 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Watts v. Borg Warner Automotive6/21/2005
atment for them, and did not report the accident to his employer. Plaintiff's actions are easily distinguishable from all precedents upholding reasonable excuses. Plaintiff claims he failed to report his injuries for "fear losing his job." The purpose of the notice requirement in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-22 is not for the benefit of the employee, but rather to provide actual notice to the employer. Plaintiff cannot meet his burden to show a reasonable excuse. Jones, 103 N.C. App. at 75, 404 S.E.2d at 166. The Commission's opinion and award should be reversed.
C. Prejudice to Employer
Defendants suffered prejudice as a matter of law by plaintiff's delay regardless of the Commission's conclusion that plaintiff had a reasonable excuse. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-22 requires both a "reasonable excuse" and a showing "that the employer has not been prejudiced" if notice of an injury is untimely. "If prejudice is shown, mployee's claim is barred even though he had a reasonable excuse for not giving notice of the accident within 30 days." Id. at 76, 404 S.E.2d at 167. The purpose of the requirement of notice is to prevent prejudice toward the employer. "The purpose is dual: First, to enable the employer to provide immediate medical diagnosis and treatment with a view to minimizing the seriousness of the injury; and second, to facilitate the earliest possible investigation of the facts surrounding the injury." Id. at 76-77, 404 S.E.2d at 167; Booker, 297 N.C. at 481, 256 S.E.2d at 204; see 2B Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law § 78.10, 15-102.
Plaintiff delayed reporting his accident for nearly two years after it occurred. Without notice, defendant-employer was: (1) unable to provide plaintiff with immediate medical diagnosis; (2) unable to provide plaintiff with treatment and could not initiate the earliest possible investigation of the facts; (3) unable to interview employees who may have witnessed plaintiff's injuries; (4) unable to investigate the site where the alleged injury occurred; and (5) unable to provide or direct plaintiff's medical treatment. Jones,103 N.C. App. at 76-77, 404 S.E.2d at 167.
We all agree that although "the Commission is not required to make findings of fact concerning each question raised by the evidence, . . . it is required to make specific findings pertaining to these crucial facts upon which plaintiff's claim rests." Barnesv. O'Berry Center, 55 N.C. App. 244, 246, 284 S.E.2d 716, 717 (1981).
The Commission's conclusion of law, " efendant-employer has not shown prejudice for plaintiff's late filing of this claim" is unsupported by its findings of fact. The only finding of fact made by the Commission is plaintiff's "late reporting did not prejudice defendant . . . . " This statement is actually a conclusion of law and does not explain or support the Commission's finding. The Commission failed to consider each of the factors above. Jones, 103 N.C. App. at 76-77, 404 S.E.2d at 167. If no finding of fact supports the Commission's conclusion of law, our review is de novo. Grantham, 127 N.C. App. at 534, 491 S.E.2d at 681. Defendants were prejudiced by plaintiff's delayed notification as a matter of law. Jones, 103 N.C. App. at 76, 404 S.E.2d at 167. Remand is unnecessary where plaintiff cannot offer any recognized "reasonable excuse" to overcome prejudice to defendants. The Commission's opinion and award should be reversed.
III. Causation
Defendants argue the Commission failed to make adequate findings of fact on causation.
We all agree the Commission "failed to make adequate findings of fact on causation," but the majority remands for further findings of fact. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held
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.
|
|