 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wall v. Macfield/Unifi12/29/1998
Appeal by plaintiff from opinion and award entered 9 January 1998 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 October 1998.
Plaintiff worked for defendant, Macfield, as a texturing operator from 1980 until 1 November 1993. In 1985, plaintiff injured her back at work. Plaintiff injured her back again in 1987 and in August 1991. During August 1991, plaintiff was "doffing" a machine at work, bent over to pick up a package and felt a sharp pain in her back. Plaintiff claimed she called her supervisor at work the next day and reported the incident; however, her supervisor denied that plaintiff ever notified him of her injury . Ms. Robertson, the plant nurse, testified that plaintiff never reported to her that she injured herself at work at anytime in 1991. Ms. Robinson reviewed plaintiff's personnel file and although it contained several completed accident reports for prior incidents, there was no evidence that plaintiff ever reported a work injury at any time in 1991.
Plaintiff claimed she went to see Dr. Knowlton, the Unifi company doctor, the day after her 1991 injury and that he treated her. However, Dr. Knowlton's office records only show that he saw plaintiff in 1984 and 1985, not in 1991.
The office notes of Dr. Harkins, an orthopedic doctor, establish that he saw plaintiff on 14 June 1991 (before her alleged injury at work in August 1991) for back, buttock, hip and leg pain that she had experienced for a week. Moreover, on 27 August 1991, plaintiff went to Cobb Chiropractic Clinic for back pain. On the "Patient Case History" form, plaintiff checked that her back pain was not "an Industrial Accident Case" and plaintiff stated that she had been experiencing back pain for about two months.
Plaintiff applied for and received $3,119.99 in disability benefits under Unifi's group disability policy. Ms. Becky Martin, Unifi's health care plan representative who filed plaintiff's disability claim, testified that there was no indication in plaintiff's medical records or in conversations with plaintiff that her injury was work related. Plaintiff's disability benefits were terminated in 1995 after Dr. Borkto, Aetna's doctor, indicated that she would be able to do some type of sedentary work.
In October 1995, plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim using a Form 18 which gave defendant employer notice of plaintiff's back injury . Plaintiff conceded that her Form 18 was the first written notice that plaintiff had given defendant about her injury. The defendant denied the claim on 20 February 1996.
The deputy commissioner awarded plaintiff benefits. The Full Commission reversed the deputy commissioner and found that plaintiff's claim was barred by G.S. 97-24. Plaintiff appeals.
First we consider whether the Full Commission erred in reversing the deputy commissioner's award to plaintiff and concluding that plaintiff's claim was time barred under G.S. 97-24. Plaintiff argues that the Industrial Commission does not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim until the employer has filed an accident report with the Commission. After careful review, we disagree.
G.S. 97-24 states that " he right to compensation under this Article shall be forever barred unless the claim be filed with the Industrial Commission within two years after the accident." North Carolina General Statute 97-24's requirement of filing a claim within two years of the accident is not a statute of limitation, but a condition precedent to the right to compensation. Reinhardt v. Women's Pavilion, 102 N.C. App. 83, 86, 401 S.E.2d 138, 140 (1991). Here, the plaintiff was injured in August 1991 and did not file her claim until Oc
Page 1 2 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|