Court Rulings

<bold>Public Officers and Employees — rehiring after</bold> <bold>reduction in force — priority — years of</bold> <bold>service</bold> <block_quote> A state employee with more than ten years of general service with the State who was subjected to a reduction in force did not have a priority under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>126-7.1</cross_reference>(c2) over another employee who had also been reduced in force with approximately four years of state service. The trial erroneously held that the statutory phrase "in the same or related position classification" applies to employees with less than ten years of service but not to employees with more than ten years of service.</block_quote>

<bold>1. Unemployment Compensation — insurance benefits</bold> <bold>— misstatement in finding of fact</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in an unemployment insurance benefits case by allegedly rewriting or editing an appeals referee's finding of fact in violation of N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>96-15</cross_reference>(i), because: (1) the trial judge did not find additional or different facts, but simply corrected a misstatement of the word "all" by the appeals referee; and (2) the misstatement was of no consequence to the ultimate determination that claimant's discharge from employment was not due to substantial fault or misconduct in connection with the work.</block_quote><page_number>Page 510</page_number> <bold>2. Unemployment Compensation — insurance benefits</bold> <bold>— sufficiency of findings of fact</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in an unemployment insurance benefits case by finding there was competent evidence to support the Employment Security Commission's findings that claimant's absenteeism from work was due to her medical condition, because: (1) contrary to petitioner employer's assertion, N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>96-14</cross_reference>(1) does not apply to a case where claimant's employment was terminated by employer, and instead N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>96-14</cross_reference>(2) applies; (2) there is no statutory requirement for medical testimony to support a medical basis for work absences, and a claimant's testimony has been held to be sufficient evidence; and (3) while the evidence supporting the appeals referee's findings is very sparse, it is still competent evidence.</block_quote> <bold>3. Unemployment Compensation — insurance benefits</bold> <bold>— misconduct — excessive absenteeism —</bold> <bold>substantial fault — reasonable control</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by concluding that respondent former employee was not disqualified from receiving unemployment insuran

<bold>1. Workers' Compensation — timeliness of claim —</bold> <bold>last medical payment — foreign jurisdiction</bold> <block_quote> A workers' compensation claim was timely filed because it was within two years of the last medical compensation paid by defendants, even though the payment was to medical providers in Virginia. Nothing in the statutory definition of medical compensation limits the location to North Carolina, nor is there an exception<page_number>Page 423</page_number> for the employer's presumption that the claim will be in a foreign jurisdiction. N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>97-24</cross_reference>.</block_quote> <bold>2. Workers' Compensation — timeliness of claim</bold> <bold>— short-term disability payments — not "other</bold> <bold>compensation"</bold> <block_quote> Short-term disability benefits paid in lieu of workers' compensation were not paid pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act, and did not qualify as "other compensation" for timeliness purposes under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>97-24</cross_reference>.</block_quote> <bold>3. Workers' Compensation — appeal — failure</bold> <bold>to assign error — findings binding</bold> <block_quote> Failure to assign error in a workers' compensation case to findings about plaintiff's medical history and incapacity for employment meant that those findings were binding on appeal. The Industrial Commission's conclusion that plaintiff is totally disabled was upheld.</block_quote> <bold>4. Workers' Compensation — offered part-time</bold> <bold>employment — make-work</bold> <block_quote> The evidence in a workers' compensation case supported the finding that a part-time position offered to plaintiff was make-work and did not constitute other employment as defined by N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>97-2</cross_reference>(9).</block_quote> <bold>5. Workers' Compensation — medical care —</bold> <bold>effectiveness</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission did not err in a workers' compe