North Carolina Injury Lawyer Blog

September 5, 2018

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Ruling Finding South Carolina Insurer Responsible for Injured Worker’s Expenses in Lent Employee Doctrine Case

It is common practice for employers to loan out employees to assist with other projects or jobs. This can create wonderful opportunities for employees, but it also creates issues when it comes to determining which employer is liable for any injuries that the employee suffers on the job. At Maurer Law, our team of dedicated North Carolina workers’ compensation lawyers has handled complex claims involving many different types of injuries and we are ready to assist you.

In a recent appellate opinion, the court considered a claim involving an employee who had been loaned out to another company. The owner of a South Carolina-based company needed help with a construction project in Florida and contacted his friend who owned a North Carolina-based company to request additional workers. The plaintiff worked for the North Carolina company and volunteered to work at the Florida job site. According to the arrangement, the South Carolina-based company agreed to pay the North Carolina employees at the completion of the job. On the job site, the worker fell while lifting furniture to the second floor of a building, sustaining multiple injuries.

The plaintiff filed a Notice of Accident requesting compensation for his injuries from his North Carolina employer’s insurance carrier. The South Carolina company’s insurance carrier had refused to pay compensation to the plaintiff for his medical bills, which totaled over $350,000, and disability benefits exceeding $44,000. The North Carolina insurer filed a request to add the South Carolina insurer and to have it be held liable for the employee’s expenses and benefits.

August 28, 2018

North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Claim Involving Kitchen Slip-and-Fall Denied Based on Failure to Link Additional Claim for Benefits with Original Injury

by Maurer Law

Filing a claim for workers’ compensation benefits is merely the first step in receiving the financial support that you need and deserve after an accident at work. Your employer’s insurance carrier may contest your claim or seek a denial of certain benefits or items of compensation. Having a seasoned North Carolina work injury lawyer on your side can make a substantial difference when it comes to proceeding through the claims process smoothly and efficiently.In a recent court opinion, an injured employee appealed the denial of her workers’ compensation claim seeking benefits for her disability and compensation for her medical treatment. The plaintiff worked for an employer that contracted to provide food services to a nursing home. The plaintiff worked in the nursing home and was often required to lift up to 50 pounds and to replace or remove heavy items on a shelf overhead. The plaintiff suffered an injury after slipping on a wet floor and falling on her left knee, arm, and hand. The plaintiff was taken to the emergency room and diagnosed with an injury to these areas. She was prescribed pain medications and a sling for her left arm. She was also prohibited from lifting more than five pounds.

During a subsequent medical examination, the plaintiff was diagnosed with a probable rotator cuff tear and a bruised knee and wrist. The restriction on lifting was maintained, and she was prohibited from pushing or pulling more than 10 pounds. The plaintiff underwent more examinations and treatments, including surgery.

August 21, 2018

North Carolina Court Upholds Denial of Workers’ Compensation Benefits When Employee Was Unable to Demonstrate that Injury Arose from His Job Duties

by Maurer Law

The North Carolina workers’ compensation system is complex, and there are many different requirements and legal rules that could affect your ability to recover benefits. At Maurer Law, we have the experience it takes to assist injured workers with receiving the fair treatment they deserve after a work-related injury.In a recent claim appeal, the court considered whether an employee’s injury was compensable in light of a dispute regarding whether it arose out of his employment duties. The plaintiff worked as a press operator for a manufacturing plant for 28 years. On the day of the injury, it was very hot, and he arrived for his shift in the afternoon after spending the beginning of the day tilling potatoes. Toward the end of his shift, the plaintiff collapsed. He did not remember what happened leading up to his collapse and loss of consciousness. The plaintiff received treatment at the hospital, and an MRI test showed that he incurred an injury to his right shoulder as a result of the fall, which required two surgeries.

The plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits that was initially denied. The plaintiff sought a rehearing, and the Commissioner concluded that the plaintiff’s injury did not arise out of his employment, so the injury was not compensable. The plaintiff appealed.

On review, the appellate court first stated that an injury is compensable when it was caused by an accident during the course of employment and arose out of employment. When the origin of a fall or the reason behind a fall is unknown, the Commission must use an inference that the fall arose out of employment unless there is evidence that some force or condition independent from the employment caused the fall. According to case law, the appellate court noted that a blackout or loss of consciousness is deemed an explanation for a fall. Accordingly, the appellate court concluded that the trial court properly refused to apply the unexplained fall doctrine. The appellate court noted that the plaintiff was working in an air-conditioned environment and was allowed to eat and drink as much as he wished. He was also standing on level ground at the time of the fall and did not appear to be exerting himself in an excessive manner.

August 14, 2018

North Carolina Court Upholds Award of Treble Damages in Car Accident Case When Auto Body Shop Engaged in Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

by Maurer Law

Some car crashes are relatively straightforward. Others are complicated and give rise to complex legal issues that require the experience and knowledge of a seasoned North Carolina car accident attorney. Whether you are simply wanting more information about your legal rights or you are prepared to take action, we are standing by and ready to assist you.A recent North Carolina court opinion highlights one example of how car accidents can raise complex legal issues. The plaintiff was injured in a crash in 2008 while driving a Land Rover. The plaintiff’s vehicle was hit by another vehicle when the plaintiff was turning at an intersection. The plaintiff contacted the car maker after the crash to find out how he should have his vehicle repaired. When he took his vehicle in for repairs, he stated that he was concerned there was serious damage that could not be seen externally. One month later, the plaintiff picked up his vehicle, but no repairs had been made by the auto body shop that the plaintiff contacted. Instead, the defendant’s auto body shop had performed all of the repairs.

On the way home, the plaintiff noticed several issues with his vehicle, and when he arrived home, he found significant problems that had not been repaired. He contacted the auto body shop and returned the vehicle for further repairs. The plaintiff contacted the at-fault driver’s insurer and requested that they pay for the repairs. The plaintiff rejected the insurer’s initial offer on the basis that it was insufficient.

The plaintiff took his vehicle to another auto body repair shop to obtain an estimate on the diminished value of his vehicle. The shop determined that the vehicle was not safe to drive, and the insurer deemed it a total loss. The insurer told the plaintiff that it would need to conduct a third-party inspection before it could declare the car a total loss. The plaintiff called off the inspection before it could be performed.

August 7, 2018

North Carolina Court Clarifies Applicability of Tort Claims Act in Accident Involving School Bus

by Maurer Law

We trust school buses and other transportation systems to get our children safely from one place to another. When school administrators and drivers fail to use due care, a serious accident can result. There are special rules that apply to when a public entity can be sued in a tort action, making it critical to seek guidance from a seasoned Raleigh bus accident lawyer. In a recent appellate opinion, the court considered whether the plaintiff could bring a lawsuit for the alleged negligence of a school board employee in operating an activity bus that was transporting students to an extracurricular event. The accident happened in 2011 when the plaintiff was hit by the bus while it was on its way to a football game. The plaintiff contended that the driver of the bus was negligent at the time of the accident and that she was entitled to compensation as a result.

The plaintiff filed a claim with the North Carolina Industrial Commission pursuant to the Tort Claims Act. This statute provides a limited waiver for local government immunity by allowing lawsuits against boards of education for the negligent operation of school buses and school transportation service vehicles if the plaintiff is able to show that certain criteria are met. The Commission is the body vested with jurisdiction to hear these claims.

The Commission initially granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff did not show that his claim fell within the bounds of the limited waiver statutory provision. The plaintiff appealed, and the reviewing court reversed. The defendant filed a petition for discretionary review, which the responding court granted. The defendant asserted that the statutory provision did not allow the plaintiff to bring a claim based on the limited waiver provision because the statute does not cover accidents involving school activity buses. The plaintiff argued that a school activity bus falls within the ambit of the types of buses listed in the statute.

July 26, 2018

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Revocation of Benefits to Injured Meat Cutter

by Maurer Law

Once you are awarded workers’ compensation benefits, it is important that you protect your right to continue receiving those benefits for as long as you are legally entitled to receive them. Many insurers will attempt to terminate benefit payments after an initial award. As seasoned North Carolina workers’ compensation lawyers, we are standing by and ready to help you protect your right to benefits at any stage of the proceedings.

In a recent workers’ compensation appeal, the worker was a 68-year-old man who was injured while working as a meat cutter. The man’s job description provided that people in his position must be able to lift up to 100 pounds on a routine basis and must be able to reach from 6 inches to 72 inches. The description also listed stooping, kneeling, crouching, balancing, and climbing as regular activities. The man sustained an injury to his lower back, right hip, and right extremities while lifting a box of meat from the top of a stack of boxes.

The man received medical treatment that showed serious injuries, including multilevel disc bulging, spinal and foraminal stenosis, and spondylolysis. The employer and its insurer admitted compensability of the injury and began paying temporary total disability benefits. The worker then underwent a functional capacity evaluation which determined that he could not return to his job as a meat cutter but that he was able to perform light physical demand work. He was later determined to have reached maximum medical improvement, but he claimed he continued to experience serious pain in his lower back and right leg. Over the course of the next few years, he continued to receive medical treatment and used a cane occasionally to provide assistance with walking.

July 19, 2018

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Insurer’s Subrogation Claim in Multi-Vehicle Injury Accident

by Maurer Law

One of the most complicated aspects of any personal injury accident is dealing with insurance companies and determining the scope of any coverage involved. At Maurer Law, we have substantial experience as North Carolina car accident lawyers, ensuring that insurance companies treat our clients fairly and provide them with the benefits promised in the policy.

In a recent North Carolina appellate opinion, the court considered the application of an insurance policy in a car accident. The parties were two women injured in a car accident who required medical treatment for their injuries. The first woman was a passenger in the vehicle owned by the other woman. At the time of the accident, the at-fault motorist crossed the center line and collided with the driver’s vehicle. Immediately after the crash, a third vehicle struck the injured parties’ vehicle.

The injured driver asserted that she incurred $58,000 in medical expenses, while the passenger stated that she incurred $104,000. The first defendant had an insurance policy through GMAC with limits of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident. The second defendant who was the driver of the third car to strike the injured women’s vehicle had a policy through All state that provided limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. He also had a policy through Mercury with a limit of $250,000 per person. The first defendant’s insurer, GMAC, tendered the policy limits, which were split up among other parties involved in the accident, including the injured women.

July 12, 2018

North Carolina Court Upholds Dismissal of Action Involving Injured Elderly Patient Due to Improper Pleading as a Negligence Claim

by Maurer Law

Injury accidents can take place virtually anywhere, including in a hospital. If you believe that you were harmed as a result of someone else’s negligence, then it is essential that you speak with a competent North Carolina personal injury lawyer as soon as possible to understand and protect any legal rights that you may have.

One aspect that an attorney can assist you with is determining the appropriate venue and method for asserting your rights. In a recent appellate opinion, a North Carolina court discussed whether a plaintiff’s cause of action was properly based in medical malpractice or personal injury. In the lawsuit, a hospital patient was injured during a fall while undergoing an x-ray examination. The plaintiff asserted a cause of action for ordinary negligence. During discovery, however, the evidence indicated that the fall happened when the technician operating the x-ray machine was rendering specialized services that required skill and clinical judgment. As a result, an issue arose regarding whether the plaintiff should have brought the claim as a medical malpractice action, which would have required compliance with certain procedural rules.

The plaintiff was an elderly woman who was brought to the hospital by her daughter on the day of the accident. The mother had been experiencing chest pains after suffering a fall several days beforehand. She had a history of falling as a result of her lack of steadiness and she frequently requested assistance to walk. At the emergency room, the personnel determined that a chest x-ray was appropriate. She was transported to the radiology room in a wheelchair. The technician asked the elderly woman whether she would be able to stand for the procedure and she indicated that she believed she would be able to stand. Once she stood up and walked a few steps, the technician indicated that she seemed stable so he turned around and walked a few steps away to position the equipment. It was at that time that he turned around to observe the elderly woman falling backward, resulting in a severe traumatic brain injury.

July 5, 2018

North Carolina Court Holds Injured Worker Not Entitled to Reinstatement of Benefits Following Incarceration

by Maurer Law

There are many rules that apply to the workers’ compensation process and that can affect your right to recover benefits. This is why it is critical to consult with an experienced and competent North Carolina workers’ compensation attorney. A recent appellate opinion demonstrates the impact that some of these rules can have on your right to recovery.

The plaintiff suffered serious injuries on the job when he was unloading a truck and a pallet jack failed, causing a pallet to fall and pin the plaintiff’s leg. He suffered a broken ankle and required surgery to address the problem. The surgery did not successfully resolve all of the plaintiff’s injuries. Further examination noted that the screw used in the first surgery was too long so another doctor removed and replaced it. Additional examination suggested that the plaintiff required a third surgery, but he stated that he did not want to undergo another procedure. He was provided with a brace for his ankle at this time.

Sometime thereafter, the plaintiff was released by the doctor as having reached maximum medical improvement with some restrictions, including sedentary work only and short periods of walking and standing. He was also assigned a 15% permanent partial impairment for his ankle injury.

June 27, 2018

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Claim Against School Board Involving School Bus Crash Based on Government Tort Immunity

by Maurer Law

When a government entity is involved in an accident, special considerations must be made. There are different rules and procedures that apply to public entities in litigation. As dedicated North Carolina motor vehicle accident lawyers, we are ready to assist you in evaluating your claim and ensuring that you follow the appropriate procedures.

A recent appellate decision highlights the unique aspects of a government entity being involved in the litigation. The appellate court was asked to consider the liability of a local school board employee in a negligence action involving a school bus accident. The plaintiff’s car was hit by a school bus transporting student-athletes to a football game. The driver of the bus was an employee of the county Board of Education.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the defendant with the North Carolina Industrial Commission, seeking compensation for her injuries and damages. The plaintiff initiated the action in accordance with the Tort Claims Act, which includes a provision that provides a limited waiver of local governmental immunity from lawsuits in situations involving the negligent operation of school buses and school transportation vehicles in situations in which certain criteria are met. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the Commission did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim because the claim did not fall within this waiver of immunity. The Commission granted the summary judgment motion, and the plaintiff appealed.