868 S.E.2d 131
N.C. Ct. App.2021Background
- On Jan. 30, 2015 Steven McAuley (decedent) injured his back at work and filed a Form 18 on Feb. 11, 2015; he died Feb. 21, 2015.
- Employer (NC A&T) filed a Form 63 and paid temporary total disability and medical compensation after the injury.
- The decedent’s widow, Angela McAuley, attended an HR meeting soon after his death and signed insurance‑related paperwork but did not file a claim with the Industrial Commission at that time.
- Angela filed a Form 33 to request a hearing for death benefits on Jan. 18, 2018—more than two years after her cause of action arose (the death). Employer moved to dismiss under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97‑24 as time‑barred.
- Deputy Commissioner and then the Full Commission held the Industrial Commission lacked jurisdiction because Angela’s own filing was untimely; the majority concluded the decedent’s pre‑death Form 18 did not constitute the dependent’s “filing” for § 97‑24 purposes.
- Judge Arrowood dissented, arguing the statute’s plain text and legislative history do not require a separate dependent filing and that the decedent’s timely Form 18 sufficed to vest jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a deceased employee’s timely Form 18 counts as the dependent’s “filing of a claim” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97‑24 so the dependent need not file within two years after death | McAuley: Decedent’s timely Form 18 satisfied § 97‑24; no separate dependent filing required; § 97‑38 permits death benefits timing | NC A&T: Dependent’s cause of action arises only at death, so the decedent’s Form 18 cannot be the dependent’s filing; widow’s Form 33 (filed >2 years after death) is untimely | Majority: Dependent’s claim arises at death; decedent’s Form 18 does not serve as the dependent’s filing; widow’s claim is time‑barred and Commission lacks jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Barham v. Food World, Inc., 300 N.C. 329 (conclusiveness of Industrial Commission findings of fact)
- Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676 (standards on appellate review of Commission findings)
- Allen v. Roberts Elec. Contrs., 143 N.C. App. 55 (de novo review of Commission conclusions of law)
- Reinhardt v. Women’s Pavilion, Inc., 102 N.C. App. 83 (timely filing is jurisdictional prerequisite under § 97‑24)
- Booker v. Duke Med. Ctr., 297 N.C. 458 (a claim under the Act originates when the cause of action arises)
- Brown v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 254 N.C. App. 374 (dependent’s right to compensation is distinct and arises on employee’s death)
- Pait v. Se. Gen. Hosp., 219 N.C. App. 403 (death‑benefits claims are distinct claims arising at death)
- Williams v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 251 N.C. App. 712 (Rule 15(c) relation‑back cannot revive a new independent cause of action after limitations have run)
- Burcl v. N.C. Baptist Hosp., Inc., 306 N.C. 214 (Rule 15(c) relation‑back focuses on notice of the transactions alleged)
- Lenox, Inc. v. Tolson, 353 N.C. 659 (statutory construction principles: plain language and legislative history)
- Nello L. Teer Co. v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 175 N.C. App. 705 (effect of amendments in statutory construction)