 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Watts v. Borg Warner Automotive6/21/2005
hould not limit the Commission's determination of what is reasonable.
TYSON, Judge dissenting
The majority holds the Commission failed to make adequate findings of fact on: (1) a reasonable excuse for plaintiff's failure to timely notify his employer of an industrial accident; and (2) whether plaintiff's alleged injuries were caused by the accident and remands to the Commission for further findings of fact. Under the facts of and the law applicable to this case, remand is unnecessary. I vote to reverse and respectfully dissent.
I. Standard of Review
Our review of a Commission's opinion and award " limited to reviewing whether any competent evidence supports the Commission's findings of fact and whether the findings of fact 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). No findings of fact support the Commission's conclusions of law. This Court reviews conclusions of law de novo. Grantham v. R. G. BarryCorp., 127 N.C. App. 529, 534, 491 S.E.2d 678, 681 (1997), disc. rev. denied, 347 N.C. 671, 500 S.E.2d 86 (1998).
II. Notice Requirement
The Commission found as fact that " laintiff did not report the injury to his employer within 30 days" but concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff's twenty month delay was justified by plaintiff's showing a "reasonable excuse." The majority agrees plaintiff failed to provide defendants notice within the required thirty day time period, but remands the matter for additional findings of fact whether a reasonable excuse was given. Undisputed evidence shows plaintiff failed to notify defendants within the statutorily required thirty days and failed to offer any "reasonable excuse" recognized by any precedent. Remand to the Commission for further findings of fact is unecessary. The Commission's opinion and award is affected with an error of law and should be reversed.
A. Immediate Notice
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-22 (2003) states "every injured employee . . . shall immediately on the occurrence of an accident . . . give or cause to be given to the employer a written notice of the accident" and "no compensation shall be payable unless such written notice is given within 30 days after the occurrence of the accident." (Emphasis supplied). "The purpose of the notice-of-injury requirement is two-fold. It allows the employer to provide immediate medical diagnosis and treatment . . . to minimiz the seriousness of the injury, and . . . facilitate the earliestpossible investigation of the circumstances surrounding the injury." Booker v. Medical Center, 297 N.C. 458, 481, 256 S.E.2d 189, 204 (1979) (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-22 inquiries are conducted to prevent prejudice to the employer by lack of notice by the employee).
"The primary goal of statutory construction is to effectuate the purpose of the legislature in enacting the statute." Hoffman v. Great American Alliance Ins. Co.,___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 601 S.E.2d 908, 912 (2004). We are required to interpret notice requirements in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-22 to protect the employer's right and to require timely notice of injury. See Davis v. Taylor-Wilkes Helicopter Serv., Inc.,145 N.C. App. 1, 2, 549 S.E.2d 580, 581 (2001) (Both parties knew of the plaintiff's injury within thirty days but believed the plaintiff was an "independent contractor" when he was, in fact, an employee. The Court found reasonable excuse and no prejudice in the delay). Cases cited within Judge Elmore's concurring opinion show either the employer had actual knowledge of the injury or the plaintiff was unaware a compensable injury had occurred: Lakey v. U.S. Airways, Inc.,155 N.C. App.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|