Baker v. Paxton Media Group, I.C. NO. 152284.

Plaintiff is a 41-year-old with a November 8, 1969 birth date who worked as District Manager of Circulation for Defendant-Employer since Oct 2007.
On August 26, 2008, Plaintiff was driving as part of her job when her vehicle left the road in a cloudburst, striking a tree at ~20 mph; airbag did not deploy.
She sustained injuries to her right knee and ankle with possible head impact; initial ER note reports jaw pain but no loss of consciousness, dizziness, or vomiting.
Defendants accepted a compensable contusion to the chin and right knee; subsequent medical evidence established a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and post-concussive headaches.
Plaintiff received temporary total disability (TTD) benefits Sept 4–Oct 31, 2008 and $18,646.12 in medical compensation; short-term disability (STD) was fully funded by Defendant-Employer during certain periods.
Plaintiff was terminated March 3, 2010 for reasons related to a driving record; she pursued unemployment and engaged in job searches thereafter, with ongoing medical treatment for DVTs, pulmonary emboli, and headaches.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compensability of DVT/pulmonary emboli	Knovich supports causation; accident predisposed DVT	Trauma not proven as cause; preexisting risk factors present	DVT/pulmonary emboli are compensable as a work-related injury
Compensability of headaches and related symptoms	Headache and post-concussive symptoms linked to accident	No definitive concussion causation	Headaches and related symptoms compensable as post-concussive conditions
Continuing disability and ability to work post-termination	Remains unable to obtain or maintain employment due to injury	Not shown ongoing total disability after termination	Plaintiff entitled to limited temporary total disability for specific periods; post-termination disability not established
Credits and overpayments regarding TTD/STD	Overpayments and credits issue unclear	Credits apply for STD and overpayments	Defendants receive specific credits for STD and overpayments and pay remaining TTDs accordingly
Suspension of the limitations period for future medical treatment	There is substantial risk of need for future medical treatment	No definite current need for suspension	Suspension of the limitations period §97-25.1 is awarded due to substantial risk of future medical need

Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co., 305 N.C. 593, 290 S.E.2d 682 (N.C. 1982) (framework for proving continuing disability and related burden shifting)
Demery v. Perdue Farms, Inc., 143 N.C. App. 259, 545 S.E.2d 485 (N.C. App. 2001) (burden-shifting approach to disability and available jobs)
Russell v. Lowe’s Product Distribution, 108 N.C. App. 762, 425 S.E.2d 454 (N.C. App. 1993) (evidence required to prove availability of suitable employment)