a truck driver prior to being employed by... Pike Electric. 17. Defendants knew that. . . Decedent had received no training as a lineman and... was not [permitted to] climb [] poles or work[] on or near energized lines or equipment____ 18. Retrofitting transformers is an inherently dangerous activity as it involves de-energizing the transformer by disconnecting the stinger from the primary line, replacing the lightning arrester, installing guy sticks, installing a fused cutout[,] and re-energizing the transformers. 19. . . . Defendants knew that undertaking such a task required specific training and experience and that instructing a novice groundman such as ... Decedent to perform such work was certain to result in death or serious injury. 20. ... Penland instructed... Decedent to climb the utility pole [that] was supporting [the] overhead power lines . . . and to begin the work of retrofitting the transformer. 21. The power lines that Penland instructed ... Decedent to work on were high voltage distribution lines. They were energizedf,] uninsulated[,] and carried 7200 volts of electricity. 22. Defendants knew that [groundmen] such as Decedent were not qualified, nor permitted, to undertake any of those dangerous activities. 23. Nevertheless,... Decedent was... instructed to use a “shotgun” stick to de-energize the pole. This involved the dangerous step of removing the hotline clamp from the primary line which would leave the primary line exposed. This is a task reserved for [a] trained and experienced lineman. 24. Defendants knew that . . . Decedent had neither the training nor experience to safely carry out such a task[,] yet instructed him to do so regardless. 25. . . . Decedent was not supervised nor provided with adequate personal protective equipment while undertaking the tasks assigned to him. 26. Shortly after... Decedent climbed the utility pole, the remaining crewman heard a loud noise from the top of the pole and turned to see . . . Decedent hanging limp from the utility pole. 27. The other members of. . . Decedent’s crew were then forced to perform a pole[-]top rescue of... Decedent. 28. Resuscitation efforts were attempted[,] but [Decedent] did not survive his injuries. 29. As the foreman and/or employee in charge on October 29, 2009, Penland’s duties and responsibilities were prescribed by . . . OSHA regulations and [the Pike Electric safety manual]. These duties included... ensuring that all lines to be worked on were de-energized, . . . all employees followed applicable safety rules, and ... all of the employees in the work crew possessed the necessary information and work skills ... to perform the work carefully. 30. . . . Defendants knew, or should have known, that groundmen and other untrained and inexperienced employees were . . . instructed to perform the inherently dangerous activities reserved for trained linemen. 33. ... OSHA determined that Defendant Pike Electric had previously been cited by North Carolina OSHA for violations ... in North Carolina as well as in other states where [it provides] similar services. 34. . . . Pike [Electric] . . . was aware that employees such as . . . Decedent were being placed in[] hazardous situations that were substantially certain to cause injury or death. 35. . . . [Pike Electric] was cited for [ten] serious safety violations in the [S]tate of Georgia in 2001 following the fatal electrocution of an employee while upgrading an electrical system. 37. ... [Pike Electric] was cited for safety violations in the [S]tate of Florida in 2003 following [an employee injury] after [the injured employee] contacted] an energized power line. 38. Following [an] investigation [in this case], OSHA issued citations to [Pike Electric because]: a. ... An employee classified as a groundmanf, i.e., Decedent,] was allowed to perform work as a lineman for which he had not been trained[; and] b. ... [Decedent] was working in close proximity to 7200 volts . . . without wearing insulating gloves or... sleeves. Defendants Pike Electric and Penland moved to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint in December of 2012 under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and section 97-10.1 (“the exclusivity provision”) of the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act (“the Act”). Pursuant to those rules, Defendants asserted that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with the case and that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The motions were heard on 18 February 2013 and, one week later, denied. Defendants appeal. Discussion Defendants appeal the trial court’s order denying their motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). On both motions, we reverse as to Pike Electric and affirm as to Penland. I. Appellate Jurisdiction Defendants’ appeal is interlocutory. It is well settled that an order denying a motion to dismiss made pursuant to the exclusivity provision of the Act and either Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(b)(1) is interlocutory. Trivette v. Yount, _ N.C. App. _, _, 720 S.E.2d 732, 734 (2011) (“[T]he trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) ... is interlocutory.”) [hereinafter Trivette I\, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, and remanded, 366 N.C. 303, 735 S.E.2d 306 (2012); Block v. Cnty. of Person, 141 N.C. App. 273, 276, 540 S.E.2d 415, 418 (2000) (“[A] denial of a motion pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) is an interlocutory order from which no appeal may be taken immediately.”) (citation, brackets, certain punctuation, and internal quotation marks omitted). “An order is interlocutory if it is made during the pendency of an action and does not dispose of the case [, ] but requires further action by the trial court in order to finally determine the entire controversy.” Trivette I,_N.C. App. at _, 720 S.E.2d at 734. Generally, a party cannot immediately appeal from an interlocutory order. Davis v. Davis, 360 N.C. 518, 524, 631 S.E.2d 114, 119 (2006). “The rationale behind [disallowing the immediate appeal of interlocutory orders] is that no final judgment is involved in such a denial and the movant is not deprived of any substantial right that cannot be protected by a timely appeal from a final judgment which resolves the controversy on its merits.” Block, 141 N.C. App. at 276-77, 540 S.E.2d at 418. Because the trial court’s denial of Defendants’ motions to dismiss did not finally dispose of Plaintiff’s claims in this case, it is interlocutory and, therefore, not generally subject to immediate appellate review. Nevertheless, an interlocutory order may be reviewed on appeal when either “(1) . . . there has been a final determination as to one or more of the claims and the trial court certifies that there is no just reason to delay the appeal, [or] (2) ... delaying the appeal would prejudice a substantial right.” Milton v. Thompson, 170 N.C. App. 176, 178, 611 S.E.2d 474, 476 (2005). Because the trial court did not certify that there was no just reason to delay Defendants’ appeal, review is proper only if the delay would affect a substantial right. We hold that it would. A. Denial of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1) As Pike Electric points out, our Supreme Court has determined that the denial of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and the exclusivity provision of the Act affects a substantial right “and will work injury if not corrected before final judgment____” See Burton v. Phoenix Fabricators & Erectors, Inc., 362 N.C. 352, 661 S.E.2d 242 (2008) (remanding to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the merits of an appeal that was brought on the denial of the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s negligence action under the exclusivity provision of the Indiana workers’ compensation statute). Therefore, Defendants’ appeal as to that element of the denial of their respective motions to dismiss — Rule 12(b)(1) — is proper. B. Denial of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) In footnote 2 of his brief, Penland states that his argument “will focus [exclusively] on the trial court’s ruling regarding [his motion to dismiss] pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).” However, he goes on to attempt to preserve review of the denial of his motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (1) “should this Court determine that the trial court erred in dismissing his action under [Rule 12(b)(1)].” This is impermissible. Defendant’s ipse dixit statement is not sufficient to preserve appellate review. Rule 28(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure states that, in order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must offer “reason or argument” in support of that issue. If not, the issue will be deemed abandoned. N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6). Because Penland intentionally omitted any reason or argument that the trial court erred in dismissing his motion under Rule 12(b)(1), that issue is deemed abandoned. Nevertheless, we elect to review the denial of Penland’s motion to dismiss as a jurisdictional matter under Rule 12(b)(1). Lee v. Winget Rd., LLC, 204 N.C. App. 96, 98, 693 S.E.2d 684, 687 (2010) (“[A]n appellate court has the power to inquire into jurisdiction in a case before it at any time, even sua sponte.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In their briefs, Defendants state that their appeals of the trial court’s denial of their motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) are properly before this Court under Burton. This is incorrect. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Burton allowed appellate review of the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss as affecting a substantial right pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and the exclusivity provision of another state’s workers’ compensation act. Id. It did not address whether jurisdiction was present for an appeal of the denial of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Indeed, neither Pike Electric nor Penland has cited any case allowing review of the denial of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and the exclusivity provision of the Act on grounds that such denial affects a substantial right. After reviewing the case law, we are unable find a decision of either appellate court addressing the validity of an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and the exclusivity provision. Accordingly, whether the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and the exclusivity provision of the Act is immediately appealable as affecting a substantial right is a matter of first impression. As discussed above, our Supreme Court has determined that the denial of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and the exclusivity provision of the Act is immediately appealable as affecting a substantial right. In this case, Defendants limit their arguments regarding the trial court’s denial of their motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) to the issue of jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the superior court did not have jurisdiction to determine her claim since it arose under the exclusivity provision of the Act. Importantly, Defendants do not argue on appeal that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to North Carolina tort law. Because the Supreme Court has determined that the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under the exclusivity provision of the Act affects a substantial right, we conclude that the denial of Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss is immediately appealable as affecting a substantial right to the extent that those motions were asserted pursuant to the exclusivity provision of the Act. Accordingly, to the extent that they involve the trial court’s jurisdiction over this matter, we review Defendants’ appeals on the merits. II. Standard, of Review “The standard of review on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (1) for lack of jurisdiction is de novo.” Dare Cnty. v. N.C. Dep’t of Ins., 207 N.C. App. 600, 610, 701 S.E.2d 368, 375 (2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Under Rule 12(b)(6), [t]he motion to dismiss . . . tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. In ruling on the motion the [factual] allegations of the complaint must be viewed as admitted, and on that basis the court must determine as a matter of law whether the allegations state a claim for which relief may be granted. Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 185, 254 S.E.2d 611, 615 (1979) (citations omitted). On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is not, however, required to accept mere conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences as true. Strickland, v. Hedrick, 194 N.C. App. 1, 20, 669 S.E.2d 61, 73 (2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 934 (2007) (“While a complaint attacked by a [Federal] Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions^ Indeed,] a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do[.]”) (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). III. Analysis The exclusivity provision of the Act states that “the rights and remedies [provided to] the employee, his dependents, next of kin, or personal representative shall exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee ... as against the employer at common law or otherwise on account of... injury or death.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.1 (2011). The social policy behind [this provision] is that injured workers should be provided with dignified, efficient^] and certain benefits for work-related injuries and that the consumers of the product are the most appropriate group to bear the burden of the payments. The most important feature of the typical workers’ compensation scheme is that the employee and his dependents give up their common law right to sue the employer for negligence in exchange for limited but assured benefits. Consequently!,] the negligence and fault of the injured worker ordinarily is irrelevant. Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710, 712, 325 S.E.2d 244, 246-47 (1985). Under the exclusivity provision, a worker is generally barred from bringing an action in our courts of general jurisdiction against either his employer or a co-employee. Id. at 713, 325 S.E.2d at 247. Instead, the worker must pursue his or her action before the North Carolina Industrial Commission. In cases involving intentional injury by an employer or co-employee, however, our Supreme Court has stated that the worker may bring suit at common law. Id. Over time, this rule has been applied to two different circumstances. First, when a worker wishes to maintain an action against his employer, our Supreme Court has directed us to ask (a) whether the worker suffered injury or death and (b) whether the employer intentionally engaged in misconduct knowing that such conduct was substantially certain to cause serious injury or death. Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 340-41, 407 S.E.2d 222, 228 (1991). If the answer to both questions is “yes,” then the worker “or the personal representative of the estate],] in [the] case of death, may pursue a civil action agains

DEWEY D. MEHAFFEY, Employee v. BURGER KING, Employer, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier No. 24PA12 (Filed 8 November 2013) Workers’ Compensation — attendant care services — family member — prior approval The Industrial Commission exceeded its authority in workers’ compensation case by promulgating the Medical Fee Schedule that prevented the award of retroactive compensation for the attendant care services provided before Commission approval was obtained. While good policy reasons may exist for the prerequisites created in the Schedule, this matter is a legislative determination, not one to be made by the Commission without statutory authorization. However, the matter was remanded for necessary findings and conclusions on the issue of reasonableness of the timing of plaintiff’s request for reimbursement. Justice BEASLEY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Justice NEWBY dissenting in part and concurring in part. On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals,_N.C. App._, 718 S.E.2d 720 (2011), affirming in part and reversing in part an opinion and award filed on 18 August 2010 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Supreme Court on 14 November 2012. Sumwalt Law Firm, by Mark T. Sumwalt and Vernon Sumwalt; and Grimes Teich Anderson LLP, by Henry E. Teich, for plaintiff-appellant. Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, L.L.P., by M. Duane Jones and Jeremy T. Canipe, for defendant-appellees. HUDSON, Justice. This case presents the question whether the Medical Fee Schedule promulgated by the North Carolina Industrial Commission (Commission) may bar certain individuals from receiving compensation for attendant care services they provided before obtaining approval for those services from the Commission. We hold that the Commission may not do so since such action would exceed the power granted to the Commission by the General Assembly. Because the Court of Appeals enforced that provision of the Commission’s Medical Fee Schedule, which we conclude was adopted in excess of the Commission’s authority, we reverse in part the decision of the Court of Appeals. But because defendants here have challenged the reasonableness of the timing of plaintiff’s request for approval of attendant care and the Commission’s findings do not address this issue, we remand for the Commission to do so. On 13 August 2007, plaintiff suffered a compensable injury to his left knee while working as a restaurant manager for defendant Burger King, where he had been employed for approximately eighteen years. As a result of his injury, plaintiff underwent a “left knee arthroscopy with a partial medial meniscectomy” at Transylvania Community Hospital. Plaintiff’s condition failed to improve after surgery, and he ultimately developed “reflex sympathetic dystrophy” (“RSD”). Despite undergoing a number of additional procedures, plaintiff continued to suffer pain. Plaintiff eventually was diagnosed with depression related to the injury and resulting RSD, and his psychiatrist concluded that it was unlikely plaintiff’s “mood w[ould] much improve until his pain is under better control.” Likely due to pain, plaintiff increasingly attempted to limit his movements following his diagnosis of RSD. By 8 April 2008, plaintiff was using “an assistive device” to move or walk around. On 21 April 2008, John Stringfield, M.D., plaintiff’s family physician, prescribed a mobility scooter for plaintiff, and medical records show that by 20 June 2008, plaintiff was using a walker. On 18 December 2008, plaintiff requested a prescription for a hospital bed from Eugene Mironer, M.D., a pain management specialist with Carolina Center for Advanced Management of Pain, to whom plaintiff had been referred as a result of his diagnosis with RSD. Dr. Mironer’s office declined to recommend a hospital bed, instructing plaintiff to see his family physician instead. That same day plaintiff visited his family physician, Dr. Stringfield, who prescribed both a hospital bed and a motorized wheelchair. Since plaintiff’s injury, his wife has assisted him with his daily activities in the home. Until 14 August 2008, plaintiff’s wife attended to his needs approximately four hours per day. On 15 August 2008, Mrs. Mehaffey discontinued her outside employment, and since then she has attended to plaintiff’s needs approximately sixteen hours per day. In her caregiver role, Mrs. Mehaffey helps “plaintiff out of bed in the morning, gives him a sponge bath, and assists [him] in dressing.” She also helps “get [him] onto the scooter and transfers [him] from the scooter to a recliner, where plaintiff sits most of the day.” She prepares plaintiffs meals and attends to his bodily needs. At the end of each day, Mrs. Mehaffey helps “plaintiff dress for bed and helps him into bed.” Despite plaintiffs efforts to limit his activity and movement, the medical providers plaintiff saw for pain management indicated that he would derive greater benefit if he attempted to move under his own strength, which would force him to rehabilitate his injury. James North, M.D., the codirector of pain management at Wake Forest Baptist Hospital and plaintiffs preferred treating physician, “opined that providing plaintiff with a power wheelchair was counterproductive to his recovery” because “people using wheelchairs tend to gain weight and avoid using the extremity that causes their pain, both of which impede[ ] the recovery process.” Dr. North reasoned that “the less an injured extremity is used, the worse the condition will become.” Likewise, Dr. North concluded “that there was no scientific or medical basis for requiring a hospital bed for patients with RSD.” Dr. North’s medical opinion was echoed by Dr. Mironer. Nonetheless, plaintiff used these mobility aids and comfort devices, procuring for himself the hospital bed and motorized scooter. Plaintiff’s family physician and other individuals began to recommend that plaintiff receive attendant care services. On 9 March 2009, Judy Clouse, a nurse consultant employed by the Commission, recommended that plaintiff receive eight hours of attendant care daily, Monday through Friday, from a Certified Nursing Assistant. On 5 June 2009, Dr. Stringfield recommended that plaintiff have sixteen hours a day of attendant care services, retroactive to the day plaintiff was diagnosed with RSD, thereby including the almost two years of attendant care plaintiff’s wife had already provided. Bruce Holt, a certified life care planner, also opined that plaintiff “needs attendant care for at least 16 hours per day, seven days a week.” In light of these recommendations regarding his needs, plaintiff sought a hearing before the Commission to clarify the extent of medical compensation owed to him. Defendants denied any failure to pay for necessary medical treatment. Relevant for our purposes, plaintiff and defendants disagree whether plaintiff’s wife should be compensated for the attendant care she provided plaintiff before the Commission approved her rendering that service. Defendants contend that the Commission’s Medical Fee Schedule prevents such an award of retroactive compensation to Mrs. Mehaffey. Plaintiff, on the other hand, views Mrs. Mehaffey’s attendant care services as simply another component of medical compensation within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 97-2(19) (2007), for which defendants are responsible under N.C.G.S. § 97-25 (2007). The Commission agreed with plaintiff on this issue, choosing not to follow its own fee schedule, perhaps in recognition that it was not authorized to deny reimbursement for these services. First, in an opinion and award filed on 29 January 2010, a deputy commissioner directed defendants to compensate Mrs. Mehaffey for the “attendant care services rendered to plaintiff at the rate of $12.50 per hour, 16 hours per day and seven days per week, from 15 August 2008, through the present and continuing until further order of the Commission.” On appeal the Full Commission affirmed in pertinent part the deputy commissioner’s opinion and award, concluding that Mrs. Mehaffey’s attendant care services were medical compensation for which defendants were responsible under sections 97-2(19) and 97-25 of our General Statutes. In addition, the Full Commission further compensated Mrs. Mehaffey for the attendant care services previously provided from 15 November 2007 through 14 August 2008, while she was still employed outside the home. For those attendant care services the Full Commission awarded compensation for four hours daily, seven days a week, also at a rate of $12.50 per hour. The Court of Appeals, relying on our decision in Hatchett v. Hitchcock Corp., 240 N.C. 591, 83 S.E.2d 539 (1954), reversed the Commission’s decision to provide compensation for Mrs. Mehaffey’s past attendant care services. Mehaffey v. Burger King,_N.C. App _,_, 718 S.E.2d 720, 723-24 (2011). In Hatchett we were presented with a situation in which the Commission had awarded financial compensation to an injured worker’s mother under sections 97-25 and 97-26 of our General Statutes for practical nursing services that she provided to her son without prior approval from the Commission. 240 N.C. at 592-93, 83 S.E.2d at 540-41. Ultimately, this Court determined that the Commission’s fee schedule, promulgated pursuant to the Commission’s rulemaking authority under the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), prohibited such an award of compensation for practical nursing services unless that conduct had been first approved by the Commission. Id. at 593-94, 83 S.E.2d at 541-42. As a result, we reversed the Commission’s award. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the outcome in the present case is controlled by our decision in Hatchett. First, that court observed that the claim for payment in this case was brought under sections 97-25 and 97-26 of our General Statutes, the same provisions that were at issue in Hatchett. Mehaffey, _N.C. App. at_, 718 S.E.2d at 724. Additionally, the Court of Appeals explained that the language of the rule at issue in Hatchett, which said, “Fees for practical nursing service by a member of claimant’s family or anyone else will not be honored unless written authority has been obtained in advance,” is nearly identical to the language now found in the Commission’s Medical Fee Schedule. Id. at_, 718 S.E.2d at 723-24 (citations and quotation marks omitted). As a result, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Commission should have followed the holding of Hatchett and thus declined to award compensation for Mrs. Mehaffey’s past provision of attendant care services. Id. at_, 718 S.E.2d at 724. We allowed plaintiff’s petition for discretionary review to consider the Court of Appeals’ decision regarding the Commission’s award of compensation for past attendant care services provided before approval was obtained from the Commission. Mehaffey v. Burger King,_N.C. __, 726 S.E.2d 177 (2012). Plaintiff contends that the Court of Appeals erred by following the holding of Hatchett. Instead, plaintiff asserts that the Commission does not have statutory authority under section 97-26(a) to prohibit compensation of an immediate family member for the provision of attendant care services unless prior authorization was obtained. Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the Court of Appeals properly followed our decision in Hatchett. Moreover, defendants argue that allowing members of an injured employee’s immediate family to be compensated for providing attendant care without the Commission’s having first approved that service would contravene one of the underlying purposes of the Act, which is to control medical expenses. To resolve this dispute we turn first to the provisions of the Act. Generally speaking, the Act provides for the compensation of employees who sustain workplace injuries. N.C.G.S. §§ 97-1 to -101.1 (2011). The Act places upon an employer the responsibility to furnish “medical compensation” to an injured employee. Id. § 97-25. At the time of plaintiff’s injury, the Act defined “medical compensation” as: Medical Compensation. — The term “medical compensation” means medical, surgical, hospital, nursing, and rehabilitative services, and medicines, sick travel, and other treatment, including medical and surgical supplies, as may reasonably be required to effect a cure or give relief and for such additional time as, in the judgment of the Commission, will tend to lessen the period of disability; and any original artificial members as may reasonably be necessary at the end of the healing period and the replacement of such artificial members when reasonably necessitated by ordinary use or medical circumstances. Id. § 97-2(19) (2007). The Act’s catch-all provision for “other treatment” has been understood to include attendant care services. See, e.g., Ruiz v. Belk Masonry Co., 148 N.C. App. 675, 681, 559 S.E.2d 249, 253-54 (upholding an award of attendant care benefits), appeal dismissed and disc. rev. denied, 356 N.C. 166, 568 S.E.2d 610 (2002). Moreover, the parties do not dispute that attendant care services fall under the version of section 97-2(19) in effect when plaintiff was injured and that the current version of that statute expressly includes “attendant care services,” N.C.G.S. § 97-2(19) (2011). The Act is designed also to control medical costs. Indeed, as we said in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority v. North Carolina Industrial Commission, “The General Assembly enacted the Act in 1929 to both provide swift and sure compensation to injured workers without the necessity of protracted litigation, arid to insure a limited and determinate liability for employers.” 336 N.C. 200, 203, 443 S.E.2d 716, 718-19 (1994) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted)), superseded by statute, The Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1994, ch. 679, sec. 2.3, 1993 N.C. Sess. Laws (Reg. Sess. 1994) 394, 398 (amending N.C.G.S. § 97-26(b) effective 1 October 1994). The latter is essentially a trade-off for the former. In keeping with its desire to control medical costs, in 1994 the legislature directed the Commission to “adopt a schedule of maximum fees for medical compensation,” which would enable employers more accurately to predict their potential financial exposure following an employee’s injury. The Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1994, ch. 679, sec. 2.3, 1993 N.C. Sess. Laws (Reg. Sess. 1994) 394, 397 (codified at N.C.G.S. § 97-26(a)). Before that time an employer’s pecuniary liability was tethered to the costs that prevailed “in the same community for similar treatment of injured persons of a like standard of living when such treatment is paid for by the injured person.” Id. Departing from its previous standard, the General Assembly instructed that this new Medical Fee Schedule “shall be adequate to ensure that (i) injured workers are provided the standard of services and care intended by this Chapter, (ii) providers are reimbursed reasonable fees for providing these services, and (iii) medical costs are adequately contained.” Id. The adoption of a Medical Fee Schedule aids in fulfilling a purpose of the Act by indicating to employers the amount of their potential financial exposure. The central issue in the case sub judice is whether the Commission exceeded its authority in promulgating a provision of its Medical Fee Schedule to create a prerequisite to reimbursement for certain care. To answer this question, like all similar questions, we must ascertain whether the General Assembly authorized the administrative body — here the Industrial Commission — to undertake the challenged conduct. E.g., High Rock Lake Partners, LLC v. N.C. DOT, _N.C._,_, 735 S.E.2d 300, 303-04 (2012). Administrative agencies, as creatures of statute, may act only as authorized by the legislature. In re Broad & Gales Creek Cmty. Ass’n, 300 N.C. 267, 280, 266 S.E.2d 645, 654-55 (1980) (citations omitted). As an administrative agency, the Commission must act consistently with the intent of the General Assembly. See, e.g., Gregory v. W.A. Brown & Sons, 363 N.C. 750, 763-64, 688 S.E.2d 431, 440 (2010). A provision of the Commission’s Medical Fee Schedule that is contrary to our General Statutes is, as a result, without effect. Forrest v. Pitt Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 100 N.C. App. 119, 125-28, 394 S.E.2d 659, 662-64 (1990), aff’d per curiam, 328 N.C. 327, 401 S.E.2d 366 (1991). We understand the difficulty in monitoring home health care, especially when furnished by a family member. In an apparent effort to address this issue, the Commission adopted Section 14 of the Medical Fee Schedule, which states in pertinent part: Except in unusual cases where the treating physician certifies it is required, fees for practical nursing services by members of the immediate family of the injured will not be approved unless written authority for the rendition of such services for pay is first obtained from the Industrial Commission. While good policy reasons may exist for the prerequisites created here in the Schedule, this matter is a legislative determination, not one to be made by the Commission without statutory authorization. Neither section 97-26(a) nor any other provision in our General Statutes grants the Commission the power to create such a requirement. See N.C.G.S. § 97-26(a). In fact, the legislature explicitly stated that the Commission’s Medical Fee Schedule “shall . . . ensure that... providers are reimbursed reasonable fees for” their services. Id. And as the enabling legislation indicates, the fee schedule is designed to facilitate uniformity and predictability in the medical costs employers axe required to pay under the Act. See Ch. 679, sec. 2.3, 1993 N.C. Sess. Laws (Reg. Sess. 1994) at 397. Section 97-26(a) of our General Statutes does not give the Commission the authority to mandate that certain attendant care service providers may not be compensated unless they first obtain approval from the Commission before rendering their assistance. N.C.G.S. § 97-26(a). As a result, we are unable to permit Section 14 of the Commission’s Medical Fee Schedule to prevent the award of retroactive compensation for the attendant care services Mrs. Mehaffey provided her husband. See Forrest, 100 N.C. App. at 125, 394 S.E.2d at 662 (noting that the Commission’s Medical Fee Schedule is “superseded by” our General Statutes). We are mindful that this result may appear on its face to be inconsistent with our decision in Hatchett. When, however, a change occurs in the law upon which a prior decision rests, this Court must look afresh at the questioned provision. See Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 173, 109 S. Ct. 2363, 2370, 105 L. Ed. 2d 132, 148 (1989) (“In cases where statutory precedents have been overruled, the primary reason for the Court’s shift in position has been the intervening development of the law, through either the growth of judicial doctrine or further action taken by Congress.”), superseded on other grounds by statute, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 (enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b)), as recognized in Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 124 S. Ct. 1836, 158 L. Ed. 2d 645 (2004). Our decision in Hatchett was based on the fee schedule (which has remained largely unchanged) and the statutory language of former section 97-26. Under the statutory language at that time, an employer was liable for medical treatment “when ordered by the Commission.” N.C.G.S. § 97-26 (1950). Our decision in Hatchett emphasized that statutory language: “G.S. 97-26 provides for the pecuniary liability of the employer for medical, surgical, hospital service or other treatment required, when ordered by the Commission. ” Hatchett, 240 N.C. at 594, 83 S.E.2d at 542. We reasoned that these “plain and explicit words” meant that the plaintiffs mother should not be compensated for her a