232 N.C. App. 187
N.C. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff, a WakeMed staff nurse, reported lower back pain after pulling a patient on April 12, 2011; employer filed Form 19 and initially denied the claim.
- Employer denied compensability citing no accident, no specific traumatic incident, not arising in course of employment, and credibility problems.
- Parties stipulated at pre-trial that plaintiff was an employee and sustained an injury on April 12, 2011.
- Deputy Commissioner awarded temporary total disability, past and future medical expenses, attorney’s fees, and costs; Full Commission affirmed.
- Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration arguing newly discovered evidence (plaintiff obtained new work after the hearing) and challenged numerous findings of fact and conclusions of law; the Commission denied reconsideration.
- Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Commission in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensable injury: whether plaintiff sustained a specific traumatic incident aggravating preexisting back condition | Beard argued medical testimony and her credible testimony showed a work-related exacerbation from April 12, 2011 | WakeMed argued findings lack competent evidence, relied solely on plaintiff’s testimony, and doctors based opinions on subjective history | Court affirmed: Commission’s findings supported by competent evidence; may credit plaintiff and medical testimony including reliance on subjective history |
| Disability (Russell second prong): whether plaintiff made reasonable efforts but was unsuccessful in finding employment | Beard showed job-search efforts, testimony of difficulty, and that restrictions impeded reemployment | WakeMed argued evidence did not establish disability; pointed to doctor testimony implying no restrictions | Court affirmed: Commission reasonably found 20-lb restriction and that Beard made reasonable efforts but remained unsuccessful, satisfying Russell second prong |
| Admissibility/weight of medical opinions based on subjective history | Plaintiff relied on treating and examining physicians who tied condition to the workplace incident | WakeMed argued medical opinions were incompetent because based on plaintiff’s subjective history | Court held subjective history may be a proper basis for medical opinions; such testimony is competent and for Commission to weigh |
| Motion for reconsideration / newly discovered evidence | Plaintiff opposed as untimely and argued evidence (post-hearing employment) did not exist at hearing | WakeMed argued evidence of subsequent employment was newly discovered and should be considered | Court affirmed denial: evidence was not “newly discovered” (did not exist at time of hearing) and Commission did not abuse discretion in denying reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Grp., 362 N.C. 657 (2008) (standard of review: Commission as sole judge of credibility; appellate review limited to whether any competent evidence supports findings)
- Yingling v. Bank of America, 741 S.E.2d 395 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (physician reliance on patient subjective complaints does not render opinion incompetent)
- Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution, 108 N.C. App. 762 (1993) (four ways employee may prove disability, including reasonable but unsuccessful job search)
- Parks v. Green, 153 N.C. App. 405 (2002) (newly discovered evidence must have existed at time of trial)
- Burnham v. McGee Bros. Co., Inc., 727 S.E.2d 724 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evaluating denial of motions for reconsideration)