247 N.C. App. 1
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Barnette, a Lowe’s delivery driver since 2004 with preexisting back issues, alleges injury to his right arm/hand on Aug. 8, 2012 while delivering a refrigerator on Bald Head Island.
- Barnette and coworker Ron Alcorn carried a refrigerator up a narrow, winding staircase to a second-floor kitchen, discovered it would not fit, and immediately carried it back down. Barnette lost feeling in his right hand/forearm while descending; sensation returned in 20–30 minutes.
- Barnette reported the incident to Lowe’s and filed a workers’ compensation claim asserting an injury from an unusually difficult delivery. Lowe’s denied the claim.
- A deputy commissioner and then the Industrial Commission denied benefits, concluding Barnette did not prove an ‘‘accident’’ under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Barnette appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed: (1) challenges to findings of fact 4, 6, and 7 (memory and witness recollection issues) and (2) whether the Commission erred as a matter of law in finding the injury was not an ‘‘accident.’”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether findings of fact 4, 6, 7 lack competent evidence | Barnette argued those findings contradict testimonial evidence and lack support | Lowe’s relied on testimony of Barnette, Alcorn, and assistant manager to support findings | Court held findings 4, 6, 7 are supported by competent evidence and upheld them |
| Whether the injury was an ‘‘accident’’ under the Act (i.e., interruption of routine / unusual conditions) | Barnette argued narrow, nonstandard staircase forced an interruption of routine and an unusual, awkward technique (carrying up then immediately down) — thus an accident | Lowe’s argued Barnette was performing his usual strenuous duties in the usual way, so no ‘‘accident’’ occurred | Court held the Commission’s conclusion that there was no accident was not supported by its own findings; the narrow staircase and immediate return created unusual conditions and an interruption of routine, so injury is compensable as an accident |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. Lane Co., 143 N.C. App. 167 (discussing standard for reviewing Commission findings)
- Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676 (appellate duty to check for any evidence supporting findings)
- Harrell v. J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc., 45 N.C. App. 197 (Commission as sole judge of witness credibility)
- Pittman v. Int’l Paper Co., 132 N.C. App. 151 (findings conclusive if supported by competent evidence)
- Jones v. Candler Mobile Village, 118 N.C. App. 719 (findings may be set aside only for complete lack of competent evidence)
- Cooper v. BHT Enters., 195 N.C. App. 363 (unchallenged findings presumed supported)
- Goodrich v. R.L. Dresser, Inc., 161 N.C. App. 394 (remand if conclusions of law unsupported by findings)
- Shay v. Rowan Salisbury Sch., 205 N.C. App. 620 (definition of ‘‘accident’’: interruption of routine and introduction of unusual conditions)
- Gunter v. Dayco Corp., 317 N.C. 670 (injury while performing usual tasks in usual way is not accidental; interruption of routine supports accidental inference)
- Porter v. Shelby Knit, Inc., 46 N.C. App. 22 (unusually difficult exertion during a usual task can constitute an accident)
- Calderwood v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., 135 N.C. App. 112 (unusual conditions during routine nursing duties can make injury accidental)
- Renfro v. Richardson Sports, Ltd. Partners, 172 N.C. App. 176 (athlete forced into unusual technique by circumstances — compensable accident)
- In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505 (distinguishing findings of fact from conclusions of law)
- Smith v. Cabarrus Creamery Co., 217 N.C. 468 (‘‘unusualness and unexpectedness’’ are the essence of accident under the Act)