 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chambers v. Transit Management8/16/2005
finding was supported by uncontroverted testimony and documentation identifying the onset of the symptoms of plaintiff's injury to have manifested themselves during his work shift on 4 December 2000.
Although the onset of plaintiff's symptoms relating to his cervical spine condition were found to have occurred in a judicially cognizable period of time, they still must have "aris out of and in the course of his employment" in order to be compensable. N.C. Gen. Stat, . 97-2(6) (2003). In his deposition testimony, Dr. Adamson stated, regarding plaintiff's cervical condition, "the general abnormality is not considered a work-related event. . . ." This statement is unequivocal that plaintiff's cervical spondylosis was not considered a work-related injury and there is no other evidence in the record to the contrary. Therefore, I would hold that the full Commission erred in concluding that plaintiff suffered a compensable cervical spine injury as a result of a specific traumatic incident during the course of his employment on 4 December 2000.
Defendant also assigns as error the Commission's conclusion that plaintiff is entitled to continuing disability benefits. Defendant presents two alternative bases for its contention: (1) plaintiff failed to prove that he is disabled as defined by North Carolina General Statutes section 97-2(9) and (2) plaintiff refused to accept suitable alternative employment and is, therefore, not entitled to receive continuing benefits even if it is determined that he is disabled.
The Workers' Compensation Act defines "disability" as: "incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment." N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-2(9) (2003). Our Supreme Court has held that for an employee to be "disabled" under our Workers' Compensation Act the Commission must find that: (1) the employee "was incapable after his injury of earning the same wages he had earned before his injury in the same employment"; (2) the employee "was incapable after his injury of earning the same wages he had earned before his injury in any other employment"; and (3) the employee's "incapacity to earn was caused by injury." Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co., 305 N.C. 593, 595, 290 S.E.2d 682, 683 (1982).
As the Commission has exclusive original jurisdiction over workers' compensation hearings, it must hear the evidence and file an award, "together with a statement of the findings of fact, rulings of law, and other matters pertinent to the questions at issue." N.C. Gen. Stat. . 97-84 (2003). The Commission is not required to make findings regarding each fact in the evidence presented, however, it must make findings regarding the specific facts which are crucial to the determination of the right of compensability in order to allow a reviewing court to determine if the Commission's award is adequately supported by the evidence. Johnson v. Southern Tire Sales and Serv., 358 N.C. 701, 705, 599 S.E.2d 508, 511 (2004)(citing Guest v. Brenner Iron & Metal Co., 241 N.C. 448, 551, 85 S.E.2d 596, 599 (1955)).
The only findings of fact made by the Commission regarding plaintiff's ability to work are the following:
18. Plaintiff underwent a functional capacity evaluation on March 5, 2002. Dr. Adamson reviewed the functional capacity evaluation and concurred with the results. On May 13, 2002, he rated plaintiff with a 30% permanent partial impairment of the left upper extremities, which Dr. Adamson later clarified to be the arm and not merely the hand. Furthermore, according to Dr. Adamson, plaintiff is capable of sedentary to light work, but not of driving the bus due to the use of the left hand and
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|