Foy v. Interstate Brands/Merita9/6/2005
Commission.
In an Opinion and Award of the Full Commission filed 25 May 2004, the Commission modified the Opinion and Award of DeputyCommissioner Chapman and awarded plaintiff ongoing temporary total disability benefits and medical compensation. Defendant appeals.
On appeal, defendant raises the issues of whether the Full Commission erred by: (I) finding plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of employment as the result of a specific traumatic event on 5 July 2001; (II) finding plaintiff did not suffer from a pre-existing injury; (III) concluding plaintiff is totally disabled and entitled to temporary total disability benefits and medical compensation; and (IV) finding plaintiff provided defendant with adequate notice pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 97-22. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Standard of Review
Review by this Court of a decision by the North Carolina Industrial Commission is limited to the determination of "whether any competent evidence supports the Commission's findings of fact and whether [those] findings . . . support the Commission's conclusions of law." Deese v. Champion Int'l Corp., 352 N.C. 109, 116, 530 S.E.2d 549, 553 (2000). The Commission's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal even where there is contrary evidence, and such findings may only be set aside where there is a "complete lack of competent evidence to support them." Johnson v. Herbie's Place, 157 N.C. App. 168, 171, 579 S.E.2d 110, 113 (2003); see also Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998). Our review "goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding." Anderson v.Lincoln Constr. Co., 265 N.C. 431, 434, 144 S.E.2d 272, 274 (1965). " vidence tending to support plaintiff's claim is to be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence." Adams, 349 N.C. at 681, 509 S.E.2d at 414, (citing Doggett v. South Atl. Warehouse Co., 212 N.C. 599, 194 S.E. 111 (1937); see also Hollman v. City of Raleigh, 273 N.C. 240, 252, 159 S.E.2d 874, 882 (1968) (" ur Workmen's Compensation Act should be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose to provide compensation for injured employees . . ., and its benefits should not be denied by a technical, narrow, and strict construction."). However, the Commission's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. McRae v. Toastmaster, Inc., 358 N.C. 488, 496, 597 S.E.2d 695, 701 (2004).
I.
Defendant first argues plaintiff's back injury is not the result of a specific traumatic event and plaintiff has failed to present any competent evidence that his back injury was caused by the alleged 5 July 2001 work accident. An employee arguing his or her injury is the result of a specific traumatic event must prove the injury occurred at a judicially cognizable point in time. Ruffin v. Compass Group USA, 150 N.C. App. 480, 483, 563 S.E.2d 633, 636 (2002); see also, Goforth v. K-Mart Corp., __ N.C. App. __, __, 605 S.E.2d 709, 712 (2004). The phrase "judicially cognizable point in time" has been defined as a determination of "when, within a reasonable period, the specific injury occurred." Fish v. Steelcase, Inc., 116 N.C. App. 703, 709, 449 S.E.2d 233, 238 (1994).
In addition to proving a specific traumatic event occurred, the employee must show the current medical condition he or she is suffering from is causally related to the work-related accident. Snead v. Sandhurst Mills, Inc., 8 N.C. App. 447, 451, 174 S.E.2d 699, 702 (1970). On the issue of causation of injuries involving "complicated medical qu
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|